Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58
  1.    #41  
    BTW theBlaze,74

    Thank you for enagagin on this. I find the insight you are providing here most helpful.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm not trying to prove my faith. In fact, I was confessing that while an author can write in the third person, that possiblity is not proof that this was the case in John.

    It was a concession.
    Cool, I didn't offer it as proof either.

    I only meant that this is also not proof of anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    According to his writing, he lived at the same time as Jesus.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    BTW theBlaze,74

    Thank you for enagagin on this. I find the insight you are providing here most helpful.
    Same here, it's something I have in common with George W, we both admire Jesus
  4.    #44  
    In your reading, have historians adddressed the notion that thouh the messianic claims are considered spurious, the biblical ext is still considered a good source for general information about Jesus?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    In your reading, have historians adddressed the notion that thouh the messianic claims are considered spurious, the biblical ext is still considered a good source for general information about Jesus?
    Again, they have and do (the microscopic particles analogy).

    Think of it this way, imagine a different ancient text, the author of which believed in a Sun and a Lightning god for example. An historian would not have to believe in the lightning god in order to examine the text from an historical perspective, and treat descriptions of words and day to day historical events with any credibility.
  6.    #46  
    I was a little (a lot) slow on this. I suppose a source like the Qaran corroborates his existence, his deeds and significant status in the society while raising question of claims to deity or messiahship.

    Is this a proper example?
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I was a little (a lot) slow on this. I suppose a source like the Qaran corroborates his existence, his deeds and significant status in the society while raising question of claims to deity or messiahship.

    Is this a proper example?
    I am not sure specifically which books are acknowledged / included by Islam, but to Muslims, Jesus is a prophet on par with Mohammad and I think Abraham, or was it Moses, I am not sure.

    I would bet Muslims do not consider Jesus to be a liar nor a God.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    In your reading, have historians adddressed the notion that thouh the messianic claims are considered spurious, the biblical ext is still considered a good source for general information about Jesus?
    I also would not say that the Bible is "repleat" with Jesus' claims of being the Messiah, and that I am simply discounting them all. Remember once again where the texts came from, and who translated them, and when. Historians including Crossan are translating from the earliest known version with an understanding of the cultural context.

    The text you pasted here looks something like King James.
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I also would not say that the Bible is "repleat" with Jesus' claims of being the Messiah, and that I am simply discounting them all. Remember once again where the texts came from, and who translated them, and when. Historians including Crossan are translating from the earliest known version with an understanding of the cultural context.

    The text you pasted here looks something like King James.
    The accuracy of the king james translation is easily verifiable given the manuscripts are available. That notwithstanding, I have begun to uncover rebutal to Crossan's conclusions. Perhaps it would be of value to assess.

    This article references some of those earliest known versions considered viable by Crossan. The article, "Jesus and the “Earliest” Sources: An Answer to John Dominic Crossan" was written by Dennis Ingolfsland in 2003:

    Jesus was a “peasant Jewish Cynic,” who never thought of Himself as the Jewish Messiah, much less the Son of God or the Savior of the world. This is the view held by John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, reputed to be one of the world’s leading experts on the historical study of Jesus.1 According to Crossan and others who share his view, Jesus was simply an itinerant preacher who taught that the kingdom of God had to do with how the world would be run if God sat on Caesar’s throne. Jesus’ ministry had nothing to do with helping people find God, salvation, or heaven.

    In the past 10 years, Crossan has written numerous books and articles about Jesus2 and has appeared in several videos,3 debates,4 and teleconferences.5 He has also appeared on numerous television programs including the ABC prime-time special entitled, “The Search for Jesus,” Discovery Channel’s “Jesus: The Complete Story,” and the PBS Frontline program, “From Jesus to Christ.”6 If the members of your church or class have not been exposed to Crossan’s teachings, it is likely that they will be.

    Because Crossan’s view of Jesus is so different from the historic Christian view of the Jesus of the Gospels, we need to be prepared to give a response to church members, students, and those to whom we witness who have been exposed to Crossan’s “scholarship.”
    click here to read full article
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The accuracy of the king james translation is easily verifiable given the manuscripts are available. That notwithstanding, I have begun to uncover rebutal to Crossan's conclusions. Perhaps it would be of value to assess.

    This article references some of those earliest known versions considered viable by Crossan. The article, "Jesus and the “Earliest” Sources: An Answer to John Dominic Crossan" was written by Dennis Ingolfsland in 2003:

    click here to read full article
    Well sopharim, of course there would be a rebuttal to Crossan's books whether they were well founded or not. Let's face it, those who worship Jesus would never allow their faith to be shaken by the facts. That is why they call it faith.

    With respect to the King James version of the Bible, yes it is easy to check. That is why so many have, and pointed out that it is a translation, of a translation, of an earlier translation of an oral tradition, not to mention that it makes my eyes cross when i try to read it
  11. #51  
    By the way, I am reading the article now, I can see that it is from something called the Christian Research Journal. Also the tone seems negative and critical, and Crossan's books are not. The article seems to miss Crossan's reverence and passion for Jesus.

