J
jcrichton
Guest
***Hi, pismopal!
…yeah… giving a snake the opportunity to sink its fangs on an unsuspecting body part is not a pretty picture!
Maran atha!
Angel***
- Status
…yeah… giving a snake the opportunity to sink its fangs on an unsuspecting body part is not a pretty picture!
Maran atha!
Angel***
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
Literary Criticism was very much in vogue in the early part of the 20th century, particularly in Germany, and is a good example of how even the most intelligent of people can end up making silly assertions if they don’t cover all sources of information (and that applies to me, I know all too well from experience).
Assuming that Christ’s crucifixion occurred in 32 AD , depending on whose analysis of Jesus’ birth date you accept, Paul’s discipleship begins in 37 AD, and his earliest Epistle is dated around 52 AD.
Now consider this.
Here was a bunch of uneducated Jews, fisherman etc, and one educated Pharisee persecuting them - why was he persecuting them, or does the noted Emeritus Professor say that didn’t happen?
This same bunch of uneducated men decide to develop a conspiracy that they admit that they do not understand, and they know will get them into lots of trouble.
The Pharisee decides to join the conspiracy, and preach this new gospel of some person who didn’t even exist, and he does this at a time when all his Pharisee ex-mates know that Jesus didn’t exist.
The ex-Pharisee manages to convince lots of others and the mythology grows, even though it is within the life span of hundreds of thousands of people in the region who know the whole story to be untrue.
Consulting the history of mythologies generally, there is no record of any mythology arising during the lifetime of the participants, and no mythology successfully spread during the lifetime of those who could easily refute it. Mythologies develop long after there is no way to refute them. If you were to propose to an expert on mythology, the scenario that Wells does, changing the names to avoid giving the game away, a mythology expert will tell you that it cannot happen, the timescale is unacceptable.
The other line of thought to pursue is this.
When claiming that a particular story is untrue, one has to propose an alternative that accounts for ALL of the aspects of the story, in effect, constructing an alternative story that accounts for all the circumstances, not just some.
This is one of the issues that, for example, one encounters with the popular book / movie, the Da Vinci Code.
Various arguments are given that Jesus did not exist, He did not die, He did die but the disciples went to the wrong tomb, they went to the right tomb but the disciples had removed the body (alive or dead), they bribed the guards, a thousand people only thought they saw the risen Jesus, etc.
Every theory that tries to counter the Scriptural account of the death and resurrection of Jesus assumes some points to be true, but tries to refute others, but none that I can find ever manage or even try to account for ALL of the elements of the story.
For Emeritus Professor Wells to refute the existence of Jesus, he needed to do lots more than simply subject Scripture to literary criticism, he needed to answer some basic questions, which as far as I can tell, he did not even attempt.
He would need to offer a plausible explanation as to why a bunch of uneducated fisherman would come up with the conspiracy in the first place, why they would put their lives at risk, why a Pharisee would switch sides when he knew the story to be untrue, why he would give up his comfortable life in the Jewish hierarchy to join the conspiracy which he knew would get him into trouble, why the Sanhedrin and other Jewish and Roman authorities didn’t successfully squash the conspiracy when they knew it to be untrue, why other Jews who knew the story to be untrue joined the conspiracy, etc.
I would love to have been able to interview him.
R
Romulus
Guest
What ever you believe to be “God breathed”
Here is the clarification:
Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
Negation of Major Premise: Some God breathed things are sufficient
I recall giving you this link before, Re-read on 2.1.9 “negation of quantifiers”. Let me know if you have any questions…don’t let the symbols and math intimidate you, just gotta familiarize yourself with what they mean.
csee.umbc.edu/~stephens/203/PDF/2-1.pdf
J
jcrichton
Guest
***Greetings to all!
…for all concerned with the missing quotes… have you tried “Preview Post,” checking for missing brackets or brackets fround within text being wrapped?
…if all fails: erase html “Quote” commands and re-wrapping text?
Good luck!
Maran atha!
Angel***
…for all concerned with the missing quotes… have you tried “Preview Post,” checking for missing brackets or brackets fround within text being wrapped?
…if all fails: erase html “Quote” commands and re-wrapping text?
Good luck!
Maran atha!
Angel***
B
believer112
Guest
I do not understand what you are trying to say , I ask that we do not judge the Paul IV 's writings with todays standards and then you point to today’s anti-discrimination laws?
The document written does not prove error or an ulterior motive. Sure, he placed restrictions on Jew-Christian interactions, but where is the hate or bile , he does not call for the killing of Jews.
