The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known Christian Bible, dated around 330 to 360 CE. That’s over 300 years after Jesus was said to be born — time enough, you’d think, for the “perfect Word of God” to have been ironed out. Not so:
Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.
The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections — some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.
And some familiar — very important — passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said….
The Codex also includes much of the Old Testament that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians.
That portion includes books not found in the Hebrew Bible and regarded in the Protestant tradition as apocryphal, such as 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.
The New Testament portion includes the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.
You can view the manuscripts at The Codex Sinaiticus Project.
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
Mark D: Let Ed sell his plane and give the money to the Red Cross 
nomad: You’d love it, Custador. It looks and tastes just like it sounds. Nomnom. 
Matt: I find it very interesting that there are so many people out there with such sad lives as to sit... 
Tyrrlin: Wow… I’d like to buy apostrophes for most of those commenters. Apparently belief in a... 
Mathurine: I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t have. The father in the case is... 
JonJon: I agree. 
172 Comments
I think there is a problem with their servers, I’m not able to open the website.
They tried something like this once before, and the servers overloaded the first day. I suspect that’s what’s going on now.
“And some familiar — very important — passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said….”
That is a claim that deserves fleshing out, so to speak.
Does anyone know more about which verses dealing with the resurrection are missing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Lacunae
This version is before Michael Bay got his hands on the script, and they zombie prophets got all the good lines.
Curt, my understanding has always been that the resurrection passages are not missing form this codex, and VorJack did confirm that below. The resurrection passages aren’t missing. The closest thing I can think of that they might be referring to is the “long ending” of Mark … but we’ve known that to be a later addition for quite a long time.
OH NO! Jezus did not come back from the dead!
Nope…that was saved for the Extended Edition. In the Director’s Cut, Jeebus was killed dead and stayed dead.
And yet our fundie friends claim the bible is unchanged and use this claim as a proof of it authenticity as the word of god.
“The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him. It should not surprise us that, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. After all, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). After looking at the evidence, one can say without a doubt that, yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word.”
Therefore the codex must have been planted in the monastery by a time traveling atheist in order to confuse the people and lead them a way from the word of god.
I thought they invented the rapture somewhere around 1850?
Fundies worship a paper god. Some fundies believe the King James Version (1611) is the original version god wrote before he created the world. God then translated the KJV into Hebrew and Greek and give it to the bible writers. King James and his crew were finally able to correctly reassembled the bible in 1611. Fundies claim only the KJV is correct because it has been the greatest tool for spreading Christianity in church history. The real truth is fundamentalism evolved from the KJV and this is why they relay on it and only it. A proper translation would not include the virgin birth in Isaiah.
It’s been almost 500 year since the KJV, we have access to more ancient text and the English language has changed. But some fundies refuse newer translations, claiming liberal theologians have their own agendas, as if King James and his crew did not have an agenda.
“time enough, you’d think, for the “perfect Word of God” to have been ironed out.” That’s the problem. Word. Micro$oft Office 0033.
Word perfect?
Probably, in a few thousand years, someone will find a handwritten manuscript of the first Harry Potter book and we’ll have to read them all over again. (OK, reading them over again won’t be so bad.)
Since harry potter is a complete ripoff of the bible (chosen one, have to die to save mankind and then come back from the dead) it can be used as a substitute. At least its shorter easier to read and doesn’t condone rape, slavery and genocide like the original.
And it has brooms, wicked professors that are in fact good, an owl, and London.
And it has a lot more ethics/morality.
Much fewer (if any)self-contradictions; the violence is done by the bad guys not by the god; even better, there isn’t an invented god; even better, there isn’t an invented devil (just a really, really nasty bad guy); it doesn’t tell people how to live except by examples of ethics; it isn’t misogynist; people get ahead by hard work and good character and reasoning rather than “”faith”"; it has no rambling idiots spewing the same baseless stuff, except for a teacher who kept giving boring lectures after he died – has anyone checked John C and brgulker for a pulse lately?
Oh, and it has a lot more ethics/morality.
I checked it yesterday while I was jogging.
Speaking of running.. are you still running away from the opportunity to admit that belief in an afterlife contributes to murder suicides? You disappeared from the conversation when I mentioned that there were suicide notes that proved my point. Be honest with us, there is no need to run away from something so clear.
Running away? I didn’t run away at all. I told you I was leaving the conversation because I think you’re disrespectful. You have repeatedly prejudged me and made baseless assumptions and accusations against me.
I said my peace about mental illness and how mental illness symptoms present through cognitive frameworks that are familiar to the mentally ill person. That’s not just my opinion; that’s what the research says.
In context, if a religious mother is suffering from postpartum depression, and she ends up killing her child as a result of the depression, then we should expect her symptoms to present via her religious worldview.
In other words, a mother who kills her children and then herself is first a mentally ill person, not a religious person.
And a preemptive no, I’m not going to provide you a link, because you can only find that information in academic journals, and access to those journals is not free. Consult your local library if you want to learn more.
And that was a lie too. You keep bouncing back like a bad check.
Or like someone who doesn’t mean what he says.
Sneaky. You could post a link, and people could use the title to search for it. Academic databases are sometimes free through the very library to which you dismissed someone. WIth a skoshie of information, it would be a tad easier to find.
Ugh, just google “postpartum depression academic journals.” Or go to the library and do the search yourself. That’s all I’m saying.
Here’s a head start: http://www.google.com/search?q=postpartum+depression+academic+journal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
People of all religions (and outside of religions) suffer from postpartum depression. That is my only point, a point that will be legitimized by the research. I know this, because I studied as part of my Psychology minor, but you don’t have to take my word for it. The information is there, if you have the time or desire to look.
And here’s wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression with a lengthy list of references.
Yes or no: belief in an afterlife is a contributing factor in at least some murder suicides.
You are going out of your way to avoid accepting the truth of the words of the very people commiting some of these murders. When a person makes it perfectly clear that their reason for killing their children is to send them to a better place, no amount of evasion on your part will make that untrue. Why is it difficult to admit what an honest person can read from the words of the person doing the killings? I have not claimed that such beliefs are the ONLY reason for such killings, so your point regarding post partum depression does not deal with the actual issue at all. It is just another way for you to get around conceding a point that any honest person can see. The very fact that they mention the afterlife in their suicide/murder notes is all the evidene any honest person could want that it was indeed a contributing factor in their actions.
You run from these truths. You make lame excuses, pretend that it is my behavior that troubles you rather than the points I make. These are just more lies. You have shown yourself unwilling to concede points multiple times, and this makes me wonder why you are here at all. If you won’t admit something when it is proven, how can you expect others to admit anything you may prove to them? This is your self serving hypocricy I mentioned other times on other posts. Anyone can see it at this point because your behavior leaves no other possible interpretation.
When confronted with a truth that makes you question your beliefs, you run away or lie… or both. This is why I call you a cowardly liar. When challenged, you both lie and run away.
. The very fact that they mention the afterlife in their suicide/murder notes is all the evidene any honest person could want that it was indeed a contributing factor in their actions.
People who suffer from schizophrenia often hear voices. Sometimes they think those voices are the CIA. Sometimes they think those voices are aliens. Sometimes they think those voices (or that voice) is God.
So we could simply rephrase your statement,
The very fact that they mention of aliens in their suicide/murder notes is all the evidence any honest person could want that aliens were indeed a contributing factor in their actions.
So, Aor, did aliens contribute to the mental illness?
Look, don’t take my word for it. Study schizophrenia. Study postpartum and other types of depression. This is my point, for the last time: the symptoms of a mental illness present themselves through things that are familiar to that person. The mental illness, not the the way symptoms present, is what is to blame. Again, don’t take my word for it. That’s what I learned in my study of Psychology. I’m not an expert, and I’m sure there are some psychologists here and there who would disagree, but my understanding is that the general consensus of the literature supports what I’m saying.
===============================
This is how you argue, Aor. You make an assertion. Then you demand a yes or no answer. Most of the time, I don’t think a simple yes or no accurately reflects my opinion or response to your assertions. So I don’t give you a yes or no. I give you a response that’s more complex than that. Then you call me a cowardly liar. And around and round we go.
When confronted with a truth that makes you question your beliefs
Some people here have confronted things to me that are legitimate challenges. So far, you haven’t. And as for running away, well, just another personal attack. Par for the course.
Is straw men all you have? The point is the belief is a contributing factor. In exactly the same manner, the belief in aliens would be a contributing factor for your example. You repeatedly argue that there are other contributing factors, and I agree that there can be. You have admitted to understanding and accepting my point in other situations, but give a blanket denial of it in these situations. Hypocracy.
I demand yes or no answers from you and certain others because you have a pattern of evasions and deceptions. If this hurts your feelings, tough. All you need to do is stop lying to yourself and then admitting the truth would stop hurting.
In exactly the same manner, the belief in aliens would be a contributing factor for your example.
I simply don’t agree. A schizophrenic does not hear aliens because s/he believes in aliens; a schizophrenic hears aliens because that person is suffering from schizophrenia. The belief does not contribute to the schizophrenia; schizophrenia presents its symptoms through the belief in aliens.
You repeatedly argue that there are other contributing factors, and I agree that there can be. You have admitted to understanding and accepting my point in other situations, but give a blanket denial of it in these situations. Hypocracy.
I’m a hypocrite because I’ve agreed with you on some points and denied other of your points. Gotcha.
I don’t evade you, Aor; I’ve answered you directly each and every time you’ve asked (demanded) something from me. You don’t like the way I argue. In your words, tough. Get over it. Instead of resorting to the name-calling each and every time, why not try responding to the argument, not the person (whom you seem to disdain)?
Why not try refuting my main argument against you in your next comment instead of all the ad hominem nonsense?
Let me make my argument/response plain, to make it clear that I’m not evading you:
Mental illnesses drive people to do the types of things you’ve described (mother killing her infant, murder suicides), not religion. A thought process such as, “My baby is better off with Jesus,” Or, “Aliens told me to do it,” are symptoms of a mental illness, such as postpartum depression or schizophrenia, not causes. Symptoms do not contribute to illness but rather are the manifestations of it.
That is my way of saying No to your question. It’s not a one-word response. If you don’t like the way I’ve responded, again to use your words, tough. But that doesn’t give you the right to continue your personal assault. I’m not a coward; I’m not a hypocrite; I’m not an enabler of murder; I’m not a liar, and I most certainly am not evading you.
It is not possible to hear aliens without believing in aliens. If you heard aliens and thought to yourself, “those can’t be aliens, aliens don’t exist, those voices must be something else” then that means you don’t think you are actually hearing aliens. Don’t be so silly, that is just out-of-this-world stupid.
How have I not refuted your main point? Your main point is that belief in an afterlife plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in these murder suicides, despite the proclamations of the people involved. I have ‘eye-witness’ testimony, you have layers of bullshit. In your world every religious person who ever committed murder-suicide and mentioned sending their kids to an afterlife is insane by definition. That is, except for the followers of Jim Jones, and Heaven’s Gate right? Or any other cult that committed mass suicide, they couldn’t all be suffering from post partum depression and/or schizophrenia right? Do you really think I can’t find simple counterexamples to your claims? Your claims are outlandish and beyond belief. You have been refuted, but you steadfastly maintain the illusion rather than accept the obvious.
