Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[seer]

Yeah...well...that's pretty much the problem, right? Your understanding is based on your interpretation and you're turning to others who think like you to affirm (or perhaps slightly tweak) your interpretation. And all of those interpretations are of a set of books for which we have no original copies (if memory serves, the first full copy of the NT we have is a codex from the 4th century that is actually a translation of the original texts), little firm knowledge of authorship, and they were written in another time, another culture, and another language. And from this we get to "absolute" truth?

I did not say they tweaked my understanding, often I was shown to be wrong. And so what, we don't have the original copies of many ancient tests. Does that mean that we throw out Caesar's Gallic Wars or Herodotus' Histories? Where we have more texts and closer to the originals for the New Testament than either of those two. Never mind the earlier NT quotations of the early Church Fathers.

Without a great deal of circular and/or magical thinking, I don't see how that case can be made. It's the basic reason I don't base my life/beliefs on a book - or collection of books.

Thanks for sharing...

[rogue06]

We both know the truth! Just embrace it!

That I'm suave, debonair, and devastatingly handsome? It's a burden I've had to bear for decades

But that would explain why you'd be envious.

[seer]

That I'm suave, debonair, and devastatingly handsome? It's a burden I've had to bear for decades

But that would explain why you'd be envious.

I bow to your fossil pirate face!

[Littlejoe]

I had to come back to this. It seems basic, but it was nagging me.

We know that without shedding of blood there was no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22), and in context, that was blood of animals. But Heb. 10:4 said it was impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins. So what was really the point?

The covenant God made with Israel to allow animal sacrifices to cover their sins, was of course temporary until Christ came to make it permanent. Before the Cross, God used the blood of animals to cover it up, (bury it) so that it was not "in the way" so to speak. Christ's blood did away with the sin completely...so that was the purpose. A bridge if you will, to get us from buried, to destroyed.

We know from Hos. 6:6, quoted twice in Matt., that God "desire(s) chesed, not sacrifices."

We know from Gal. 3 that no one was justified by the Law -- by its sacrifices, or any part of it. Justification/righteousness has always been by faith.

I'd never really wrestled with this before.

Many scholars think the Hebrew word "chesed" is what Paul was trying to define in Gal 5:22-23 "the fruits of the Spirit." Because there was no single Greek word that encompasses it's meaning.

[NorrinRadd]

Your observation here is somewhat refreshing. I seldom hear people who use the bible as their basis acknowledge that there is a balancing act that goes on whenever a person reads and interprets a text, especially one that is being turned to for guidance in behavior or belief. That is further complicated in the case of the bible by the circumstances of the book itself (i.e., multiple authors, multiple times, lack of source materials, etc.). I wish there was a way to run an experiment to uncover how much a person's interpretation and selection of passages is related to their pre-existing ideas and priorities, and simply serves to re-affirm them. Alas, I know of no such experiment or data.

FWIW, several of my beliefs have changed since I was born again in 1980, and they continue to evolve.

[carpedm9587]

I did not say they tweaked my understanding, often I was shown to be wrong. And so what, we don't have the original copies of many ancient tests. Does that mean that we throw out Caesar's Gallic Wars or Herodotus' Histories?

Seer, historians don't claim "absolute truth." They recognize that copies of copies of originals separated by decades and centuries from the events they describe weaken the claims and raise questions. Most historians would raise an eyebrow at a historical fragment from decades/centuries after the events reported that claim to report the exact words spoken by someone, beyond a few statements or brief quotes. Historians recognize that history is inexact, subject to the biases of the historian or documenter, and are always prepared to revise in the light of new evidence. This is not what those who base their religious beliefs on the writings of the bible tend to do - especially the more conservative or those of a more "fundamentalist" persuasion.

Where we have more texts and closer to the originals for the New Testament than either of those two. Never mind the earlier NT quotations of the early Church Fathers.

We have lots of fragments, lots of languages, lots of "corrections" over the years, and not enough to support an assertion of being able to make "absolute" claims to "absolute" truths. That requires, as I said, either circular or magical thinking. From all of these pieces we can come to the same kind of general conclusions we can come to about other historical events: Jesus lived. He was most likely crucified. His followers believed he was resurrected. Indeed - what we know is Jesus through the eyes of his followers decades after his life. That lens always has to be considered - which is what true historians do.

Thanks for sharing...

Always happy to impart...

[carpedm9587]

FWIW, several of my beliefs have changed since I was born again in 1980, and they continue to evolve.

I suspect I'm safe in saying that mine have also evolved significantly since my "born again" experience - which was back in the early 1970s.

It's good to be open to new perspectives and new ideas. The alternative is to become staid and fixed in our thinking. I tip my hat, ma'am...