As for the Holocaust , please reread your history , Jews and Christians died together in the prison camps. The holocaust was not a Jewish- Christian conflict, It was perpetrated by the hated Nazi party . the Holocaust aim was to wipe out what Hitler called the undesirables, which included people of every creed and religion. A majority of the people that were brutally exterminated were Jews , a significant minority included Christians .
It is very easy to stand in judgement of a person that lived 500 years ago and can no longer defend himself. .
My God bless you and yours
T
tabcom
Guest
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.
First, a clarification – Pall is not called a ‘disciple’ in the sense of a companion during a ministry. The term used is ‘apostle’ and it means missionary.
With respects to your question, Mr. Wells brings up the possiblilty that it wasn’t the Jesus of 32 or 37 AD that Paul was referring to. . .
"Alvar Ellegård, Emeritus Professor of English in the University of Göteborg, Sweden, has stressed the significance of these facts in his latest book, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ (London: Century, 1999). He argues that what was known of the person named as ‘Jesus’ in the Easter visions was, prior to those visions, some traditions about the Teacher of Righteousness who figures in Dead Sea scrolls written ca. 100 B.C. as a revered leader (not the Messiah, and not a supernatural personage) to whom God had made known all the mysteries of the prophets, and who had been severely persecuted. Whether he was an actual historical figure or largely a construction to give substance to his followers’ conception of the founder of their movement cannot now be determined. In any case, the Scrolls show that his memory was still treasured a century or more after his presumed death. What his followers thought they knew about him was that he had lived long ago and had been maltreated and persecuted probably dying as a martyr. It would be natural for those who knew, even indirectly, of what is said of him in, for instance, the Qumran Habakkuk commentary, to assume that the persecution eventually led to his martyrdom. The Scrolls do not name him – they avoid actually naming the sectarian personages (including the Teacher’s chief enemies) whom they mention but, as we saw, ‘Jesus’ would be an appropriate name to give to someone of such religious importance.[2] Ellegård’s case is that visions of the Teacher convinced Paul and others that he was more than what he appeared to have been on Earth in the past, and was in fact a heavenly figure – an idea reinforced by’ the Wisdom literature which told of a supernatural personage who had sought an abode on Earth, and, rejected, had returned to heaven. The visions gave an assurance that this heavenly figure was now preparing to descend to Earth for the last Judgement.
An important feature of Ellegård’s argument is that the Essenes, whose ideas about the Teacher are reflected in the Scrolls, were established not only in Palestine but also in the Diaspora, where Jews were numerous and where some of them developed religious ideas which were much more accommodating to their gentile environment. Certainly, the descriptions of the Essenes given by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria ca. A.D.20 and by Josephus ca. A.D.80 portray a much more open community than that of the Qumran Scrolls. The Jewish Diaspora also housed some important early Christian communities, and the notable similarity between Christianity and Diaspora Judaism is exemplified by Philo. Ellegård holds that the Essene branch of Judaism in the Diaspora was particularly important for Christian origins. He instances the Therapeutae – Philo said they existed ‘in many parts’ of the Empire – as a special contemplative section of the Essenes who were so close to Christian ideas that Eusebius and other Christian writers could regard them as Christians. Philo tells that they studied ‘the writings of the founders of their way of thinking’, so they will surely have known of the Teacher of Righteousness."
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
The concept that one is saved by faith alone is well supported in multiple places in Scripture, I don’t think that you can place that one solely at the door of Martin Luther saying it was because he added a word.
Let me restate this - tell me where he added the word, then we can examine ALL the passages in which the theme occurs, then we can decide whether not what you said is true.
Again, it would appear that you have made a statement with limited research, and have not tested its truth.
Is this another “tongue in cheek” statement?
A study of the history of the canon reveals that even Church Fathers disputed whether some books should make it into the Bible. Even the Catholic Church calls the disputed books the second canon (deuterocanon). I have been unable to trace the origin of this label, though many explanations are given about what the term “second” does not mean. Jerome, Origen, and many early scholars considered these books valuable for study, but not meeting the criteria of canonical scripture. We don’t know how they were included in the Latin Vulgate despite Jerome’s objections - did Jerome change his mind, or was he over-ruled?
There is much more that I could add, but it all adds up to this:
Saying that books were removed on a whim is a regrettable distortion of the facts, and shows either a complete lack of scholarship, or a complete lack of respect for the scholarship and integrity of those who have worked diligently to search for God’s truth.
Again, it does you no honour when you make such statements.
The first part is true, but the conclusion does not follow, because you have assumed that the text has been deliberately altered to change the meaning, an assumption for which you have not offered a single shred of substantiated evidence.And thus, millions of Christians were led into error.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
I am never sure when you are speaking “tongue-in-cheek”, and when you believe what you are saying.
I made no suggestion that the Apostles were “stupid”, unusually or otherwise.
What I did say was that they were largely uneducated, compared to Paul for example, and that they were steeped in Jewish tradition which made it difficult for them to understand Jesus’ Gospel.
The Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin were neither stupid nor uneducated, they knew the Old Testament as well as anyone could, they knew all the prophesies of the Messiah, they were expecting the Messiah, but they did not recognise Him when He came.
Their knowledge and expectations were a barrier to accepting the New Testament of Jesus, which replaced the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law.
When I said that interpretation was needed, this was the context: they had to unlearn much of what they thought they knew, they had to learn that the old covenant was not immutable, before they could accept the facts of the new covenant.
I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge this understanding, or show where it is in error, without resorting to sarcasm.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
I would prefer that you responded to my questions directly, rather than refer me to another source from which I could derive yet more confusion.Here is the clarification:
Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
Negation of Major Premise: Some God breathed things are sufficient
I recall giving you this link before, Re-read on 2.1.9 “negation of quantifiers”. Let me know if you have any questions…don’t let the symbols and math intimidate you, just gotta familiarize yourself with what they mean.
csee.umbc.edu/~stephens/203/PDF/2-1.pdf
I asked you to clarify some points made in plain language rather than syllogisms, could I ask you to respond in kind? If you cannot clarify your meanings in plain language, how can you expect me to understand the issues at hand?
Respectfully yours.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
I take your point, but I was using today’s anti-discrimination laws, not to impose today’s standards on history, but simply to illustrate the point that discrimination fosters hatred, and again, I emphasis the word fosters.
This is not new knowledge, evolved over the centuries, this has always been known, that discrimination leads to more discrimination, and left to simmer, will grow to hatred.
Because people ignore this spiritually, secular authorities have seen fit to legislate so that those not spiritually guided will know that it is wrong.
Jesus taught this, in His message to love one another, to not gossip, to not bear false witness, all those statements that were used to illustrate that if you truly understand what it means to love one another, you don’t really need commandments about stealing, honouring, coveting, etc, i.e. you do not need commandments telling you how not to harm your neighbour, you just need to know - do not harm at all.
Discrimination against people is evil, it contravenes the commandment to love one another. Jesus preached it, the secular community of the 20th Century realised it and passed laws, but somehow Pope Paul IV and his successors chose to ignore it.
Explain to me how placing restrictions on Jew-Christian interactions is not discrimination. Did Jesus Himself not commune with prostitutes, tax collectors, sinners, and non-believers of all kind? Can you explain why you suggest that it is acceptable for the Pope to ignore the example of Jesus in this instance? Do you really believe that this is appropriate behaviour, do you advocate it yourself?
Let me repeat, since it seems that I have not managed to communicate successfully, that I have not said anything about Pope Paul hating, or calling for the killing of Jews (at least I hope not, I was in error if I did). What I have said is that he wrote instructions that called for discrimination against the Jews, and as most people understand, discrimination fosters ( that word again) hatred.
You may argue against the point that discrimination fosters hatred, but it is unreasonable to contend that I have said anything about the Pope’s intentions regarding hate or killing, I said nothing about that, nor did I mean to imply that.
The written document DOES PROVE ERROR - the Pope intended to discriminate.
Now you may argue that discriminating against the Jews is not error, is not in contravention of God’s commandment to love one another - I am eager to hear defence on that issue.
What you say is true, and I apologise that I misused this event. What I was attempting to point out was that your contention that the Jews were not aroused to war over the Pope’s Papal Bull of 1555 is not evidence that they did not feel persecuted. I mentioned the Holocaust, yes, but I also mentioned the numerous other periods when the Jews were persecuted, yet no war ensued. Remove the Holocaust from the list, then re-examine my statement. Does it still hold true, or untrue?
… continued
2
2ndGen
Guest
The concept that one is saved by faith alone is well supported in multiple places in Scripture, I don’t think that you can place that one solely at the door of Martin Luther saying it was because he added a word.
No where in the scripture is the post 16th Century European Doctrine of Sola Fide found. No where. Absolutely no where. Not in The Holy Bible. Now, it may appear in post 16th Century “versions” of The Holy Bible, but only because those particular bibles were edited and modified to fit the needs of that particular sect.
Let me restate this - tell me where he added the word, then we can examine ALL the passages in which the theme occurs, then we can decide whether not what you said is true.
Again, it would appear that you have made a statement with limited research, and have not tested its truth.
I posted it already in that post. He added the word “alone” to scripture, then went on to brag about how he knew that the term “faith alone” never existed as a proof for Sola Fide (the term faith alone only exists in James 2 where it’s stated that faith alone “doesn’t” save one.
Quote:
Add unto that, removing complete books from The Holy Bible at their whim.
Is this another “tongue in cheek” statement?
The Septugaint.
A study of the history of the canon reveals that…Jesus Himself quoted from the books that the protestants first included in their “version” of The Holy Bible, then removed them, then added them back in, then removed them again, then finally included them in their bibles as “non-canonical” books (which always left a question in my mind…“if” their non-canonical, why put them back in? Were they wrong when they took them out or when they put them back in, because they couldn’t have been right for doing the two. They had to be wrong some time.
And besides, they chose the canon that the crucifiers and denyers of Jesus used that never existed in Jesus’ time. Their canon of The OT was created in 90AD at the council of Jamnia by The Pharisees.
The Universal Christian Church uses The Canon of The OT that existed 200 years before Jesus was born and that Jesus Himself not only used, but quoted extensively from.
2
2ndGen
Guest
I made no suggestion that the Apostles were “stupid”, unusually or otherwise.
Didn’t you state that the people of that time needed The Apostles because they didn’t have the benefits of experience that we have 2,000 years later and because they didn’t, they need special attention by The Apostles and we don’t need special attention by Church leaders? That they didn’t have the ability to discern for themselves that we have today?
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
Very true, it is very easy, particularly when they leave a document trail that serves as evidence of that judgement, but that does not make the judgement unfair, invalid, or untrue. Do we not judge people of history just because they are Popes? Do we judge the Spanish cruel for the Inquisition, but not the Pope? Do we judge Islam unfair for discriminating against the Jews, but not the Pope?
Sad as it may be, as tragic as we should recognise it to be, the fact remains that Pope Paul IV wrote a document, supported, encouraged, and extended by subsequent Popes, that called for discrimination of the Jews. If you claim that the document was his personal writings not intended for implementation, then explain why his successors repeated his act, and broadened its application.
If you claim that writing of discrimination is not intending discrimination in your heart, if you claim that intending discrimination in your heart is not contravening God’s law to love one another, if you claim that writing a public document is not inciting others to discriminate, if you claim that as Pope, the leader in faith and morals, inciting others to discriminate is not error and leading others into error, then sadly, I have no idea of what it is that the Catholic Church teaches, or wherein its commitment to the Gospels.
Let me try this another way, and here I’ll draw on the example of Jesus: construct a parable that contains all the key events that we are discussing here. Imagine a mythical kingdom with mythical spiritual leaders in a mythical age, thus removing any emotional attachment to the characters. Using the Gospels of Jesus as your reference, what would you make of the behaviour of the spiritual leaders, and what would that say to you about how much faith you should place in them?
Thank you, most sincerely, and might I add that He most definitely does that, every day, more so than I could ever deserve.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
You must be using a different dictionary to the ones I use.
“Stupid” implies unintelligent, slowness of understanding, senseless, nonsensical, in a state of stupor, deadened sensibility, etc.
Experience is something totally different, even the most intelligent and aware, non-stupid if you like, can lack experience.
My last post went further to explain that it was their existing knowledge and culture, not stupidity, that constrained their understanding. I stated that the educated Pharisees had difficulty understanding.
Even today, no matter how intelligent you may be, if you have a particular cultural background, or a predisposition to a particular belief set, you will have difficulty understanding a new belief.
In the context of Jesus’ Gospel, if you start without cultural baggage, you will have less difficulty understanding. If you care to educate yourself in the Old Testament, the covenant of God with the people of Israel, you will take a step closer to discerning the message of the Gospel.
The antonym of stupidity is intelligence.
But the issue is not intelligence, unless you have insufficient of it, the primary issue is one of education, and a lack of cultural baggage, and that is what I said, and that is what I will stay with.
W
WayneTalbot
Guest
Yes, you said that the first time, but you still did not say where, in which passage of Scripture did he add it. Tell me that so that I can check, and then compare it with Catholic approved Bibles to see whether his alleged addition changed the meaning of the text.
R
Romulus
Guest
You will like me to school you on “negation of quantifiers” to clarify??
Let us make sure we understand each other…you asked “All God breathed things are insufficient – what is included here?” I answered, “what ever you believe to be God Breathed”.
Let me know if we are on the same page so far.
R
Romulus
Guest
You all are talking about Luther’s Bible 1545 Romans 3:28
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:28;&version=10;
The german word “allein” is “alone” in English.
freetranslation.com/
2
2ndGen
Guest
Yes I did…“in” the post.
Romans 3:28
The word “alone” doesn’t exist there.
Again, the only time that the term “faith alone” is when stating that one is not saved through faith alone (James 2).
You’ll notice that only some of the versions based on The Holy Bible that were created after the 16th century have the word “alone” in them.
But then again, since it’s not the universal Christian Bible and just a “version” of it geared for a specific sect of Christianity, I really can’t judge their religion for allowing that. To each his own.
However, my original question was; How do you feel to know that Martin Luther added words to change the meaning of the text?
"This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions,
and not the actual Bible as the primary authority-
-a concept which this author will name prima Luther.
By “papists” he is condemning Roman Catholics,
but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars
(like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.
A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther
was the expression sola fide (faith alone).
But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of
supposedly having supposed scriptural justification
for his sola fide doctrine."
cogwriter.com/luther.htm
2
2ndGen
Guest
Where in The Holy Bible does it state that we are saved through “faith alone”?
Satan believes in Jesus,
is he “saved”?
I know where in The Holy Bible it states that we are “not” saved through faith alone:
======================================
James 2:
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?
(And if “that’s” not enough for ya’, here’s the rest of the teaching):
15
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
16
and one of you says to them,
“Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,”
but you do not give them the things which are needed
for the body,
what does it profit?
17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
But someone will say,
“You have faith, and I have works.”
Show me your faith without your works,
and I will show you my faith by my works.
19
You believe that there is one God.
You do well.
Even the demons believe—and tremble!
20
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
22
Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23
And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,
“Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
And he was called the friend of God.
24
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers
and sent them out another way?
26
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.
Satan believes in Jesus,
is he “saved”?
I know where in The Holy Bible it states that we are “not” saved through faith alone:
======================================
James 2:
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?
(And if “that’s” not enough for ya’, here’s the rest of the teaching):
15
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
16
and one of you says to them,
“Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,”
but you do not give them the things which are needed
for the body,
what does it profit?
17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
But someone will say,
“You have faith, and I have works.”
Show me your faith without your works,
and I will show you my faith by my works.
19
You believe that there is one God.
You do well.
Even the demons believe—and tremble!
20
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
22
Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23
And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,
“Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
And he was called the friend of God.
24
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers
and sent them out another way?
26
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Comparison of the scripture that tells us that we are “not” saved by faith alone:
You see that a man is justified by works
and not by faith alone.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You see that a person receives God’s approval because of what he does,
not only because of what he believes.
King James Bible
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.
American Standard Version
Ye see that by works a man is justified,
and not only by faith.
Bible in Basic English
You see that a man’s righteousness is judged by his works
and not by his faith only.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Do you see that by works a man is justified;
and not by faith only?
Darby Bible Translation
Ye see that a man is justified on the principle of works,
and not on the principle of faith only.
English Revised Version
Ye see that by works a man is justified,
and not only by faith.
Tyndale New Testament
Ye see then how that of deeds a man is justified,
and not of faith only.
Weymouth New Testament
You all see that it is because of actions that a man is pronounced righteous,
and not simply because of faith.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Ye see then that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.
World English Bible
You see then that by works, a man is justified,
and not only by faith.
Young’s Literal Translation
Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous,
and not out of faith only;
bible.cc/james/2-24.htm
James 2:24
New American Standard Bible (©1995)You see that a man is justified by works
and not by faith alone.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You see that a person receives God’s approval because of what he does,
not only because of what he believes.
King James Bible
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.
American Standard Version
Ye see that by works a man is justified,
and not only by faith.
Bible in Basic English
You see that a man’s righteousness is judged by his works
and not by his faith only.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Do you see that by works a man is justified;
and not by faith only?
Darby Bible Translation
Ye see that a man is justified on the principle of works,
and not on the principle of faith only.
English Revised Version
Ye see that by works a man is justified,
and not only by faith.
Tyndale New Testament
Ye see then how that of deeds a man is justified,
and not of faith only.
Weymouth New Testament
You all see that it is because of actions that a man is pronounced righteous,
and not simply because of faith.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Ye see then that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.
World English Bible
You see then that by works, a man is justified,
and not only by faith.
Young’s Literal Translation
Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous,
and not out of faith only;
bible.cc/james/2-24.htm
- Status