You are deeply in denial. Rather than admit that the belief in the afterlife is a contributing factor (key words there.. nobody ever claimed it was the entire reason) in these murder suicides, you go to extreme lengths and make yourself even more of a hypocrite.
As long as you lie and say hypocritcal things, I will point them out. You don’t get the right to insist that anything you have said in the past is null and void, that would be fucking silly! Yet you do. You insist I not prejudge you, while prejudging me. Not to mention calling it prejudging, as if judgin someone on past experiences was the same as judging them on things that hadn’t happened yet. More silliness, more hypocracy, and hell no I won’t hold back from pointing out how outrageously hypocritical it is, because it just is.
You could always stop being a hypocrite.
As long as you lie and say hypocritcal things, I will point them out. You don’t get the right to insist that anything you have said in the past is null and void, that would be fucking silly! Yet you do. You insist I not prejudge you, while prejudging me. Not to mention calling it prejudging, as if judgin someone on past experiences was the same as judging them on things that hadn’t happened yet. More silliness, more hypocracy, and hell no I won’t hold back from pointing out how outrageously hypocritical it is, because it just is.
I don’t think you understand what hypocrisy is. The way you’re using it doesn’t compute.
I’m making a claim that you disagree with. Therefore, I am a hypocrite.
I accuse you of prejudging, which you unquestionably have, time and again, every time a religious person makes a comment here, you do it. You assume the worst every time someone who is religious makes a point here. Every single time.
I’m not prejudging you. I’ve made a judgment about the person you are based on the incredible insults you’ve hurled my way time and again and the ridiculous way you insist on having conversations. Take the “enabler of murder” accusation. You took one comment I made out of context from the rest of the conversation and “rushed to judgment” about me. And it’s not like you just assumed I was another irrational religious person — that I could handle, because religion is irrational by definition around here — you rushed to the judgment that I’m an “enabler of murder.”
Furthermore, you insist upon a ridiculous mode of argumentation, in which I refuse to participate. Therefore, I’m a (fill in the blank with another unfounded insult). You make assertions (which are almost always attempts to trap), demand yes or no answers, and them resort to name-calling when the person is clever enough to see through your thinly-veiled traps and refuses to give you a simple yes or no. There’s nothing reasonable about having that type of conversation; it’s absurd — ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. I’m done with them. Go badger someone else. Get your jollies from someone who actually cares what your opinion is; I don’t anymore, and you’ve earned that.
Here’s how Phrankygee responded to your “enabler of murder” horse crap
I am surprised that Gulker is even still bothering to engage your inane, badgering line of accusatory interrogation. He is under no obligation to.
If the question was “Is Aor an asshole?”, I would have to show some ‘courage’ and ‘intellectual honesty’ and say “yes”.
Now, I’m willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And second, third, fourth chances, frankly, when a person is willing to admit that what they said or did was wrong. You wronged me with your words several weeks ago; I asked for an apology; yet, you insisted your unfounded, malicious accusations were accurate.
You’ve exhausted my capacity for tolerating you. I agree with Phranky. You’re consumed with bitterness and hatred for me, and you come across as a complete jack ass. It’s obvious to you that I’m in the wrong, yet it’s obvious to others that you are. Good luck figuring it out. I’m done with you.
More attempts to distract and decieve. More hypocrisy. When you do something, it is fine.. when I turn the tables, its prejudging. As I said before, we all judge people based on past interactions and I judge you based on those. Your claims otherwise are simply lies. You have often resorted to lies in order to attack me rather than defend your position, and again that is one of the common ‘creationist’ tactics that were listed in a post a few weeks ago. Didn’t you even argue against those? Rather ineptly, as I recall.
Once you display your pattern of self serving lies and hypocrisy it becomes virtually impossible to trust you to speak truthfully in the future.
You are unwilling to accept that a faith system can be responsible, even partly responsible, for actions like murder/suicide or the killing of an abortion doctor. You tried to excuse those who influenced that doctor to kill by placing the blame on the concept of justifiable homicide. You repeatedly use fallacies in order to find a way out of accepting that belief in an afterlife is a contributing factor to at least some murder suicides, contradicting the written word of those committing the murders. You know more about how those murderers think than they do, I suppose. You know when they are insane and when they are not, and the difference in your mind is whether they based their ‘insanity’ on a religious premise. Self serving hypocrisy and lies. Your claims otherwise just don’t fly.
Prove it. You see, all I need to do is point out one time I did not, and I can point out a lot more than one. This is just another example of your tendency to lie when confronted. Straight to lies and denial. Deception and evasion has been your pattern since you began posting here.
I know I said I was done with you, but since I’m a liar, oh well.
Your claims otherwise are simply lies. You have often resorted to lies in order to attack me rather than defend your position, and again that is one of the common ‘creationist’ tactics that were listed in a post a few weeks ago. Didn’t you even argue against those? Rather ineptly, as I recall.
I didn’t post one comment in that entire thread.
It’s just further evidence to me that you’ve pigeon-holed me. Thanks for confirming that for me; it makes it easier to ignore your rants as just that, angry, hate-filled nonsense.. Although, this latest series of posts was wildly entertaining. I think you must have called me a liar or hypocrite at least 30-40 times.
Do you think they keep records for that in Guinness? You should submit your collection of conversations with religious people here and see if you qualify!
Ooh, random quote from Aor, pulled from a thread at random. Do people think he’s talking about a religious person or an atheist? Only hint I’ll give is that he’s not talking to me (although it might sound like he is, because he’s basically a broken record!):
No response, I see. So when confronted with a problem in your position, when the reality makes it clear that you are a hypocrite.. you respond with silence. This is just another example of how unreliable you are as a Witness. You are not honest in these discussions. That is inescapable, so you do not and cannot respond.. all you can do is leave the conversation and then restate those same ridiculous things in another post later on.
You are a coward. You are afraid that you will lose your beliefs if you admit the truth, so you lie. So, to make a long story short, I call you a lying coward because your behavior is deceptive and cowardly. Deal with it, you lying coward.
Keep going, Aor! Encore! Encore! I’m surprised Daniel isn’t beating down your door asking you to write guest posts!
You’re so rational and reasonable! And you never re-hash or repeat the same “arguments,” either. Each time I read one of your posts, I read a new and convincing way that a religious person who posts here is contributing to the deconversion of other religions people.
Or maybe it’s the opposite of that. It gets confusing when your posts with John C, David, and myself are basically carbon copies of each other.
For old time’s sake, make sure to respond by accusing me of running away with my tail between my legs again. And make sure to shout “lying, hypocritical coward!” at me while I’m running away. It will make your point that much more obvious to the UF masses, plus it would be a very poetic demonstration that you’ve been right all along.
And then, I’m thinking you should probably call the police, since I am, after all, an enabler of murder. I would think your brilliant style of argumentation would convince my local D.A. that I’m at least a conspirator in the murder of Dr. Tiller. And I would think that any 12 rational people selected at random would convict me, don’t you think?
Well, nice knowing you all. Thanks to Aor, I’ll probably be locked up for the next 10-15 years on conspiracy to commit murder charges. Hopefully they have internet in prison and I can keep in touch with my accuser!
You are all bluster and no content. Your ‘comment at random?” A lie. Its not random, you chose it for a reason. Another lie. Do I repeat arguments? Absolutely. Proving a similar points often requires similar arguments. Believers that use lies and fallacies will have that pointed out to them. This is you being self serving again.. you want me to live up to some set of rules that only exists in fantasy land because it benefits you.
Are you going to respond to my point about Jim Jones? Are you going to respond to my point about Heaven’s Gate? You see, despite your denials, you do run away from points that you cannot deal with. I have shown that your idea that all murder-suicides are based on insanity, absolutely destroyed, and you ignore it and bluster on and on and desperately search for a way to insult me rather than deal with the points I raised. Your ‘call the police’ crap… more bluster, more avoiding the blame from a man who clearly cannot deal with the consequences of taking such ridiculous positions in a public forum. Your kind do much better when they are allowed to remake the rules to suit themselves, and that doesn’t seem to be happening for you here.
If you want to deal with the points I raised, feel free. If all you have is this ‘play the victim’ routine then you aren’t going to convince anyone.
And it has bad politics, too.
Wow, who’d have thought that it’s totally different from the one xtians are used to! I wonder what sort of incredibly ridiculous crap it has in it that makes it all the more apparent that it’s all a bunch of fables?
I am wondering how old the Earh really is?
in Arizona, it’s 6000 years old. in most other places, a lot more than that
I doubt this bible will change many peoples minds since they will either never hear of it or will be told it is the work of the devil. I think people are way more willing to lie to themselves or be lied to, then to admit they have been misled.
This comment is interesting to me, because it seems to be based on the assumption that CNN is right about the resurrection passages being “missing” from this codex; they’re not.
It’s unfortunate that CNN decided not to fact check before posting something as weighty as that.
Explain exactly what makes you think Baconsbud is basing his opinion on the assumption that CNN is right about the resurrection passages.
Yes, Sir! Right away, Sir!
Since you asked (demanded?) nicely,
I doubt this bible will change many peoples minds
The only possible thing in the article Daniel posted that would have changed any minds were the passages about the resurrection missing. In fact, that’s the only specific claim made in the entire article. CNN is wrong about that. There are no resurrection passages missing.
It’s pretty obvious why I said what I said and what I’m basing my claim on. Read Daniel’s post, read Baconspud’s comment, and then read my comment. Flows quite naturally.
That is quite an assumption on your part. Bacon may have meant that any change at all would make them think it was the work of the devil.
You say that the only possible thing in the article Daniel posted that would have changed any minds were the passages about the resurrection missing. You ignore the presence of 7 or more other books in the old testament, 2 in the new testament, and changes ranging from alteration of a single letter to addition of entire sentences.
You have clearly fixated on the missing resurrection section as the only part important enough to matter, but that is hardly the case.
Now, will you concede this point? Or will you lie and evade and run away again? It seems simple enough.. all you would have to do is say ‘hmm, on second thought, you are right, there are other possibilities.’ Do you have enough intellectual honesty to admit that?
You have clearly fixated on the missing resurrection section as the only part important enough to matter, but that is hardly the case.
I am concerned about this point, because it’s inaccurate. And given that the article Daniel quoted highlights this point specifically, that is that the resurrection passages are missing, and given the relative importance of the resurrection to Christian doctrine and practice, it doesn’t seem all that unreasonable that that’s what I would be “fixated upon.”
You ignore the presence of 7 or more other books in the old testament, 2 in the new testament, and changes ranging from alteration of a single letter to addition of entire sentences.
Absolutely not. I actually do talk about this specifically in another post. More rushing to judgment on your part.
Read what I write before judging me so quickly, please.
The books contained here are very well-known books; Protestants have them in the Apocrypha, for example, and they are included in the RCC Bible. There’s nothing Earth-shattering about them, and as I pointed out in a different post, all of this has been known for longer than I’ve been alive. This is relatively old news.
Plus, I also studied under students of Bruce Metzger, who is the authority on textual criticism. Again, I’m not an expert, but I do know a good bit about textual criticism, which is why I objected to the spin and inaccuracy CNN put on this in the first place.
So back to baconspuds’ comment,
I doubt this bible will change many peoples minds since they will either never hear of it
No, it won’t change many minds, because it doesn’t offer us any significant changes to the bible we already have. It’s as simple as that from the perspective of textual criticism.
Second, almost all of the textual variations that we see in this codex are already in contemporary study Bibles and have been for years and years and years.
Third, I conceded the point to him that there most definitely are some groups who will reject this as the work of the Devil. They are probably the same groups who insist that the KJV is the original, best bible.
It seems simple enough.. all you would have to do is say ‘hmm, on second thought, you are right, there are other possibilities.’ Do you have enough intellectual honesty to admit that?
Again, I’m very well-aware of the other possibilities. My suspicion is that, other than perhaps VorJack, I’ve studied more about them than anyone here. But in this post and others I’ve already discussed why the “other possibilities” aren’t really that significant.
If this Codex really didn’t contain the resurrection passages, then that would be something of crucial importance and would most definitely have the power to change some minds. That is not an unreasonable assumption.
“And some familiar — very important — passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus”
It is either a poor choice of phrasing or it is deliberately misleading. But, technically the article does not say that passages dealing with the resurrection were missing, only verses; if you do happen to read it that way. The missing verses obviously do not significantly change the resurrection story.I can imagine something got lost in the transmitting the details from scholar to reporter.
So you believe both that the only possibility was the conclusion you jumped too and that there are other possibilities. Please give your head a shake and think, just for a moment, of how utterly ridiculous that is.
Also, you mention things you have spoken of on other posts. Didn’t you ask me to ignore anything you said on other posts, so that it would be easier for you to not contradict yourself? Would this be changing your mind, or perhaps an admission of how you want to use those self serving little tricks rather than discuss things honestly?
You have shown yourself to be unwilling to concede large points, and you have shown yourself unwilling to concede incredibly trivial points like this one. Please re-read the topic on common creationist tactics, because you are using those tricks and expecting them to somehow go over people’s heads. Sorry, but I don’t see the readers here as being that dumb.
@ nomad:
It is either a poor choice of phrasing or it is deliberately misleading. But, technically the article does not say that passages dealing with the resurrection were missing, only verses; if you do happen to read it that way.
That’s a fair point. There is a difference between passages and verses. But, either way, the article’s facts are still incorrect.
@ Aor
So you believe both that the only possibility was the conclusion you jumped too and that there are other possibilities. Please give your head a shake and think, just for a moment, of how utterly ridiculous that is.
To be fair, I didn’t jump to any conclusions. I’ve spent several years studying textual criticism. I know for a fact that the codex doesn’t have anything missing with respect to the resurrection passages. The resurrection passage is the first and most important point cited by the article. It’s a fair assumption to read baconspud’s comments in the context of the points the article raised.
You have shown yourself to be unwilling to concede large points, and you have shown yourself unwilling to concede incredibly trivial points like this one. Please re-read the topic on common creationist tactics, because you are using those tricks and expecting them to somehow go over people’s heads. Sorry, but I don’t see the readers here as being that dumb.
When’s the last time you conceded a point, large or small? Does mental illness contribute to murder suicides, Aor. Yes or No?
And for the record, although I disagree with a lot of people here, you’re one of the few who thinks I’m manipulative (claid, too – sorry I forgot the rest of your name, no offense).
I never claimed mental illness was not a contributing factor, brgulker. You are taking a straw man position again, and that cannot be an accident. More deceptive and dishonest tactics. Yes, mental illness contributes to murder suicides. See how easy it is to answer simple questions when you don’t have to lie?
“To be fair, I didn’t jump to any conclusions.”
And you say later on…
Those two positions contradict each other. Either the only possibility is the one conclusion you jumped too, or there are others. There cannot simultaneously be both “only one” possibility and several. This is a paradox, and it is in indication that you are lying.
More hypocracy, more lies, more attempts to evade. No surprises though.
I never claimed mental illness was not a contributing factor, brgulker. You are taking a straw man position again, and that cannot be an accident
Wow. I’m not saying mental illness is a contributing factor; I’m saying mental illness is the contributing factor. Not a straw man. It’s an argument based on my history studying Psychology. There’s no way to make my position more clear, yet you insist it’s a straw man. Unbelievable.
“To be fair, I didn’t jump to any conclusions.”
The only possible thing in the article Daniel posted that would have changed any minds were the passages about the resurrection missing
And you say later on…
I’m very well-aware of the other possibilities.
The “other possibilities” is simply using your language to make sure I’m referring to the same thing you are. As I’ve repeatedly said, the “other possibilities” (the apocryphal books, for example) are not in any way threatening or damaging to the bible as we have it. The one and only claim made by this article that could be in any way damaging to the bible as we know it and Christianity is the idea that verses and/or passages concerning the resurrection are missing.
In other words, the “other possibilities” as you put it, are not really possibilities. That’s been my entire point for the whole conversation. Hence, my “I’m not jumping to conclusions” assertion. There is only one legitimate conclusion for someone who has studied textual criticism, as I have, namely, that if the passages about the resurrection were in fact missing, then that would be a legitimate concern.
Whew, now that is a mental stretch.
In your world, ” a contributing factor” means “the only cause.” You cannot honestly believe that, so that is just another self serving lie. If you are unfamiliar with the phrase “contributing factor” then look it up rather than attempting to deceptively redefine it to suit your own purposes. I suggest you find someone you trust and have them go over what you are saying on that point, because it is simple and clear. That is your straw man and it is inescapable. Most situations have many contributing factors, but now you are stuck defending a position that says that “contributing factor” must mean “only cause.” How can you lie so ineptly?
Here is Bacon’s original comment:
And I later said this to you:
You assume that the only thing that would justify this comment is the point about a change in the resurrection story. At no point have you done anything other than make your claim and repeat it. No attempts to justify your mistaken assumption, just shifting around and misdirecting. You ignore the possibility that those who take the bible literally will see any change, no matter how small, as a sign that the Codex was written by the devil. You ignore that point because you cannot deal with it. Instead you make your false assumption and when challenged you use deceptive tactics rather than just say “yes, there is more that some believers may be concerned about than one missing passage.”
You are not being honest, and this is a very small point. If you can’t be honest and concede something this trivial then you for damn sure won’t concede anything important.
I’ve been keeping up on this story, but this is the first time I’ve heard this:
And some familiar — very important — passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said….
If this is an accurate list of omitted verses:
* Gospel of Matthew 12:47, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
* Gospel of Mark 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20 (Long ending of the Gospel Mark, referring to the appearance of Jesus to many people following the resurrection)
* Gospel of Luke 17:36
* Gospel of John 5:4, Pericope adulterae (7:53-8:11) (see Image “John 7:53-8:11″), 21:25
* Acts of the Apostles 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;[13]
* Epistle to the Romans 16:24
(and according to Metzger it is, who was the leading scholar in textual criticism), then there’s nothing that calls the resurrection passages into question. And iirc, the majority of those were questioned before this manuscript.
Is there another list of passages that are omitted that I’m unaware of? I’m curious where CNN is getting their info.
And what has been omitted from that original one?
Maybe Jezus having a wife and children?
“Is there another list of passages that are omitted that I’m unaware of?”
Not as far as I know. Usually when the Codex is discussed, it’s the lack of the story of Jesus and the Adulteress that’s mentioned. I’ve never heard it stated that there’s much difference in the resurrection accounts. Frankly, I’d be very surprised if there were any, given that the Codex may very well be an “official” text created for the Roman church.
“I’m curious where CNN is getting their info.”
Dan Brown, apparently.
That’s what I thought, VJ. I’d never heard anyone claim that with respect to this codex. I thought maybe that escaped me in my seminary years (I actually studied under a few of Metzger’s students… so I’d be shocked to have not heard about something like that). And the textual variants that are listed 1) minor and 2) well-known. The codex itself is relatively old news, frankly.
It is worth noting, then, that the content of this bible is not very far removed at all from the RCC bible, and even we Protestants acknowledge the apocrypha in some way. In other words, to the comments such as this:
Wow, who’d have thought that it’s totally different from the one xtians are used to!
I think it’s fair to say based on the scholarship, it’s not really that different. In fact, most modern study bibles even acknowledge textual variants throughout (see the short and long endings of Mark for an obvious example).
Perhaps they meant ascension instead of resurrection?
On second look, there are passages talking about the resurrection missing in Mark 16. It still mentions the main resurrection account, but not the appearance to Mary M, the two disciples on the road, and to the 11 disciples. Those would have been important because the purpose is to show he appeared to many people to prove his resurrection. Without that, it just ends with an angel saying Jesus was resurrected but with no appearances.
You can see how easy it would be to add the brief structure that was added at the end of Mark about the resurrection appearances, and then fleshed out more in later books.
Yeah, the “long ending” of Mark is missing here … but that’s really, really old news. It’s long been acknowledged that Mark’s longer ending is a later addition; even most Evangelicals accept that.
You can see how easy it would be to add the brief structure that was added at the end of Mark about the resurrection appearances, and then fleshed out more in later books.
True, but most scholarship would argue that the addition to Mark was made after the other Gospels were written and not the other way around. In other words, the other Gospels did not derive their resurrection narratives from the later addition to Mark but rather the other way around. The “long ending” was added to Mark reconcile it with Acts (see Jesus’ last words in Mark about healing etc.) and the other Gospels.
To my knowledge, what I just offered is widely-accepted in scholarship. Consequently, I still don’t see how this codex, whose contents have been known for a relatively long amount of time, calls the resurrection narratives into question.
Personally, I prefer the rhetorical effect of the short ending of Mark. It’s a good cliffhanger, as it were.
It is old news. But most people don’t know it. Go to your average baptist church, cut out Mark 16 with a knife, and tell them it shouldn’t be in there.
Then run for your life.
:)
But most people don’t know it.
Perhaps. I don’t know either way. I do know that almost every modern study Bible includes information about passages such as this, but that certainly doesn’t mean that people pay attention to it.
Then run for your life.
Lol.
Daniel…those same resurrection references are also recorded in the books of Acts, 1 Corinthians and Romans makes continual references to the resurrection from the dead. Candidly, I am a bit surprised how similar the modern text version today is compared to the Codex. Unfortunately, I wish it were even older, 300 A.D. was a time of tremendous (not good) transition for the close knit community of believers in “the way”, ie Constantine, church buildings, Nonetheless its encouraging to see such a similarity, from my perspective of course.
Have you read the Codex, John?
Have you read the Codex, Aor?
No I have not, and I don’t claim to have read it. John, however, states that he is surprised how similar the modern text is to the Codex. I wish to understand whether he is basing that on any experience at all with the text or if he is talking out of his ass again. Is his opinion based on actually reading the Codex? Is it based on making stuff up? Is he speaking the truth or using more self serving dishonesty to imply something that he has no basis to claim? Honest people can ask these questions, brgulker.
Aor, You obviously missed that I referred John C to a link that explicitly lays out the contents of the Codex. Had you read what he and I had been saying to each other, you would have seen that I pointed him to a place where he could actually read the contents of the Codex.
Just another example of your prejudice and prejudgments.
Is his opinion based on actually reading the Codex?
Yes. But, don’t let that stop you from assuming the worst.