[seer]

Seer, historians don't claim "absolute truth." They recognize that copies of copies of originals separated by decades and centuries from the events they describe weaken the claims and raise questions. Most historians would raise an eyebrow at a historical fragment from decades/centuries after the events reported that claim to report the exact words spoken by someone, beyond a few statements or brief quotes. Historians recognize that history is inexact, subject to the biases of the historian or documenter, and are always prepared to revise in the light of new evidence. This is not what those who base their religious beliefs on the writings of the bible tend to do - especially the more conservative or those of a more "fundamentalist" persuasion.

Except I don't see many historians questioning the general accuracy or reliability of texts concerning Julius Caesar. And the fact is the New Testament has many more manuscripts closer to the originals. :https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...esus-compared/


And there is arguably more Scholarship concerning the New Testament than any other ancient manuscript. The problem with Scripture is not its historicity, but what is in it. The claims.

We have lots of fragments, lots of languages, lots of "corrections" over the years, and not enough to support an assertion of being able to make "absolute" claims to "absolute" truths. That requires, as I said, either circular or magical thinking. From all of these pieces we can come to the same kind of general conclusions we can come to about other historical events: Jesus lived. He was most likely crucified. His followers believed he was resurrected. Indeed - what we know is Jesus through the eyes of his followers decades after his life. That lens always has to be considered - which is what true historians do.

There you go. There are about five different family of New Testament texts with different pedigrees and they all agree on the major points, the Sonship of Christ, His death and resurrection, the majority of miracles, and the majority of His teachings. And so what if we get much of this info from his followers? Does that mean they lied or invented these claims? And I think if a friend you knew died came back to life that would be something you would never forget - no matter how many years went by.

[JimL]

The covenant God made with Israel to allow animal sacrifices to cover their sins, was of course temporary until Christ came to make it permanent. Before the Cross, God used the blood of animals to cover it up, (bury it) so that it was not "in the way" so to speak. Christ's blood did away with the sin completely...so that was the purpose. A bridge if you will, to get us from buried, to destroyed.

Do you really think a god, any god, would require us to sacrifice animals for sins we committed. Christs sacrifice doesn't make any more sense than did animal sacrifices.

Many scholars think the Hebrew word "chesed" is what Paul was trying to define in Gal 5:22-23 "the fruits of the Spirit." Because there was no single Greek word that encompasses it's meaning.

Well, god really doesn't require anything in christianity, since you are all sinners anyway, you need only believe to be saved. Right? I mean, you're a christian right, and you sin from time to time, right, so ultimately, no matter how many times you falter, as long as you believe, you're in, correct?

[seer]

Do you really think a god, any god, would require us to sacrifice animals for sins we committed. Christs sacrifice doesn't make any more sense than did animal sacrifices.

Just a side note, it seems that blood sacrifice, even human sacrifice, to a god or gods was fairly universal even with cultures that had no known connection. One wonders why these ancient cultures came to a similar belief: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

[NorrinRadd]

I suspect I'm safe in saying that mine have also evolved significantly since my "born again" experience - which was back in the early 1970s.

It's good to be open to new perspectives and new ideas. The alternative is to become staid and fixed in our thinking. I tip my hat, ma'am...

Ahem!

[Tassman]

This is where you, again, demonstrate your profound ignorance, and your determination to show your anti-Christian hostility, Tass.

No, this is where YOU again demonstrate your profound denial and your determination to show your hostility towards non-theists.

You seem to be incapable of comprehending that "some people" (or even MANY people) acting out of their own greed, does not represent the organization as a whole, particularly with regards to that organization's official policies and beliefs.

By “many people acting out of their own greed” you are presumably (given the context of the discussion) referring to the entire Southern Baptist Convention.

The Southern Baptist Convention never endorsed a bad interpretation of scripture to justify slavery.

You’re in denial: “The Southern Baptist Convention came into existence because Baptists in the South wanted to have the ability to serve as missionaries and, at the same time, own slaves. When war finally came, the Southern Baptist Convention became an enthusiastic supporter of the Confederate nation and the institution of slavery”.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...aptist_Beliefs

But my overall argument, of which the SBC attitude towards slavery is a case in point, is that Christians have a long history of interpreting scripture to accommodate the social values of the day. This has included the role of women in the past and currently LGBT rights.

And I'm the one who brought up the misrepresented "curse of Ham" that you subsequently tried to use as proof of your idiotic claims.

I didn’t bring that up at all, although the link did. And it's not an "idiotic claim" as you charmingly suggest, because it has been used by Christian racists to discriminate against blacks, as I’m sure you are aware.

[rogue06]

Seer, historians don't claim "absolute truth." They recognize that copies of copies of originals separated by decades and centuries from the events they describe weaken the claims and raise questions.

It is always strange how some historians have no trouble accepting as accurate accounts written a few decades after an event except when it comes to the Bible. Only then are the accounts met with extreme skepticism.