    The article also refers to Crossan as "one of the world’s leading experts on the historical study of Jesus".
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well sopharim, of course there would be a rebuttal to Crossan's books whether they were well founded or not. Let's face it, those who worship Jesus would never allow their faith to be shaken by the facts. That is why they call it faith.
    Not sure which smiley to use or In either case, That is not what biblical faith is!
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    With respect to the King James version of the Bible, yes it is easy to check. That is why so many have, and pointed out that it is a translation, of a translation, of an earlier translation of an oral tradition, not to mention that it makes my eyes cross when i try to read it
    lol
  13. #53  
    Well what would you say if presented with concrete evidence that there is no God? Give up your faith? Or might you consider the possibility that the evidence was planted by demons for example. Or by satan? Might Satan not use his powers to plant doubt in our minds? Hiding bones from Homo Habilis for example? To trick us out of our faith?
  14. #54  
    I've finished reading your article. I wasn't aware that Crossan had appeared on the 3 documentaries mentioned. I've moved the discovery channel one (Jesus - The Complete Story) to the top of my netflix cue, and asked them to order the PBS Frontline episode. If not, I will buy it, and "share" with anyone interested. I don't know where to look for the ABC one mentioned.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well what would you say if presented with concrete evidence that there is no God? Give up your faith? Or might you consider the possibility that the evidence was planted by demons for example. Or by satan? Might Satan not use his powers to plant doubt in our minds? Hiding bones from Homo Habilis for example? To trick us out of our faith?
    I suppose that it depends in part on what your conception of God is. I have not believed in a biblical God (one that is masculine, distinct from creation, involved in human history, preferring of one group, cult, race, nation or religion over any other, vengeful, or demanding of adoration) or a "personal" God since I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the other myths.

    Instead, I believe that the universe is the creator made manifest. I cannot imagine how one might go about demonstrating that the Universe does not exist.

    (Yes, I understand that some religions, and all religions to some extent, teach that it is all just an illusion. If so, it is such a miraculous illusion, so immense, elegant, consistent, and coherent, that it hardly makes any difference. It just really beats the hell out of all the stories that we puny humans tell about it or the myths and metaphors that we use to explain it.)
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/16/2006 at 03:03 PM.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well what would you say if presented with concrete evidence that there is no God? Give up your faith? Or might you consider the possibility that the evidence was planted by demons for example. Or by satan? Might Satan not use his powers to plant doubt in our minds? Hiding bones from Homo Habilis for example? To trick us out of our faith?
    I tend to be very imaginative, yet I am unable to imagine the existence of concrete evidence. Be that as it may, when I encounter information that calls into question my current beliefs, I examine it in an effort to determine if I find it a more suitable foundation upon which to stand than my current base.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    That is not what biblical faith is!
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well what would you say if presented with concrete evidence that there is no God? Give up your faith? Or might you consider the possibility that the evidence was planted by demons for example. Or by satan? Might Satan not use his powers to plant doubt in our minds? Hiding bones from Homo Habilis for example? To trick us out of our faith?
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I tend to be very imaginative, yet I am unable to imagine the existence of concrete evidence. Be that as it may, when I encounter information that calls into question my current beliefs, I examine it in an effort to determine if I find it a more suitable foundation upon which to stand than my current base.
    Well apart from being the exact opposite of the Scientific Process (starting out with a conclusion, and continually swapping in new justification to support that conclusion), our 2 statments are not too far off are they?

    1.) Refusal to change the conclusion. (wouldn't really be faith without this one would it?)

    2.) Considering and adopting new justification for said conclusion. (At first the world was flat, with the sun and moon circling, demonic possession before we had psychology, adam and eve and all the animals 2 by 2 before we understood the evolution of biodiversity.)

    And again, couldn't supernatural justifications come in to play, ie, australopithecines fossils being planted by demons or Satan for example?

    By the way, I am currently reading a book By Daniel Dennet, about the biological evolution of Religion itself.
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well apart from being the exact opposite of the Scientific Process (starting out with a conclusion, and continually swapping in new justification to support that conclusion), our 2 statments are not too far off are they?
    Do you actually see this concept in my response, or is this what you figure a religious person would say? I did not start with a conclusion. I have reached a conclusion--recognizing that conclusion is somewhat of a misnomer in that it suggests that the investigation has ended. I have constantly upgraded my beliefs. I have not swapped in new justifications, but have reached new "conclusions"
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74

    1.) Refusal to change the conclusion. (wouldn't really be faith without this one would it?)
    Faith is the conclusion. Faith is a jury's verdict. It is a conclusion reached based on evidence presented. Faith is not jeopardy--an answer looking for a question.

    Granted, one can draw in incorrect conclusion from the evidence. But there is a distinction between that versus drawing a conclusion without evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    2.) Considering and adopting new justification for said conclusion. (At first the world was flat, with the sun and moon circling, demonic possession before we had psychology, adam and eve and all the animals 2 by 2 before we understood the evolution of biodiversity.)

    And again, couldn't supernatural justifications come in to play, ie, australopithecines fossils being planted by demons or Satan for example?
    Again my unlearnedness is showing. I am unclear on the point you are making here.

    I realize I did not state specifically that I would change my beliefs having been presented "concrete evidence." In as much as you were presenting a hypothetical (which in times past several on the forum have suggested was an impossibility to prove or disprove), I did not see it necessary to state what I would do, but found it more meaningful to share how I operate in actuality.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/17/2006 at 07:19 AM.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions