Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Persons who exhibited beliefs in miraculous events, such as the raising of the dead, turning water into wine [an accomplishment credited to Dionysus], accepting the apotheosis of human beings, the resurrection of the dead, or of individuals being visited by, or hearing the voice[s] of, supernatural entities [e.g. Mohammed and Paul] would, in today's world, be more the concern of psychiatrists.
    Ignoring the fact that the divinity of Jesus is not an example of apotheosis, no one has been committed to mental care simply because they exhibit religious beliefs. I guess scoring points with your fellow skeptics feels pretty good though.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Ignoring the fact that the divinity of Jesus is not an example of apotheosis
      Straightaway you define "the divinity of Jesus " as a "fact". It is not a "fact" it is a belief premised on later Christian theological constructs which were enshrined in Christian dogma and creeds.

      Furthermore many beliefs are not premised on factual evidence.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      , no one has been committed to mental care simply because they exhibit religious beliefs.
      That might depend on how far the individual takes their religious experiences.

      Of course many quite rational people believe in some form of Supreme Being, although in your religion many liberal Christians do not accept the inerrancy and literalism of the NT texts and and various Christian beliefs.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
        1 Corinthians 7: 1 Now in response to the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman.”

        Do you think Paul said this as if he believed it?
        That translation is an interpretation of the problem and not what was written.

        There is a Hebrew Proverb behind the actual saying in question, Proverb 6:29, "So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent."

        The saying in question, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

        The gentile Corinthian Christians were not correctly understand it.

        So Paul explained, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
        Last edited by 37818; 06-25-2020, 09:11 AM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Straightaway you define "the divinity of Jesus " as a "fact". It is not a "fact" it is a belief premised on later Christian theological constructs which were enshrined in Christian dogma and creeds.
          You might want to read my statement again, because you completely bungled the parsing of it. I didn't state that the divinity of Jesus is a "fact" (although I certainly believe it is), I said that it is a fact that the divinity of Jesus is not an example of apotheosis.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Furthermore many beliefs are not premised on factual evidence.
          That's true of completely mundane beliefs as well and is neither unique, nor especially characteristic for supernatural/religious beliefs compared to mundane beliefs.


          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          That might depend on how far the individual takes their religious experiences.

          Of course many quite rational people believe in some form of Supreme Being, although in your religion many liberal Christians do not accept the inerrancy and literalism of the NT texts and and various Christian beliefs.
          That's true, though I'm not really seeing the relevance.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I said that it is a fact that the divinity of Jesus is not an example of apotheosis.
            What would you call it? More to the point how would a pious first century ascetic Galilean Jew regard it?

            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            That's true of completely mundane beliefs as well and is neither unique, nor especially characteristic for supernatural/religious beliefs compared to mundane beliefs.
            Now who is "bungling"? Where did I state it was solely in reference to religious beliefs?

            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post

            That's true, though I'm not really seeing the relevance.
            The point being that my original remark was intended to be lighthearted. Many rational individuals do accept some form of Supreme Being but it does not follow that, particularly for your religion, they all believe in an inerrant and infallible bible.

            Christianity appears to me to be something very much in the eye of the beholder. Christian belief runs the gamut from the zealous YEC with his/her conviction that every word in the Bible is the word of god and that those texts are inerrant and infallible to laypersons and theologians who take a far more prosaic view of those texts and who do not accept the literalism ofvarious myths and miracles.

            Many NT scholars have [or had] religious beliefs. However, they do not permit their beliefs to colour their academic work. Some academic theologians are less objective.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              What would you call it? More to the point how would a pious first century ascetic Galilean Jew regard it?
              I would call it an incarnation. How a first century Galilean Jew (ascetic or not) would regard it would depend partly on whether they responded positively or negatively to the words of Jesus, and partly on how exactly they understood those words.

              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Now who is "bungling"? Where did I state it was solely in reference to religious beliefs?
              My "bungling" was based on a reasonable inference that you were speaking mainly about religious beliefs because that's what the context of your posts so far was suggesting.

              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              The point being that my original remark was intended to be lighthearted. Many rational individuals do accept some form of Supreme Being but it does not follow that, particularly for your religion, they all believe in an inerrant and infallible bible.

              Christianity appears to me to be something very much in the eye of the beholder. Christian belief runs the gamut from the zealous YEC with his/her conviction that every word in the Bible is the word of god and that those texts are inerrant and infallible to laypersons and theologians who take a far more prosaic view of those texts and who do not accept the literalism ofvarious myths and miracles.

