You can’t be a good Christian and a good Democrat

[Logicman]

The primitive men who wrote the bible were homophobes. What a surprise.

That's stupid.

I guess next you'll say that anyone who disagrees with pedophilia has a phobia with that also?

Get a new dog.

 

[zyzygy]

That's stupid.

I guess next you'll say that anyone who disagrees with pedophilia has a phobia with that also?

Get a new dog.

I will not be saying that. It occurred to you to say it. We are discussing adult sexuality.

 

[Somerville]

There's way too much evidence for the Gospel accounts to try to kick them all under the bus.

Really? Where might I find such "evidence"? Theological justifications do not constitute "evidence".

 

[Logicman]

Really? Where might I find such "evidence"? Theological justifications do not constitute "evidence".

I'd recommend you attend some apologetics classes at Dallas Theological Seminary and do some serious study, but I doubt you would have an open mind to embrace it.

 

[Somerville]

I'd recommend you attend some apologetics classes at Dallas Theological Seminary and do some serious study, but I doubt you would have an open mind to embrace it.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of apologetics: noun - a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.

"serious study" is the path which has led many away from religious beliefs.

By referring to Dallas Theological Seminary, you show that neither you nor any other person who agrees with the following "Doctrinal Statement" is willing to accept or even to consider actual evidence which might contradict your personal beliefs - that is not the way academic historical studies are carried out.

One does not say they know the truth BEFORE they begin an examination of past events.

Full Doctrinal Statement (for Seminary faculty and board)

Article I—The Scriptures
We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error. We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him.

The red words tell the rational that the faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary is not allowed to use what are viewed in academia as standard historical methods for the examination of events described in the Bible. Why would I write this? Because the faculty is required to agree with and put their signatures on this statement every year of their employment at the seminary.

Oxford University philosopher, historian, and archaeologist, R. G. Collingwood, in his 1946 publication, The Idea of History wrote the following description of what he called "theocratic history":

History of this kind I propose to call theocratic history; in which phrase ‘history’ means not history proper, that is scientific history, but a statement of known facts for the information of the persons to whom they are not known, but who, as worshippers of the god in question, ought to know the deeds whereby he has made himself manifest.
(. . .)
In theocratic history humanity is not an agent, but partly an instrument and partly a patient, of the actions recorded. Moreover, these actions are thought of as having definite places in a time-series, as occurring at dates in the past. (pgs. 14-15)

Collingwood's argument is that this "theocratic history" is little more than mere assertions of the supposed knowledge that the writer of this style of 'historical' writing possesses, gained through revelations and not as a physical witness of the events being described. This 'history' is acquired not as the answers to questions to witnesses, nor is it the result of any research by its author.

 

[RAMOSS]

I'd recommend you attend some apologetics classes at Dallas Theological Seminary and do some serious study, but I doubt you would have an open mind to embrace it.

That is the last place that anybody who want credibility to go. Well, maybe the ABC college or liberty university would be worse.

 

[zyzygy]

Studying the bible for knowledge. Now there's a novel concept.

 

[Somerville]

The primitive men who wrote the bible were homophobes. What a surprise.

From what I've read on the subject, it wasn't as much homophobia as it was an argument against the religious prostitution found in some of the ancient religions. The Hebrew words used in Leviticus, which are translated as “whore” and “sodomite” are the female and male versions of the Hebrew word for sacred prostitute (qedesha and qedosh).

Though conservative scholars deny the possibility, some Jewish academics see the relationship between King David and Jonathan, described in 1 and 2 Samuel, as homosexual love.

(1 Samuel 18:1-3) NRSV
When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.

When Jonathan is killed fighting the Philistines on Mount Gilboa, David laments

(2 Samuel 1:26) NRSV
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful,
passing the love of women.

.

If one reads 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, you will see yet another contradiction in the tales being told. There's also the fun fact about David does with the Amalekite who brings Saul's crown and armband to him.

1 Samuel 31:3-4
3 The battle pressed hard upon Saul; the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by them. 4 Then Saul said to his armour-bearer, ‘Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, so that these uncircumcised may not come and thrust me through, and make sport of me.’ But his armour-bearer was unwilling; for he was terrified. So Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.

A story that doesn't quite agree with the one in 2 Samuel

2 Samuel 1:5-10
5 Then David asked the young man who was reporting to him, ‘How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan died?’ 6 The young man reporting to him said, ‘I happened to be on Mount Gilboa; and there was Saul leaning on his spear, while the chariots and the horsemen drew close to him. 7 When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, “Here, sir.” 8 And he said to me, “Who are you?” I answered him, “I am an Amalekite.” 9 He said to me, “Come, stand over me and kill me; for convulsions have seized me, and yet my life still lingers.” 10 So I stood over him, and killed him, for I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.’

 

[zyzygy]

From what I've read on the subject, it wasn't as much homophobia as it was an argument against the religious prostitution found in some of the ancient religions. The Hebrew words used in Leviticus, which are translated as “whore” and “sodomite” are the female and male versions of the Hebrew word for sacred prostitute (qedesha and qedosh).

Though conservative scholars deny the possibility, some Jewish academics see the relationship between King David and Jonathan, described in 1 and 2 Samuel, as homosexual love.
When Jonathan is killed fighting the Philistines on Mount Gilboa, David laments.

If one reads 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, you will see yet another contradiction in the tales being told. There's also the fun fact about David does with the Amalekite who brings Saul's crown and armband to him.



A story that doesn't quite agree with the one in 2 Samuel

Jesus never married and this was in a time when it was the norm.

 

[RAMOSS]

Jesus never married and this was in a time when it was the norm.

And how do you know that?? It doesn't say in the bible, one way or another.

 

[Logicman]

That is the last place that anybody who want credibility to go. Well, maybe the ABC college or liberty university would be worse.

What would you know? You don't have an objective basis for right and wrong. Yours is subjective.

 

[Logicman]

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of apologetics: noun - a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.

"serious study" is the path which has led many away from religious beliefs.

Quite the opposite.

y referring to Dallas Theological Seminary, you show that neither you nor any other person who agrees with the following "Doctrinal Statement" is willing to accept or even to consider actual evidence which might contradict your personal beliefs - that is not the way academic historical studies are carried out.

One does not say they know the truth BEFORE they begin an examination of past events.

I've spent some 40 years examining the evidence, and it's solid as a rock. I've looked at every argument you've made against the Gospels, and time and time again you come up short.

The red words tell the rational that the faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary is not allowed to use what are viewed in academia as standard historical methods for the examination of events described in the Bible. Why would I write this? Because the faculty is required to agree with and put their signatures on this statement every year of their employment at the seminary.

When you've found the truth you stick by it.

Somerville, you've had a number of years now to bust the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Try as you might, you've not even come close to putting a dent in it. I'm not aware of any successful argument you or anyone who thinks like you, has made against it.

 

[zyzygy]

And how do you know that?? It doesn't say in the bible, one way or another.

Surely it would have been mentioned if he'd taken the plunge?

 

[zyzygy]

Quite the opposite.



I've spent some 40 years examining the evidence, and it's solid as a rock. I've looked at every argument you've made against the Gospels, and time and time again you come up short.



When you've found the truth you stick by it.

Somerville, you've had a number of years now to bust the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Try as you might, you've not even come close to putting a dent in it. I'm not aware of any successful argument you or anyone who thinks like you, has made against it.

The resurrection has to be proven. Can you bust the stories about miracles in other religions?

 

[RAMOSS]

What would you know? You don't have an objective basis for right and wrong. Yours is subjective.

Because, there is this thing known as 'confirmation bias', and when it comes to 'confirmation bias', you can see the DTS has it in reams because of their 'statement of faith'. That's point one. Point two is that the theologicans that publish from the DTS always are at the extreme conservative of theological opinion, well outside the mainstream biblical scholarship. They reject considering any information that does not agree with their preconceptions. That causes them to use bad history to try to promote and 'prove' their claims about the the historical dating of the various books in the bible. So, yes, there is an objective basis for rejecting what the DTS says.

 

[RAMOSS]

Surely it would have been mentioned if he'd taken the plunge?

Why? The only reference to Jesus before his ministry was some claims from Luke, which was a bit from his childhood, and then there is a mysterious gap until his ministry. now, the luke reference goes to when he's maybe 12.. and has not joined the ranks that the adults (which happens at 13 when they can be part of a minyan), till his ministry at about 30. That's more than half his life that is undocumented from the bible, including the time frame where someone would first get married.

Many marriages were arranged. It wasn't until after the temple was destroyed that there was an influx of more men not getting married, since they couldn't afford taking care of a wife.

 

[Logicman]

Because, there is this thing known as 'confirmation bias', and when it comes to 'confirmation bias', you can see the DTS has it in reams because of their 'statement of faith'. That's point one. Point two is that the theologicans that publish from the DTS always are at the extreme conservative of theological opinion, well outside the mainstream biblical scholarship. They reject considering any information that does not agree with their preconceptions. That causes them to use bad history to try to promote and 'prove' their claims about the the historical dating of the various books in the bible. So, yes, there is an objective basis for rejecting what the DTS says.

When you can prove the resurrection wrong then you'll have a leg to stand on.

By the way, if there's any bias around, it's yours against the New Testament. And there's nothing objective or correct about that bias.

 

[zyzygy]

When you can prove the resurrection wrong then you'll have a leg to stand on.

By the way, if there's any bias around, it's yours against the New Testament. And there's nothing objective or correct about that bias.

How would you go about disproving a myth?

 

[RAMOSS]

When you can prove the resurrection wrong then you'll have a leg to stand on.

By the way, if there's any bias around, it's yours against the New Testament. And there's nothing objective or correct about that bias.

Until you show show that the resurrection is physically possible, and is more than just a story, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Somerville]

Quite the opposite.



I've spent some 40 years examining the evidence, and it's solid as a rock. I've looked at every argument you've made against the Gospels, and time and time again you come up short.



When you've found the truth you stick by it.

Somerville, you've had a number of years now to bust the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Try as you might, you've not even come close to putting a dent in it. I'm not aware of any successful argument you or anyone who thinks like you, has made against it.

Every reply you have posted shows us that you have not actually "studied" the history of the Christian faith, rather you have rather obviously read nothing but those texts which provide confirmation for the beliefs you held prior to opening that first book. I don't mean the Bible when I write "first book", though you may believe that is the only one you need to read in order to "prove" it all happened.

How can anyone "bust the resurrection" when there is no physical evidence for the existence of the being you worship, much less that such a being was executed and placed into the tomb of a wealthy Jew. A wealthy Jew who was supposedly a member of the same sect, the Sanhedrin, which is blamed for the execution. We have nothing but belief, faith that the words we can read today were written by men who were promoting a new religion, are actually true recitations of events which took place in Roman Judaea during the First Century.

 

[Logicman]

Every reply you have posted shows us that you have not actually "studied" the history of the Christian faith, rather you have rather obviously read nothing but those texts which provide confirmation for the beliefs you held prior to opening that first book. I don't mean the Bible when I write "first book", though you may believe that is the only one you need to read in order to "prove" it all happened.

How can anyone "bust the resurrection" when there is no physical evidence for the existence of the being you worship, much less that such a being was executed and placed into the tomb of a wealthy Jew. A wealthy Jew who was supposedly a member of the same sect, the Sanhedrin, which is blamed for the execution. We have nothing but belief, faith that the words we can read today were written by men who were promoting a new religion, are actually true recitations of events which took place in Roman Judaea during the First Century.

How can you have physical evidence for a resurrection, LOL? The disciples saw, felt, and ate with him, though. Now your job is to try to do what you cannot do, and make them all out to be liars or charlatans. Good luck.

 

[it's just me]

I thought liberals were into drugs, rock & roll, and free sex. That doesn't sound Christ-like. Sorry, I had to yank your chain again.

The one constant about "liberals" is that they are not liberal.

 

[zyzygy]

How can you have physical evidence for a resurrection, LOL? The disciples saw, felt, and ate with him, though. Now your job is to try to do what you cannot do, and make them all out to be liars or charlatans. Good luck.

The disciples did not write the so-called synoptic gospels. Good luck with proving that Jesus did all those miracles and came back to life.

 

[RAMOSS]

How can you have physical evidence for a resurrection, LOL? The disciples saw, felt, and ate with him, though. Now your job is to try to do what you cannot do, and make them all out to be liars or charlatans. Good luck.

The claim is the disciples saw him, flet and ate with him. I don't see any evidence that is more than a story. None of the writings we have can be shown to be from the disciples themselves. The gospels attributed to the various disciples can not be shown to have been written, and indeed, there is plenty of internal evidence that shows they were not.

 

[Daisy]

A number of of early non-Christian sources name Jesus in their writings...Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger...even the Talmud says that on “the Passover Yeshu {Jesus] the Nazarean was hanged,” which is historically correct...Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Munich Codex; see John 19:14-16

Another states: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public like the Nazarene”—a title often applied to Jesus.—Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 17b, footnote, Munich Codex; see Luke 18:37

And then there are the eye-witness accounts of the gospels in the Bible...just because they did not write about their experience immediately after the fact, that does not make their account any less true...