Most historians would raise an eyebrow at a historical fragment from decades/centuries after the events reported that claim to report the exact words spoken by someone, beyond a few statements or brief quotes.

In a culture that heavily relies on transmitting information through oral accounts and highly motivated to memorize what someone had said such jaundiced skepticism is largely unwarranted -- especially when dealing with accounts that are only a few decades old. That is because there are still a large number of eyewitnesses around and if the person transmitting the words and accounts were getting it wrong they would quickly be denounced as inaccurate and would not have been widely accepted as genuine so quickly.

[carpedm9587]

Except I don't see many historians questioning the general accuracy or reliability of texts concerning Julius Caesar. And the fact is the New Testament has many more manuscripts closer to the originals. :https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...esus-compared/

I am familiar with history's take on Julius Ceasar's general activities (i.e., wars fought, edicts issued, manner of death, etc.). I am not familiar with historical claims about his daily activities. I'm also not familiar with any historical claims to knowing large blocks of spoken word that were never written down at the time they were spoken. Perhaps they exist and I do not know about them?If so, I'd like to find them so I can review them. It's not the sources that are the primary issue, IMO. It's the nature of the claims made by the sources. When they can be externally validated by other sources, they are accepted with "more likelihood of being true." But no historian I know of ever says, "we know it happened this way with certainty and the claims made by the histoircal figure are absolutely true."

And there is arguably more Scholarship concerning the New Testament than any other ancient manuscript. The problem with Scripture is not its historicity, but what is in it. The claims.

Sorry - but I'm just not impressed. I've sat in on some of those classes reviewing that scholarship. I find they fall in two camps: those with a theological position (and sometimes an ax to grind) looking to affirm that theological position, or true historians approaching the text the same way other historical texts are approached. With only one exception I know of, they end up recognizing that the bibles tell us a great deal about what the early Christian community believed, and their activities, but Jesus himself is seen through the distorted lens of that community's evolved theology/beliefs.

There you go. There are about five different family of New Testament texts with different pedigrees and they all agree on the major points, the Sonship of Christ, His death and resurrection, the majority of miracles, and the majority of His teachings. And so what if we get much of this info from his followers?

That is the point, Seer. Independent sources are just that: independent. They do not have a connection that might account for their alignment. The more of these we have, the greater our confidence. So if we have a written description of a volcano eruption, and then we find the volcano and archaeological studies affirm the information in the written description, confidence in the accuracy of the written description rises. Indeed, that confidence can sometimes extend to other claims in the document that are NOT supported by secondary evidence, because the author has demonstrated their accuracy.

But the sources for the life of Jesus ALL arise from within the community that followed him. They are linked by that theology. Some facts of the time (rulers, major events, etc.) are affirmed by secondary sources, but virtually nothing about the details of Jesus's life. And the accuracy of the specific words he spoke that were heard at particular events and then documented decades later? There is no other parallel in history that I know of where people claim that long speeches that were heard spoken in one place (never mind conversations between two people) were documented and accepted as historically accurate. At best, they are accepted as reflecting in theme the message(s) the claimed speaker most likely commonly shared. But no historian I know of says, "these were his actual words." That's a unique phenomenon to the bible, as far as I know.

Does that mean they lied or invented these claims?

They don't have to lie or invent to be wrong, Seer. Many Christian denominations look at the claims made about Joseph Smith - both word and deed - and take them with a grain of salt. Indeed, there is much evidence that he was a huckster. But there is an entire body of people who fervently believe the stories as absolutely true. They are not lying. They are not "making it up." They have bought into a theology that predates them. As with Jesus' followers, that movement started small, found roots within a community it initially was part of and then split from. The world is full of people who will accept a message (positive or negative) for whatever their reasons are. That acceptance does not mean the message is true.

And I think if a friend you knew died came back to life that would be something you would never forget - no matter how many years went by.

The problem, Seer, is we have precious little evidence of that happening. We don't have ironclad information about authorship. We don't have ANY original texts. What we have are collections of stories, and writings of a few proselytizers. We don't know their motivations. We don't know "what happened" with any level of certainty. We have an entire theology built on assumption and speculation, and then claiming to be in possession of "absolute truth."

As I have said many times, you cannot get to "absolute truth" without a great deal of circular or magical thinking. We all reach a point in our beliefs where we are forced to circularity, as we have discussed previously. The question is, are we engaging in circularity before we actually have to? I would say the circular/magical thinking associated with the bible is the type engaged in before we absolutely have to. I have to assume that my experience of the world is real. I have essentially no alternative - so there is my circular-thinking point. I do not have to assume that the writings of the bible are true and accurate. It is unnecessary circular/magical thinking.

[carpedm9587]

Ahem!

Oops...

Your profile clearly says "male." I have no idea why I have always "seen" you as female.

Mental adjustment made - with apologies.

I tip my hat... sir....