              Many NT scholars have [or had] religious beliefs. However, they do not permit their beliefs to colour their academic work. Some academic theologians are less objective.
              True, and it cuts both ways (and I'm not saying you're claiming otherwise). Secular/non-believing NT scolars are no less likely to be biased in their conclusions than their religious peers.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                You appeared to consider that my comment was"amateurish". The Nestle-Alan NA28 uses the MSS that are extant. None of these are original MSS, as we do not have those original MSS. We are therefore relying, as I wrote earlier, upon copies of copies of copies with all the attendant scribal errors etc. I recommend Peter Cresswell's The Invention of Jesus: How the Church rewrote the New Testament on this issue.
                I can't find any Internet debates between Peter Cresswell and tectual analysts. Do you?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  I recommend Peter Cresswell's The Invention of Jesus: How the Church rewrote the New Testament on this issue.
                  It seems odd to me that you would recommend a book from a non-expert in the field, and one with some rather controversial beliefs to boot, rather than from a recognized expert in the field.

                  Comment


                  • However, he is not the only individual engaged in the study of the NT. Metzger and Ehrman, as well as Goodacre [to name but three] have spent much time on those texts.
                    DID they write reviews on the book?
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                      DID they write reviews on the book?
                      As far as I can tell it seems to have gone by largely unnoticed by scholars in the field of textual criticism in general. They do not seem to have interacted very much, if at all, with Cresswell. I'm trying to come up with a reason why someone should even consider buying this book, but I'm not really coming up with any reasons that would be good enough. If someone wanted a to read a book about textual criticism that tried to argue for significant and impactful scribal corruption (intentional and accidental) one would be far better served reading something from Ehrman, because even if he tends to overstate his case on occasion, at least he's an expert in the field.

                      Comment


                      • I had to dig quite a bit on Google last night...there is a Peter Cresswell, a British immunologist and professor at Yale, who keeps coming up first in the results.

                        THIS Cresswell is out of Cambridge. Not sure yet if he teaches there.
                        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          As far as I can tell it seems to have gone by largely unnoticed by scholars in the field of textual criticism in general. They do not seem to have interacted very much, if at all, with Cresswell. I'm trying to come up with a reason why someone should even consider buying this book, but I'm not really coming up with any reasons that would be good enough. If someone wanted a to read a book about textual criticism that tried to argue for significant and impactful scribal corruption (intentional and accidental) one would be far better served reading something from Ehrman, because even if he tends to overstate his case on occasion, at least he's an expert in the field.
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          It seems odd to me that you would recommend a book from a non-expert in the field, and one with some rather controversial beliefs to boot, rather than from a recognized expert in the field.
                          Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                          I can't find any Internet debates between Peter Cresswell and tectual analysts. Do you?
                          Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                          DID they write reviews on the book?
                          Cresswell’s work is well researched and very interesting. He has also written for the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, published by McMaster Divinity College. Nor is he the only academic working in this area.

                          If you are all trying to insinuate that this is an unreliable work then I recommend you read it for yourselves and then decide. You may not agree with his conclusions or theories but that is another matter.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                            DID they write reviews on the book?
                            I can't find anyone of any merit who has reviewed this book. Only reviews from Amazon:

                            "It never ceases to amaze me how the normal criteria for the credibility of someone proclaiming something about a certain academic field is thrown out the window if they can make a wild accusation about Scripture. The accusations in “The Invention of Jesus” are just that, accusations. The publisher themselves tell us Cresswell applied “deep interpretation”. I have never heard that phrase before and I have spent all my life in historical, biblical, theological and ancient language studies. After reading this book I think I have figured out what “deep interpretation” means. It means a person's personal biasses applied to materials outside the norms of study. In other words, this book is a phony academic study that began with a bias and set out to prove it. But hey, we are talking about the Bible and everyone knows its all baloney any way. Right?"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Cresswell’s work is well researched and very interesting. He has also written for the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, published by McMaster Divinity College. Nor is he the only academic working in this area.

                              If you are all trying to insinuate that this is an unreliable work then I recommend you read it for yourselves and then decide. You may not agree with his conclusions or theories but that is another matter.
                              I would have expected him to debate someone like Daniel B. Wallace if he is so proud of his work, but nothing.

                              You seem to always pick books that attack Christianity and then believe they are true.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                                I would have expected him to debate someone like Daniel B. Wallace
                                Why?


                                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                                You seem to always pick books that attack Christianity and then believe they are true.
                                I do not "believe they are true". Unlike yourself mine is not a matter of faith. However, I hold that the various academic works I have cited in recent days make valid points.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                58 responses
                                300 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,523 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X