I asked him a question. It seems like a simple thing to answer. Has he read the Codex? You claim so, but does he? Are you his chosen protector? Can the man not speak for himself, are you his knight in shining armor?
You chose to enter this debate again, knowing our past, and ‘pre’-judging me based on that past, yet you play the same tired old hypocritical card that you always play. Face it: people base their opinions on people on multiple interactions over time. You do it, I do it, we all do it, stop being such a hypocritical ninny about it. You sound like a broken record.
Even your last sentence of that last post is guilty of the very thing you accuse me of, prejudgement! Holy crap, man. Get over yourself.
This is some good irony:
Are you his chosen protector? Can the man not speak for himself, are you his knight in shining armor?
Are you baconspud’s chosen protector? Can the man not speak for himself, are you his knight in shining armor?
Here’s a link just in case my sarcasm isn’t obvious enough for you: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/08/oldest-known-bible-goes-online/#comment-52594
Have you read the Codex, John?
You can’t expect me to believe that was an honest question. It was purely rhetorical, and it denotes your obvious mistrust. I don’t think you’d hesitate to admit that you don’t trust John C, right?
My problem is that you didn’t read the conversation that was right in front of you. He and I were clearly conversing about it, as his comments were clearly in response to things I had said. I made several posts about what the codex does and does not contain and even pointed to a link that outlines the entire codex — it very obvious, in fact, that CNN presents misinformation.
But you obviously didn’t read any of that. Instead, you asked an obviously rhetorical question, and your intent became very clear in your next post:
I wish to understand whether he is basing that on any experience at all with the text or if he is talking out of his ass again
Had you taken the time to read our conversation, you would have found that your question had already been answered. You didn’t. Instead, you pre-judged.
Even your last sentence of that last post is guilty of the very thing you accuse me of, prejudgement
I haven’t pre-judged you; I’ve judged you based on your comments. So far, you’ve called me this list of names:
enabler of murder
coward
hypocrite
ninny
liar
Am I missing anything? Pre-judging you would have meant that I thought you were a jerk before you said anything to me. I try very hard not to prejudge, although I have been guilty and may be guilty again. But, when a person has no problem slinging insult after insult and hate-filled comment after hate-filled comment, it’s not pre-judgment.
Your insults speak for themselves. Based on how you have treated me and what you’ve said to me, I think you’re a very bitter, hate-filled person, and I suspect that there’s nothing I could have done or said to avoid any of them, save agreeing with every point you make and renouncing my faith.
@brgulker
Is that you prejudging me, and being a hypocrite again? Yes, it was an honest question. I wanted to know if a man with a history of deception had actually read the Codex. It is not my responsibility to read every single comment in the thread before asking something like this. That is an unrealistic expectation, especially when a conversation includes John C. His history here makes reading much of his words pointless, and remember…. in the real world, past experience counts. Or are you going to claim that nobody can use past experience to form judgements again? Shift the goalposts much? When it suits you, you define prejudging as having any experience at all with a person, and when it suits you you change that definition. Self serving hypocrisy.
I’m not sure what point you think you are making about Baconspud. I asked John C a question, you jumped in to ask me that very same question. I couldn’t care less who started the comment one level above that. By the way, if it is a dishonest question from me, then you must be admitting that it was a dishonest question from you.. or are you living by an entirely different set of rules than the rest of humanity? See, that is an example of your self serving hypocrisy. Either it is a fair question or it is not. You cannot have it both ways, no matter how hard you try… and try you do.
I have no problem describing you by your actions. You lie, I call you a liar. You say hypocritical things, I say that you are being hypocritical. You use fallacies, I call you on them.
All you ever need to do is speak honestly. It is only when you get caught in these silly lies and hypocritical positions that you start getting into difficulties. In fact that sentence is another of your famous fallacies. Just another attempt to place the blame on someone else. Do I take a hardball approach to our conversations? Absolutely. Damn right. And judging by the way you run away from the points I make, I must be scoring.
I’m not sure what point you think you are making about Baconspud. I asked John C a question, you jumped in to ask me that very same question.
Yes, you know exactly what point I’m trying to make. I challenged baconspud, and you “jumped in.” You asked John C a question, and I jumped in. You ridiculed me for jumping in, yet you’ve done the same thing yourself.
Of course, I don’t mind when you jump; I’m not going to ridicule you for it. It’s wildly entertaining when you do. So please do.
Do I take a hardball approach to our conversations? Absolutely. Damn right. And judging by the way you run away from the points I make, I must be scoring.
I actually laughed out loud at the last sentence. “Running away.” You keep making that point, yet here I am continuing the conversation, the exact opposite of running. You’re a riot, Aor.
Actually no, brgulker. Is your memory that selective?
You made what may have been a false assumption about something Bacon said. I couldn’t care less who you were responding to, I cared about your false assumption and knew, based on our past interactions, that if I pushed at you you would inevitably lie rather than concede a small point. In the other topic, I asked John C a question and you repeated my question back to me word for word. You later called that question dishonest, which is tantamount to claiming that your question to me was dishonest. I ridicule you for that because you clearly chose to enter that conversation with dishonesty on your mind. You interact with John C regularly, and chose to enter a conversation to defend him. I can’t recall having a conversation with Bacon and didn’t defend anything he said, merely criticized you for making what may have been a false assumption. See my point? I think you must, but naturally you will lie about that too.
You ran away in the past, brgulker. When the going gets tough, you use lies and fallacies and run away. I can list multiple topics on multiple posts. Should I? Should I count the times that I had to drag you back into a conversation with a reminder of a position you took in the past? Anyone who has read your words over the course of these months has seen that behavior. Pretending it didn’t happen won’t convince the people who have observed it.
You lie so much it has become a habit for you.
AOR-
I’m sorry, I’ve been out all day battling Dallas traffic and just got back home now and saw your question. No, my interest in the Codex is purely topical, surface level. I’m not much into historical Christianity per se, I’m basically leaning on BR’s comments, he seems much more up to speed on the Codex than I am. I did however follow his Wiki link and took a look at the disparities briefly, was initially surprised given the 300 A.D. timeline and what a turbulent period that was (as I understand it) that there wasn’t an even greater altering of the text.
All the best.
Thanks for your honesty, John.
Nonetheless its encouraging to see such a similarity, from my perspective of course.
That’s what is so fascinating to me when it comes to textual criticism. There are plenty of variances across the important manuscripts, but those variances are almost always inconsequential (a rough breathing mark is flipped into a smooth breathing mark or the genetive pronoun is switched with the genetive preposition, for example). I don’t believe the Bible is a perfect book, but it is amazing to me that the bible we have no is so incredibly close to the most ancient manuscripts that we have.
The bible was probably stable by the third century. By that point, there were probably enough copies floating around that any major changes could be noticed. (though that doesn’t explain how the story of the adulteress made it into John in the early middle ages.)
What we’re really curious about is the period from the writings until ~180-200CE. It’s that period before the Gospels were considered holy works. There would be little reason for a scribe to avoid “correcting” the text at that point. Unfortunately, we don’t have a single example before ~125CE, and that’s the size of a credit card.
Thanks VorJack, I appreciate your insight there.
The bible was probably stable by the third century
I’m not sure I’d say it was that early, personally. There may have been some type of general consensus, but I’d opt for Nicaea (325) as a point of solidity with respect to canonization.
What we’re really curious about is the period from the writings until ~180-200CE. It’s that period before the Gospels were considered holy works. There would be little reason for a scribe to avoid “correcting” the text at that point.
I’m not convinced the Gospels weren’t considered “holy works” before 200. Probably not “Word of God” status as we hear today, but certainly sacred writings of some sort. Heck, even Peter uses the Greek word for “Scripture” to refer to Paul’s writings.
BR…good thoughts for sure. Just last night I picked up a NT at the local half price/used bookstore that cross references 26 translations against the KJV!
Suffice to say that I had never heard of a number of the versions before last night, names like Berkely, Alford, Broadus, Montgomery, Norlie, Lamsa, Williams, ??? Personally I prefer the Weymouth/New Testament in Modern English (1903).
Hmm…maybe its time to write my own version, I’ll call it the JC New Testament?
Nah, those initials are already taken. :)
John C. Personally, I’d recommend two translations that sort of offset each other.
The ESV is a very literal translation, and it’s backed by a lot of the conservative folks.
The NRSV, while still literal, does a bit more interpretive translation. It’s backed by a lot of the more moderate and liberal folks.
I’d really recommend getting both and reading them side-by-side. I’m sure you would learn some stuff that’s interesting to you.
This is the bible I own and used to work through seminary; I’d recommend it to you: http://www.amazon.com/New-Interpreters-Study-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0687278325
It has great scholarship mixed throughout as well in the form of book introductions and notes throughout the text itself.
Thanks BR, what do you know about the “Jerusalem Bible” if anything?
My order would be Weymouth, Amplified and NASB. Surprisingly, they actually did a decent job on the NKJV, it’ll do in a pinch, ha.
Good thing we have the Eternal Spirit indwelling us who leads us into all truth, He is faithful indeed.
Isn’t it funny that we all supposedly have this eternal, disembodied, invisible mind(aka a “Eternal Spirit”) living in us, yet, no two people who actually claim this “Spirit” can seem to fully agree on what this “Spirit” wants us to do/not do?(rhetorically asked)
Huh. ‘Funny.
That’s an easy one Boomslang, ‘Spirit’ wants us to love one another. That’s the only remaining ‘law’…’owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law’. Romans 13:8
God IS Spirit, He is Love.
Unless they’re gay (and a lot other things). Then it’s an abomination.
I’ve always wondered about the whole gay thing I mean it didn’t even make it into the list of top ten things God hates.
owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law’.
I’m with you, John C. It’s unfortunate we (Christians) mess it up so badly so often when it really is that obvious.
Br…yea, we are all a “work in progress” for sure. But grace…amazing grace.
I agree it’s an awesome philosophy to live by.
I just don’t see why God is necessary for it to be true (or good).
Siberia,
I can’t speak for others, especially those who are areligious. All I can say, and I say it truthfully and honestly after a lot of soul-searching, is that my faith motivates me to be that person. And that’s one of the important reasons I chose faith instead of the alternatives during my own crisis of faith in college. In short, believing that God loves and participates in the world motivates me to love others and participate sacrificially in the lives of others.
It’s my sincere hope that others will discover the inherent beauty of living for others and the sense of fulfillment that accompanies it. Whether or not you, or anyone else, “needs” faith to discover that beauty? I don’t know; I can’t answer that question for you, nor would I want to. I can only answer it for me.
“God loves and participates in the world ”
This is the Christian refrain. I have yet to get a clear understanding of the basis of such beliefs, That he 1) loves 2) participates in the world.
@ brgulker: that’s nice. I can’t say I understand, never having had faith in the first place, but if it doesn’t harm anyone and makes you happy – go for it, man. My mother is quite religious herself; I grok that for some people, faith is a motivator and a security. I can see that. I’m glad it does you good.
@ Siberia, I had to look up “grok.” That’s a great word; I’m going to steal it.
@ nomad: Sorry, I missed your comment on the last time. In the shortest form I can think of:
1) We have been created. Life itself is a gift, an expression of that love.
2) Jesus and Incarnation.
2a) Humans as co-creators who are called to be extensions of love.
This is the Christian refrain. I have yet to get a clear understanding of the basis of such beliefs, That he 1) loves 2) participates in the world.
1) We have been created. Life itself is a gift, an expression of that love.
2) Jesus and Incarnation.
2a) Humans as co-creators who are called to be extensions of love.
By basis I meant “something upon which something else is established or based”. You seem to be saying these beliefs are based on other beliefs. That merely moves the goal posts. On what are this second set of beliefs based? The Bible? The church fathers? Intuition? Do you believe these things are literally true or are you speaking metaphorically?
brgulker, you do have a very, well, utilitarian view of your faith. Which is fine with me. It’s refreshing to see a Christian who’s ok with the Bible not being infallible and who’s not trying to persuade people to his way of thinking.
I see the value of your approach, but I can’t help thinking that you’re not very far removed from the placebo effect: “It may be all in my mind, but it works for me”.
Do you believe these things are literally true or are you speaking metaphorically?
Life is a gift ( Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation). I think that’s literally true, and I would claim that as knowledge, not belief. Life is something that is given to us (by God, by the universe, by our parents, whatever). The point is that we are alive, and we had nothing to do with that.
Jesus and Incarnation. I am convinced that Jesus lived as a historical figure; others disagree. I also think that Jesus was a radical rabbi and preached a very politically-charged message about the “Kingdom of God.” I would also claim that as knowledge.
The Incarnation, on the other hand, is not a historical fact; it is a matter of belief. There are reasons to believe in it, for a Christian, but I can’t say that I can claim it’s historical fact.
Humans as co-creators and extensions of love, I think that’s literally true. We have the power, as human beings, to create and to destroy. Obviously, that capacity is limited, e.g., I can’t create a planet.
@brgulker: I suppose my nerdiness is showing ;p
It’s okay, I grok nerdiness.
brgulker, you do have a very, well, utilitarian view of your faith. Which is fine with me. It’s refreshing to see a Christian who’s ok with the Bible not being infallible and who’s not trying to persuade people to his way of thinking.
Persuasion isn’t my intention, especially here. People here have made a conscious choice against God and religion. I respect that, and I understand where they’re coming from (at least those who have de-converted, anyway); I had my own crisis of faith but came to a different conclusion.
I see the value of your approach, but I can’t help thinking that you’re not very far removed from the placebo effect: “It may be all in my mind, but it works for me”.
The placebo conversation is an interesting one to me, because the power of placebo (or at least part of it) seems to be belief. You think you are taking a medicine that’s supposed to make you feel better, and you start feeling better. Fascinating.
But as a more direct response, I’d say to you what I’ve said to others: faith has epistemological limits. We (people of faith) are often proud and refuse to acknowledge those limits. We project our own subjective experiences and/or reasons for belief and extrapolate them (sometimes forcefully) as truth for everyone. We are prideful instead of humble.
For example, I think there is a difference between the following two statements:
There is a God.
I believe that there is a God.
I’m intentional about making the latter, not the former.
The next , somewhat simplistic, question would probably be if you are created in God’s image or vice versa. My pragmatic side says it doesn’t really matter what the cause of your behavior is – only the results matter. My cynical side says that there’s still a difference between the actual existence of something and the results that a belief produces, even though for practical purposes they may be virtually identical.
It kind of resembles a Turing test, I suppose. If an AI is able to perfectly emulate human feelings, does it really matter if it’s just an emulation? Does it even make sense to differentiate between the emulation and the actual feelings – in so far as we can say those even exist?
Does the alleged God-being subtly manifest himself in our behavior, or is he a separate phenomenon independent of our actions? Pantheism, anybody?
I think I’ll stop here. Red wine makes me philosophical, but not necessarily coherent or intelligent.
Do you believe these things are literally true or are you speaking metaphorically?
“Life is something that is given to us (by God, by the universe, by our parents, whatever). The point is that we are alive, and we had nothing to do with that.”
Who or what this Giver is is important though. I don’t know if a Christian is at liberty to say “whatever “ as relates to this Giver. According to Christian belief God is the Giver.
“The Incarnation, on the other hand, is not a historical fact; it is a matter of belief. There are reasons to believe in it, for a Christian, but I can’t say that I can claim it’s historical fact.”
I’m not sure what that means “for a Christian”. If you are a Christian they are reasons. But if you’re not they’re not? They don’t become reasons till after you become a Christian?
It’s very interesting but still these are only more beliefs. What I was trying to get at is sources. Where do these ideas come from.
Br…I am interested in the order of the NT Epistles in this manuscript. I see where the website claims the order is only minimally altered, ie Hebrews being after 2 Thes but am I missing something here? I didn’t see a chronological listing of books, etc, is there one? Or are we merely left to assume there are no substantial differences in order from the modern version?
Thx
Someone linked a wiki article above. Iirc, that lists the chronology of books.
The website indicates that the chronology is an incredible revelation into how the bible came to be what it is now, but it doesn’t explain why.
The extra-canonical NT works may be of interest to you. I’m sure you can find the text on the web somewhere. I can’t recall ever reading those particular texts myself, though.
You’d think someone who believed that wouldn’t need christianity and wouldn’t spout from its particular mythological writings called the bible.
But no, you contradict yourself almost a much as the bible does.
Freedumb…you misunderstand what “Christianity” really is my friend. Christ is Spirit (not religion) and is therefore the highest form of life within the constitution of man. Spirit is the eternal aspect of man(kind), that inward kingdom where Life (Himself) dwells and emanates from within.
When we understand the true offer, that being to live from His life (spirit) within us as He did His Father’s life within Him, it is a very liberating truth in experience indeed. Discerning between soul and spirit, the soul wholly subject to and wed to the head (spirit) brings peace, true freedom. For where the spirit of the Lord is there is…liberty. (2 Cor 3:17)
True “living” is spirit led.
“That’s an easy one Boomslang, ‘Spirit’ wants us to love one another. That’s the only remaining ‘law’…’owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law’. Romans 13:8
God IS Spirit, He is Love.”
No, actually not so “easy”, fella. You see, the same book from where you (selectively) extracted the scripture de jour makes clear that in order for us to be lovable in the eyes of your God-Spirit-thingie, that said “love” must be EARNED. Yes, I’m afraid it’s true—–biblegod’s “love” must be earned. In which case, that’s not “love” at all. In fact, it’s pathetic.
Love can never be “earned”, only received. Father is not as you imagine Him to be Boomslang. He is not a taskmaster, a tyrannical ogre of sorts, quite the contrary. You imagine a vain thing and it comes from a place in you not (currently) connected to Him, to Truth. Christ is Spirit, He is the Light that lighteth every man, including you (if you can dis-believe the faulty religious association for a minute) so turn on the Light within, He will show you the true nature of the Father.
God is Love and He loves you.
No, John C., I don’t “imagine” your God-Spirit-thingie to be anything at all, because (as you know) I see no credible evidence that such things exist, therefore, I don’t harbor a belief in them. I’m merely pointing out that the very same document with which you (attempt to) use to substantiate your personal, fantastic beliefs, contains *other* verses that tell quite a different story about your “all-loving” God-Spirit-thingie. It’s John C.’s word, verses some other self-professed Christian’s word. The end. You haven’t put forth any evidence, whatsoever, that you are perfect and infallible, and are therefore able to interpret “scripture” any better than those Christians who would disagree with your personalized views.
Surely, you most know by now that simply asserting your position over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, convinces no one here. Yet, you are still here, ministering daily/nightly.
Actually, I’ve cut my comments way back lately, thought you would have noticed, appreciated it, lol.
Anyway Boomslang, I’ve told you the truth, God is Love. All the best friend.
Actually John, it has been noticed, at least by me, that you’ve scaled back. But when you DO choose to post, it’s still just you spouting what YOU feel, which goes along with your continued lack of credible evidence (as boomSLANG put it). It’s fine and dandy that you feel that way, but we don’t, and most people here have done at least some homework in order to dispute what facts they know. You, on the other hand, dispute feelings which is pants-on-head retarded, and every time you are asked to support claims we get the same old “he is love, he is within, you must be child(like) to understand, blah blah” yeah got it, thanks, moving on. At least other Christians come with guns loaded, or an open mind.
God does not exist … and neither do spirits
Why? Because you cant “see” them? Can you see the quantum world? Yes dear one, the spirit realm is quite substantial, even eternal. It’s what you can see that can not be fully trusted although its an intoxicating illusion I understand.
Awake!
“It’s what you can see that can not be fully trusted although its an intoxicating illusion I understand.”
Pure Plato.
And for your belief that god = love, read Plato’s Symposium. At some point you will have to concede that the Gospel of John is a complete rip off of Plato
You know the only reason you dont like this “Christ”? Because of the church, because of religion, because of your background. If you could, for a minute divorce yourself from all the religious poo, then maybe, just maybe my Texas sis could “hear” the truth in the words of Christ…for the first time!
G’night girl…all the best.
Philip K. Dick: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away
If you could stop believing for a moment, and rationalize your beliefs, maybe you could acknowledge that they are not based in reality. You don’t have any evidences for them, or for opposite beliefs.
Present evidence of the existance of these supernatural events and I will be happy to evaluate completely open-mindedly.
To date very little evidence has been offered, and that which has been put forward has been soundly debumked.
The teleological argument (the philosophical study of design and purpose) alluded to by LRA assumes a purpose to “everything” but proposes no (physical) evidence.
Plato was one of the earliest known philosophers to put forward this argument, but many others have contributed, classical to modern, such as Kant, Hegel, and others.
It is based on the principle of causality, and by extention, design.
Physical teleology is the domain of science (physical causality) and is supported by experiment, but by no means proven.
You seem to be appealing to metaphysical teleology (often used to describe the inpenetrable begining and end) and there is no supporting evidence at all.
You may submit that this realm is “unknowable” by science, but I’m afraid that works both ways – you can’t then propose that it exists at all.
Oh, Devout Denier, many of us have asked, begged and cajoled him for one shred of credible evidence and have gotten nothing but dribbling nonsense.
Roger that!
And he’s been rude to you when you asked him to address you by your real name.
That refers to John C – he will only find this post if it has his name there; I think he searches for his name and a few keywords to spare himself actual reading the posts.
Kinda like Mr. Deity putting his hands over his ears and singing “lalalalalala”!
Oh, but Claid, he’s very nice!(in a “Minnesota nice” sort of way) He’s polite and very, VERY respectful and such…why, it’s almost passive aggressive!
Of course, when you think about it, if you read the encounters that Jesus had with the Pharisees, Saducees, and, well, pretty much anybody the writer wanted to set up as a foil to Jesus, Their Lord and Savior was pretty freakin’ snotty. People would ask him straight up questions and he’d go rambling off in BASIC or C++. He treated his own disciples as though they were retarded chimpanzees (but then again, they were following some dude who told them to forsake their wives and what-not…maybe they were retarded chimpanzees). Not a guy who I’d love to call “boss.”
Roger– we all know he’s “Texas nice” (so don’t blame Minnesota for him!). Now, being a proud Texan myself, that doesn’t bode well for me (in some circles), but I take responsibility for (certain) people of my state no matter what! JC really thinks he is doing us a service– I don’t think he’s trying to be ugly to anyone here. Do I agree with him… NO! Do I think he’s respectful, not really in certain instances. But he is a product (in some ways) of our Texan culture, but so am I. That being said, I find that many Texans love a sassy person such as yourself (I sure do!), and many Texans are moderate/liberal and don’t get the credit for it as we are seen as a red state, but you seem to know about red states as you have lived in the South yourself. Anyway, I guess my point is that I look on JC as I look on my missionary uncle (who lived in Bolivia for 30 years), one who believes what he believes and can’t be changed (even though I despise missionaries as cultural assassins)– he can only challenged (even though he won’t concede). But sometimes the challenge isn’t worth it. Sometimes we just have to make nice or ignore the people who populate our proximities– the way we make nice with/ ignore our crazy small town cousins.
:)
When I looked at it yesterday the page I saw appeared to be tiny shreds of paper not written in english so ‘G’od couldn’t have written it.
One would think that wit Gods magic he could write a bible that is readable for every person on thei Earth. Hell even in Dr Who when you travel the Tardis from then on it will translate eny writen text and spoken language into understandable English, so why does God not do that?
@ nomad (the old reply was too long to sift through):
Do you believe these things are literally true or are you speaking metaphorically?
“Life is something that is given to us (by God, by the universe, by our parents, whatever). The point is that we are alive, and we had nothing to do with that.”Who or what this Giver is is important though. I don’t know if a Christian is at liberty to say “whatever “ as relates to this Giver. According to Christian belief God is the Giver.
Life is a gift. I think that’s literally true, and I think that most people would agree in some way or another. Life is something that each of us has yet can only receive.
I believe that the universe, including humans, has been created, and I believe that to be literally true. Not Young Earth Creationism, though. In my view, put very very simply, evolution is God’s way of bringing diverse life into existence.
“The Incarnation, on the other hand, is not a historical fact; it is a matter of belief. There are reasons to believe in it, for a Christian, but I can’t say that I can claim it’s historical fact.”
I’m not sure what that means “for a Christian”. If you are a Christian they are reasons. But if you’re not they’re not? They don’t become reasons till after you become a Christian?
Scratch “for a Christian.” I’m not sure why I put that in there. I was in a rush at work … probably typed it, meant to delete it, but didn’t.
What I was trying to say is this: I do think that there’s enough historical evidence to believe that Jesus did exist, had a preaching ministry and preached about the “Kingdom of God,” and he was crucified by Rome as a result. I am persuaded that this is a historical fact, thus, literally true.
It’s very interesting but still these are only more beliefs. What I was trying to get at is sources. Where do these ideas come from.
Christian Scripture, the writings of the early church, the traditions of the church through the centuries, etc. Nothing unexpected, I would think.
What I was trying to say is this: I do think that there’s enough historical evidence to believe that Jesus did exist, had a preaching ministry and preached about the “Kingdom of God,” and he was crucified by Rome as a result. I am persuaded that this is a historical fact, thus, literally true.
Ugh, mean to add something about the incarnation. The incarnation, while attested to in Scripture, is not attested to outside of Scripture. Thus, I don’t think it’s intellectually honest to claim at as historical fact. It is, rather, a matter of belief. And yes, I do believe it to be true.
BR…you said concerning the Incarnation “And yes, I do believe it to be true”. Great, now here’s my question for you (not a test my friend, just wondering where you’re at on the proverbial journey into Christlikeness)…is BR also InChristed? What of this “treasure in our earthen vessels”. Or is He merely a “sky-God”? No answer is fine too BR, blessings.
I’m not sure what you mean, John. The point I’m trying to make with nomad is simply that I don’t think one can prove the Incarnation historically. It is a matter of faith, and yes, I believe in it.
In my mind, it’s a fact of history that the man, Jesus, existed some 2,000 years ago, and I think that’s verifiable via the historical records.
I don’t think we can demonstrate the incarnation to be true in the same way. The incarnation is a matter of faith.
BR…sorry, maybe I didnt word my question too well (wouldnt be the first time, ha). You said ” it’s a fact of history that the man, Jesus, existed some 2,000 years ago”. So you believe that He lived. Here’s my question to you…where is that man (Jesus) now? Is He dead? (they crucified Him right?) Did they kill God-man? Or is He at the “right hand of the Father in a place called Heaven”? What happened to this God-man? What does it mean to us now? How is what happened 2000 years ago significant today?? Just wondering your thoughts on it all. Again, dont feel like you have to answer, you owe me exactly…nothing, blessings.
If the question is, do I believe in the resurrection, my answer is yes.
I just try to emphasize that such a claim is a claim of faith; I can’t prove the resurrection to you or anyone else. Although, I think we can prove that Jesus was actually a historical figure and not just a mythical “Christ.” Hope that clears it up.
“I think we can prove that Jesus was actually a historical figure and not just a mythical “Christ.””
Do you believe that this is already the case? Or that we lack sufficient evidence that this point to called it ‘proven.’
Do it, then.
Then support any possible imagined reason why that has anything at all to do with supporting belief in christianity. Support why (assuming you can even show it’s true) it isn’t a non sequitur, completely unrelated to support of christianity.
“I think we can prove that Jesus was actually a historical figure and not just a mythical “Christ.””
Do you believe that this is already the case? Or that we lack sufficient evidence that this point to called it ‘proven.’
Ty, not quite clear on what you’re asking.
In my view, the historical evidence that Jesus existed is sufficient. I think it’s more reasonable than not to think that Jesus lived, preached, and was executed by Rome.
The incarnation, resurrection, etc., however, are different, I think, because they are only attested in Christian Scripture (unless you count Josephus, but that reference is suspect). I don’t think they will be “provable,” because I doubt we will ever find more “evidence.” We have what we have, and we make decisions for or against believing in those things.
Anyway, just to make sure this is all taken in context: nomad asked me whether I believed that the Incarnation and resurrection were literally or metaphorically true.
To clarify my response, I was attempting to differentiate between knowledge and faith as analogous categories to literal and metaphor. I am persuaded that Jesus existed as a historical figure, and I feel confident in saying I know that to be literally true, based on the historical evidence for his existence.
I think that the incarnation/resurrection, though, is quite a bit different. It’s one thing to claim that I know Jesus existed as a figure of history; it’s another thing to claim that I know that his existence was miraculous (i.e., incarnation) and that he was miraculously raised from the dead. I don’t know that to be true; I believe in it, I hope for it. Was Jesus literally raised from the dead, or does this narrative have a strictly metaphorical quality to it? I don’t know for sure. I can only say (and I try to be humble about it) that I believe in it, and that said belief informs who I am and how I try to live.
==========================================
@ claidheamh mor:
I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I was simply trying to answer a question from nomad. I don’t think I can prove Christianity to your or anyone else, and I’ve never tried to here. My guess is that you’re already aware of the evidence for or against Jesus as a person of history; I probably can’t offer anything you don’t already know. It sounds like we’ve made our respective decisions, and I’d rather agree to disagree with you than re-hash an argument that won’t ultimately be persuasive to either of us. Would that be okay with you?
Perhaps my comments above clarify what I mean with respect to proving Christianity. I hope so.
Claid asked you to present evidence that Jesus existed you haven’t presented anything of the sort. Please present the historical evidence. If you have no evidence then just say so and stop being intellectual dishonest.
@ brgulker
” Was Jesus literally raised from the dead, or does this narrative have a strictly metaphorical quality to it? I don’t know for sure. I can only say (and I try to be humble about it) that I believe in it ”
mark: Out of curiosity what is it that leads you to believing in this line of thinking while not believing other parts of the bible are literally.
Ive come to the conclusion that your beliefs are based 100% on your emotions because you havent presented any reason why you in accept certain parts of the bible as literal and others as metaphorical.
Why do you think a perfect and loving god leaves a document that is so confusing even to believers such as yourself?
Why would god allow passages in the bible that he didnt inspire, does that really make any sense to you comming from a perfect all knowing god?
See any self-contradiction there?
Not as much as the bible has, but you’re getting there.
Do it, then. [second notice]
Then show how a historically actual Jesus is even remotely related to any support or validity in believing christianity. [second notice]
(I’ll spell out the non sequitur in your logic: The one does not necessarily follow the other.)
You haven’t even started.
@claid
It’s possible to say, “I think something can be proven,” and say “I’m not trying to prove that something.” There is no contradicition there. Had I said, “I’m going to prove Jesus existed” and then said “I’m not trying to prove Jesus existed,” then I would be contradicting myself, and you’d be right to correct me.
If I said, “I think it’s possible to prove the theory of evolution,” but then said, “I’m not out to try to prove it with my comments here,” would you be jumping all over me?
But even more to the point: nomad and I have had conversations outside of this blog in which we’ve specifically discussed this topic. I’ve already told him why I think Jesus existed as a historical figure, and I don’t have the time or desire to rehash all of that again simply because you are demanding it from me. He and I both know what we’re talking about – we know the back story behind the current conversation. You don’t.
Do it, then. [second notice]
No, because that’s not the point of nomad’s question. nomad’s question was specifically related to (or at the very least informed by) a previous conversation we had about myth and history. And as I said above, I’m not obligated to repeat all of that to you so that nomad and I can have a conversation.
@jabster:
Claid asked you to present evidence that Jesus existed you haven’t presented anything of the sort. Please present the historical evidence. If you have no evidence then just say so and stop being intellectual dishonest.
Absolutely no intellectual dishonesty here. claid made a demand of me, a demand that was based on an incomplete understanding of my conversation with nomad (not a conversation with him). Not indulging his demands does not mean I’m being intellectually dishonest.
@markbey
Ive come to the conclusion that your beliefs are based 100% on your emotions because you havent presented any reason why you in accept certain parts of the bible as literal and others as metaphorical.
Well, to be fair to me, what you get from me on this blog are bits and pieces of what I think about the bible (and my faith more generally). I’ve written pages and pages about hermeneutics and read hundreds more in my studies. I’m not going to post them in the comments of a blog, let alone this one. I don’t have the time or desire to do so, but perhaps more importantly, why would anyone (here) care? And mind you, I don’t blame anyone for not caring.
What little I have said is that I don’t have a problem acknowledging the humanness of the bible; I don’t recall ever saying much more than that. If you conclude that my faith is 100% based on emotion, well, you’re free to do so, but it seems like you might be rushing to judgment about me.
@brgulker
Nope sorry you have stated that we can prove Jesus was an historical figure. Either present the evidence or retract the statement. You are being intellectually dishonest unless you present the evidence or say that you were incorrect in your post.
@ brgulker
” What little I have said is that I don’t have a problem acknowledging the humanness of the bible ”
mark: Here is my problem with this statement, if the bible is inspired by god (although written by humans) and god is perfect then thier should be no mistakes in the bible.
God who supposedly knows everthing, would have known that the humaness of the bible you refer to would invalidate the bible in the eyes of many people such as myself.
It would also invalidate the bible to non christian believers who believe thier word of god (holy document) is the absolute truth.
I cannot understand why you believe in a perfect, all knowing god who inspires a bible that is only partially true.
Will you at least admit that the way your god handles his business causes a lot of confusion amongst people who are trying to find him?
Why would your perfect, all knowing, powerful god inspire so much confusion by allowing his “word” to be comprimised by writings in the same document that arent his word?
Can you explain why your god would allow such confusion, because I do not understand why the smartest dude ever would allow so much confusion about what is his actual word?
@Jabster
I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. nomad and I had a previous conversation outside of UF in which we hashed out (at least some of) the reasons why I think Jesus existed as a historical figure.
The conversation he and I are having now about myth and history is an extension of that conversation. Thus, the context of my comment demonstrates that I’m not being dishonest.
If I were just randomly posted that Jesus was unequivocally a figure of history, then you’d have a right to ask for validation of that.
But I’m not. I’m engaging in a continuing conversation with someone I’ve conversed with outside of this blog.
I’m under no obligation to simply regurgitate all of that simply because you and claid are demanding that of me, especially because this conversation is an extension of a previous one.
Why you are both choosing to completely ignore the context of my conversation and choose to accuse me of being dishonest is puzzling, but frankly, not surprising.
@brgulker
So that’s a no then you don’t have evidence for Jesus having existed but you’ve claimed again that you do have but aren’t going to present it here and instead choose to try and change the subject and muddy the waters, yet again.
I don’t know how else to describe you but intellectually dishonest due to your evading of questions.
Player: I want a dodge roll.
Referee: you need a 4 or better on a D6.
Player: I rolled a 2.
@Sunny Day
I can only presume that brgulker is now asking for best of three!
brgulker:
Why do you spend so much damn time and energy not answering straight forward questions? Your focus on controlling the flow of conversations in an open blog on unreasonable faith has the appearance of obfuscation. I don’t think this is your intent. :)
I don’t know how else to describe you but intellectually dishonest due to your evading of questions.
I already answered the question, just not when demanded it. That you’re repeatedly ignoring that my conversation with nomad is an extension of a previous one (in which I did give answers) demonstrates to me that you’re not asking questions of which you want answers, but merely trolling me. That’s why I’m not answering your questions. Not because I don’t have answers, but because I don’t like having conversations with people who insist on dictating their terms and only their terms, and if I don’t comply, I’m dishonest, a liar, a coward, etc., etc., etc.
You’re proving to be one of those folks. You accuse me of evading, yet you’ve failed to address my fundamental questions to you: why am I obligated to duplicate my previous conversation with nomad to justify your curiosity? And further, why does not answering your question necessarily imply that I am intellectually dishonest?
You can’t satisfactorily answer either of those questions, so you resort to name-calling. I think there’s a Creationist Tactic that describes your mode of argumentation perfectly …
Goodbye, Jabster, you’ve just made it to my ignore list, along with Aor. Feel free to keep trolling me, though; it makes for entertaining reading!
brgulker:
Why do you spend so much damn time and energy not answering straight forward questions? Your focus on controlling the flow of conversations in an open blog on unreasonable faith has the appearance of obfuscation. I don’t think this is your intent. :)
Because I’m sick of the damn badgering. I already explained to nomad (outside of UF) why I think Jesus existed as a historical figure. And I have no desire to have that conversation again, especially here; it’s not worth the time or effort.
But, simply declining to have a conversation (mind you, one that’s being demanded of you, not asked in any way that resembles politeness) ends up drawing accusation heaped upon insult (e.g., I’m an intellectually dishonest cowardly liar — paraphrasing Aor and Jabster), so I try to explain why my comment in context isn’t dishonest. Specifically, this conversation is an extension of a previous conversation in which I did, in fact, offer an argument based on evidence. So, simply put, I don’t like being insulted an being accused of dishonesty, so I try to answer the accusations reasonably, by explaining the context of my previous conversation, etc.
Furthermore, I’m not often asked questions politely. Jabster’s doing the same thing Aor did in a previous thread: making an assertion and then simply demanding that I answer him; if I don’t answer, I’m a hypocrite, a liar, whatever. Why in the hell would I legitimize that mode of argumentation with a response? It’s bull shit. It’s not “reasonable,’ and it therefore reeks of hypocrisy. The blog is supposedly about “reasonable thoughts on religion, science, and skepticism,” but it’s nearly impossible to have a reasonable conversation in the comments.
People like Aor and Jabster jump into the middle of conversations and completely ignore their contexts, they make assumptions based on taking those statements completely out of said context, make unfounded assertions based on those faulty assumptions, demand that you respond to their unfounded assertions, and then go on the warpath against you if you don’t play along by piling on personal attack upon personal attack.
I’m sick of playing that game, so instead of playing it, I try to show why the game isn’t worth playing — which usually just furthers the personal attacks.
With respect to your “controlling the flow of conversation” comment: I’ll say again, nomad and I have been conversing about this topic for a while now, even outside UF. So, even though it’s happening on an “open blog,” the conversation has a very specific context and history. I don’t see the need to answer any and every question that gets interjected by those who haven’t been part of the previous conversation; that does not make me intellectually dishonest.
Sorry if I sound angry; I definitely am, but not at you. Posting here can be maddening.
On the other hand, there are folks like you, who are respectful and civil, even though you think I’m delusional and irrational with respect to believing in God. nomad’s another of those folks, which is why we’ve had conversations here without them degenerating into name-calling fests. I think we’ve actually learned from each other in some ways. When I get asked questions by people like that, who choose to be civil and respectful as opposed to demanding and hostile, I do my best to respond if/when I can. And at least I know I won’t be attacked if I don’t get around to answering … or even if my answer is unsatisfactory to the person who asked the question.
@brgulker
Nope sorry you’re now in the bin of “you choose not to answer even simple questions to statements you’ve made”. You are intellectually dishonest and Question-I-thority has summed up your attitude very nicely. You’re very happy when you believe you’re in control but as soon as things don’t go the way you wish you throw your toys out the pram and stomp you feet before running off.
I guess I could throw some light on this conversation. But I won’t. It’s BR’s call. No one is obliged to reply on demand. I actually agree with John C here (what am I saying!)
“dont feel like you have to answer, you owe me exactly…nothing,”
Don’t sweat it, nomad. It wouldn’t make a difference, anyway, methinks.
Player: So did I dodge?
Referee: No, you failed to dodge. Now can you answer the question?
Player: But I already did that. In another private conversation. It seemed to satisfy him. Just because I brought it up into a new conversation with a wider audience doesn’t mean I have to explain anything. It would take to long to retype everything. Now they’re being meanies!
Referee: I don’t think they’re being meanies on purpose. They just want a clearer understanding of what you are trying to say.
Player: Now you’re being a meanie too! I roll another Dodge!
Referee: You’ve already had your chance. You’ve been on the forum long enough to understand how bald assertions get treated. i.e. Flying Monster Trucks and Amputated Limb Regrowth and Young Earthism.
Player: No! I get another Dodge roll!
Referee: I’m sorry you can’t change the rules once you’ve started to play. Trying to change them now makes you look simple and shabby. Other posters in the past have admitted their faults and have even changed their minds once evidence was submitted and discussed. If you are unwilling or unable to play by the same rules It shows a particular level of disrespect.
Player: I could explain it now, but it wouldn’t matter anyway. You’re all bigots! Meanie discriminatory bigots. Maybe if you ask me again nicely.
This is not a true story. This is a work of fiction. Any semblance to people living or dead is coincidental. People don’t actually behave this way.
You’ve written pages and pages here.
Interminable walls o’ post, dodging, saying what you said here doesn’t count because it was part of an outside conversation, clueless about what you are trying to accomplish. It all amounts to “Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence #73″.
73. ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X’?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn’t agree with X’!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I’m glad we all agree…..
….
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X’, Y, Y’, Z, Z’, P, P’, Q and Q’ to arrive at the
obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I’ve only agreed with X. Where is this going?
….
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L”, L”’ and J” are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN’T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS
THIS GOING?
….
(177) …and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ” and BTU’ are all obviously valid.
Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
So far you certainly haven’t said nothing, but you’ve done nothing, proved nothing, amounted to nothing, accomplished nothing.
Then the Incarnation is not metaphor. It was in some sense true. For you I mean. As you say that is a matter of faith and probably could not be resolved using evidence or reason. On the other hand, the resurrection is asserted to be a historical event. Did this happen in the physical world or the mythic one?
No, the Incarnation is not a metaphor, the real question is, how does it apply to us today?
nomad, tried to get at your question above in response to Ty.
@ brgulker
I really wish you would address one my questions that I am, extremely curious about. Which is, why is your all knowing god the author of so much confusion? I mean come on, the dude is the smartest guy ever.
Why is the humaness of the bible an excuse for mistakes in the bible when god is perfect? Why would god inspire a guideline for man to live by that has some things that are true and some things that are not true?
I really wish you would address this.
Sorry, brgulker only addresses questions when he feels he is in control of the thread …
See, I told you that you would be entertaining! Thanks for the laugh!
So how’s the ignoring me going then — oh that was another lie wasn’t it?
I really wish you would address one my questions that I am, extremely curious about. Which is, why is your all knowing god the author of so much confusion? I mean come on, the dude is the smartest guy ever.
First, thanks for actually asking and asking respectfully. I appreciate that. And, good idea starting a new thread as it were.
Have you ever met a Christian who doesn’t think that the Bible was literally penned by God? I ask because it feels like you are assuming that that’s what I am …
I think that the bible records the words of human people who were responding to their perception of God’s actions in the world. For example, take the thematic motif of social justice that recurs throughout the Hebrew prophets, embodied in passages such as this:
You who turn justice into bitterness
and cast righteousness to the ground
You hate the one who reproves in court
and despise him who tells the truth.
You trample on the poor
and force him to give you grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
You oppress the righteous and take bribes
and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
Passages such as this express a deep concern for equity, care for the poor, and justice. Yet, they are juxtaposed with genocide (Joshua and early Judges), and both seem to be endorsed by YHWH.
(Do you think that’s a fair example of the “confusion” you mentioned?)
To put it simply, I think Israel got the latter wrong. I don’t think genocide is a part of life as it should be, i.e., shalom. I think it’s a horrible atrocity. Yet, Israel, as a people and nation, never seemed to realize the inherent self-contradiction.
To make a long argument short, I would say that Jesus and Paul provide a interpretive trajectory that justifies my claim. In short, both of them re-envisioned and re-imagined what covenant between creator and creature meant given the new information with which they interacted (i.e., progressive revelation). We Christians find ourselves in a similar situation … we now know that the Earth is very old and that life has evolved; we know that homosexuality is linked to genetics; we know that our climate is changing and that we are at least partially responsible for that; and the list could go on. In other words, we now have new information which requires us to re-envision and re-imagine the covenant between creature and creator. Thus, I don’t understand Scripture to be a perfect document that was dropped from the sky containing all the answers, but rather to be the narrative that describes the interaction between Israel -> Christians and the God in whom they believe.
The bible: Indistinguishable from Fan Fiction.
(Whoops left off the “straight man” part of the quote)
“I think that the bible records the words of human people who were responding to their perception of God’s actions in the world.”
The bible: Indistinguishable from Fan Fiction.
@ brgulker:
” (Do you think that’s a fair example of the “confusion” you mentioned?)
To put it simply, I think Israel got the latter wrong. I don’t think genocide is a part of life as it should be, i.e., shalom. I think it’s a horrible atrocity. Yet, Israel, as a people and nation, never seemed to realize the inherent self-contradiction. ”
mark: Like has been mentioned before I believe you are playing games, because I asked you a simple and specific question which you choose to overlook or not answer. But I will re ask some things I asked you previously that speak to my curiosity. I would appreciate it if you would address what I asked as honestly as you can.
In return I will address anything you may ask in return to the best of my abilty.
The type of confusion I am talking about is allowing some parts in the bible that are not accurate or gods word due to humaness.
Please explain why your god would inspire parts of the bible that are true and parts that are not true.
I want to know this because thier are people who follow other religions such as Islam and others that claim thier holy book is 100 inspired by god. You from my understanding do not believe that everything in the bible was inspired by god .
If all of the bible isnt inspired by god but muslims claim that all of the Koran is accurate then they can claim that Islam is the true word of god because the bible even according to christians like you is not 100% accurate.
Do you not see how if your god inspires only part of the bible but then allows followers of other religions to claim 100% accuracy of thier own religoius documents/text how that can be confusing to someone who is niether christian or muslim and is looking to find god.
Why would a non believer of any religion looking for god not be inclined to believe people who claim that the Koran is 100% inspired by god instead of you who admits that the bible has passages that are not inspired by god.
That is what I am talking about when I say confusion authoured by your god. If your god is perfect and all knowing that means he knew that partially inspiring the bible and allowing things in the bible that arent his word would confuse people.
Why would your perfect all knowing god allow the confusion of inspiring a document that man is supposed to live by, that is filled with errors and mistakes.
Why would he allow this especially given the fact that even before he inspired the first word of the bible that the errors and mistakes would greatly confuse man.
Like has been mentioned before I believe you are playing games, because I asked you a simple and specific question which you choose to overlook or not answer. But I will re ask some things I asked you previously that speak to my curiosity. I would appreciate it if you would address what I asked as honestly as you can.
…
Please explain why your god would inspire parts of the bible that are true and parts that are not true.
The first comment is extremely frustrating to me, because you’re implying that I’m doing something that I’m not doing. I’m trying to respond to your initial question as specifically and directly as possible.
You asked me:
Which is, why is your all knowing god the author of so much confusion?
I responded by giving you an example of confusion, and then asked if it was an accurate example of your question.
Then, I proceeded to explain how my own viewpoint about what the bible is and how it functions is different from those who hold to biblical inerrancy (which is the position you are describing when you speak of divine inspiration of any sacred book). And I explained in detail that I think the bible was authored by human beings, and I used to
Why would your perfect all knowing god allow the confusion of inspiring a document that man is supposed to live by, that is filled with errors and mistakes.
In other words, I’ve never said or tried to imply that I think the bible was inerrantly inspired by God (as fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals claim). So, I feel like you’re putting words in my mouth and asking me to justify and/or respond to a position that I don’t claim to hold.
Do you not see how if your god inspires only part of the bible but then allows followers of other religions to claim 100% accuracy of thier own religoius documents/text how that can be confusing to someone who is niether christian or muslim and is looking to find god.
Yes, I do see the confusion. When you mentioned confusion before, I thought you were talking about the bible itself being confusing, but it seems like you were making a more general claim across religions.
I want to be careful with what I say next, because there’s a no evangelizing policy, and I don’t want to break that policy. Nor, do I want you to feel as if I’m pushing something at you that you don’t want to hear. With respect to someone who is not religious looking to find God, as a Christian I would say, start with Jesus. Jesus is the reason that we Christians feel justified in making any claims about God. Read about Jesus and the impact he made on those around him, and read about his early followers (the epistles of NT and Acts).
Why would he allow this especially given the fact that even before he inspired the first word of the bible that the errors and mistakes would greatly confuse man.
Mark, I don’t have a good answer for you here. When I’m asked, “Why would God allow _________” most of the time I don’t feel like I can give a good answer. It may not be much help, but I think the best I can do is say that not having an answer to a question like that is part of the ambiguity of human existence. Orthodoxy would say that our inability to answer those questions definitively is a witness to our finitude and fallibility. At times, that answer makes sense to me, and at other times it doesn’t. In that sense, we’re both seeking for the answer.
Another tenative, albeit more liberal, unorthodox answer would be to claim that God transcends all religion and works through and in spite of religion simultaneously. I’m taking a cue from Karl Barth here, who argues that very point. In Jesus, God judges all religion (i.e., our human constructions of God) and pronounces “No” over all of it, but simultaneously says yes to humanity.
” I want to be careful with what I say next, because there’s a no evangelizing policy, and I don’t want to break that policy. Nor, do I want you to feel as if I’m pushing something at you that you don’t want to hear. ”
As long as you try to answer honestly you have no problem from me, my annoyance came earlier because I thought you were evading my obvious and most important questions and not addressing my point.
No hard feelings my friend and sorry if I came across the wrong way. Unlike some other christians I dont consider you to be a gentlemen and thoughtful person as far as christians go.
I meant to say.
No hard feelings my friend and sorry if I came across the wrong way. Unlike some other christians I consider you to be a gentlemen and thoughtful person as far as christians go.
I figured the earlier post was a typo.
Thanks for the kind words. I do appreciate them, and I appreciate your being civil and respectful of me as well. That’s uncommon around here lately.
It certainly beats getting called a hypocrite, a liar, et al, that’s for sure! :)
” With respect to someone who is not religious looking to find God, as a Christian I would say, start with Jesus. Jesus is the reason that we Christians feel justified in making any claims about God. Read about Jesus and the impact he made on those around him, and read about his early followers (the epistles of NT and Acts). ”
mark: My problem with your answer is this, if I were looking for god and I was in a room with a muslim and you, what is the reason I should believe your interpretation of god over the muslims.
Heres an example of what I mean.
Mark Asks: Im looking to find god, which faith should I choose and why.
Brgulker: replies: Well my friend you should choose Christianity. As your reason you give the above qoute.
Muslim: No my friend you should choose Islam. For his reason the muslim gives a similar answer only he uses the Koran.
mark: Well how do I know the bible or Koran is the word of god? Also is the bible/Koran 100% true. This is a question address to both muslim and bgulker.
bgulker: No the bible is not 100% accurate but pray to god and he will give you all of the answers.
Muslim: Yes the Koran is 100% accurate and if you pray to god he will give you the answers. I think you loose this exchange very badly.
Does this example illustrate the problem with your answer to my question?
” Another tenative, albeit more liberal, unorthodox answer would be to claim that God transcends all religion and works through and in spite of religion simultaneously. ”
mark: My friend you have no way of verifying this so it would be nice if you would give reasoning for making this statement. What exact reason found in the bible makes you believe this statement. Otherwise I could say that god only speaks to people who have red hair and green eyes and it would have as much validity as your statement.
@ brgulker
” we know that homosexuality is linked to genetics ”
Again if this is the case, then the god you believe in knew this as well. Yet he still allowed those anti gay verses in the bible.
Does it really make sense whatsover for an all perfect, knowing and loving god allow verses in the bible that claim homosexuality is wrong and an abomination against god when it is natural.
Didnt your god know the hatred against gay people that would be incited and ginned up by people who literally believe the bible to be the word of god?
“we now have new information which requires us to re-envision and re-imagine the covenant between creature and creator. Thus, I don’t understand Scripture to be a perfect document that was dropped from the sky containing all the answers, but rather to be the narrative that describes the interaction between Israel -> Christians and the God in whom they believe. ”
mark: But this information isnt new to god, please explain to me why your god didnt just inspire an accurate writing of the bible. No matter how you spin things your perfect all knowing god is allowing and creating confusion does that really make sense comming from an all knowing and perfect god?
There should be no mistakes in the bible because god is perfect, if god can inspire the bible to be 60% accurate then he can inspire the bible to be 100% percent accurate.
I cannot understand why your perfect god would inspire a bible that is only partially true.
Looks like you beat me to the punch. I tried to respond as best as I am able in the comments above.
In a hurry to leave work, so at least a link to get at this specific question:
mark: But this information isnt new to god, please explain to me why your god didnt just inspire an accurate writing of the bible. No matter how you spin things your perfect all knowing god is allowing and creating confusion does that really make sense comming from an all knowing and perfect god?
http://www.theopedia.com/Divine_accommodation
“Have you ever met a Christian who doesn’t think that the Bible was literally penned by God? I ask because it feels like you are assuming that that’s what I am …”
Most Christians do seem to believe that ever word in the Bible is inspired by God. That is why they refer to it as the Word of God, It is, as I have said elsewhere, an idol; something that stands in the place of God. There are several problems that emerge if the Bible is only partially inerrant. First, how do you determine which parts are inspired and which are not? Whose to say that the opposite of what you say is not true? Maybe God did inspire the genocide you mentioned and did not inspire the rather humanistic thematic motif of social justice. How do you determine? And if the former is indeed the case, shouldn’t the Bible be purged of its sadistic passages? Preachers today are still interpreting the genocides as the will of God. For example, I just heard Charles Stanley preach on the Disobedience of Saul. The only problem he had with the passage was that Saul did not follow the will of God: destroy the Amalekites “men, women, babies…oxen, sheep, camels”. He let the best of the animals live. This barbaric set of ethics still prevails. Shouldn’t this be corrected?
As for starting with Jesus, that’s impossible. You can only start with what some writers, who were not eye witnesses said about Jesus. Your faith in Jesus is really faith in the not necessarily inerrant Paul, John, Luke, Mark and Matthew.
This barbaric set of ethics still prevails. Shouldn’t this be corrected?
Oops. Looks like I said this already.
” Why would he allow this especially given the fact that even before he inspired the first word of the bible that the errors and mistakes would greatly confuse man. ”
Mark: Typo, I meant to say . Why would he allow this especially given the fact that even before he inspired the first word of the bible your god knew that that the errors and mistakes in the bible would would greatly confuse man.
. . . it’s all fiction. no Jesus ever existed. no gods exist. But, still I have some favorite bible stories about the Paul Bunyan of Palestine and his Babe. ‘Cause in those days there was no schizophrenia (no DSM IV to guide your beliefs) — there was demonic possession. And Jesus (on a date with Mary Magdalene) sailed right into trouble among the Gerasenes:
Bedeviled Pigs Luke 8:27-33, 37 NIV
26They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the
lake from Galilee.
27 When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a
demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had
not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs.
28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at
the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the
Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!”
29 For Jesus had commanded the [unclean] spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.
30 Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “Legion,” he replied, because many demons had gone into him. 31 And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.
32 A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons
begged Jesus to let them go into them, and he gave them permission.
33 When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and
the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.
. . . .
37 . . . all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked
Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome with fear. So he
got into the boat and left.
I enjoy how the demon-possessed man’s inner spokesman knows that Jesus is “Son of the Most High God.” That’s proof for sure. I mean if a demon in PR says so, who am I to doubt it. Who am I going to believe: 99 demons with PR, or some jewish heretic like Paul, or a liar like Peter? Demons!
Jesus doesn’t even offer to pay their owner for drowning his pigs. He scoots back across the lake. What will Mary think? This guy’s just not kosher.
anti_supernaturalist
One Trackback
[...] Oldest Known Bible Goes OnlineUnreasonable Faith: [...]