A confused atheist.

[hedrick]

Ha! I found the vulcans in enterprise the most irritating characters ever!

Overbearing to the extreme and the ultimate hypocrites.

However I also prefer t'pol to Spock. She was lovely (never thought I'd use that icon!)

I agree that they got played that way at times. However in the best accounts you can see that that's an unfair assessment. There are excellent historical and psychological reasons why Vulcan culture developed as it dd. Unfortunately the humans that write TV scripts have an infuriating sense that humans are the standard for the galaxy, so rather than being another equally legitimate approach to life, they end up portraying Vulcans as people who are really just like humans internally but are pretending to be something else. It's also really hard to get actors who can convincingly play people who are dramatically more mature and insightful than the actors themselves.

Of course Vulcans are not uniformly mature and insightful, as you can see from many of the actions of the High Command late in its lifetime. It's particularly unfortunate that this is the time period when human first started interacting closely with Vulcans. The High Command was insufferable to other Vulcans as well as humans. They came close to losing key parts of the Vulcan heritage permanently.

 

[socialisview]

well everything socrates and plato talked about was based on the bible. socrates had a god that nobody else in that society worshipped. my belief is love. i do not judge.

 

[socialisview]

well it took noah a hundred years to build the ark.

 

[Catherineanne]

well it took noah a hundred years to build the ark.

What the Bible does not tell us, however, is whether he left his grandfather out on purpose, or whether the old gentleman was already dead.

 

[chilehed]

No it wouldn't.

Remembering the broad brush strokes wouldn't fly in a court of law, details are critical in terms of getting the overall message right.

The question on the table is about the ability of the holocaust survivor to accurately testify, 60 years later, to the essential elements of what he saw in the camps. You’ve conceded that he can be expected to provide such accurate testimony.

Lawyers quibble over non-essential details only when the essential ones don't help their case. For the holocaust survivor the essential elements are that the Nazis raided his house, that he was in a death camp and that he's the lone survivor of his family. He might not remember word for word what the Gestapo officer said when he was arrested, but "You're under arrest" is close enough and anyone who wants to quibble about that merely shows the weakness of his case.

There is no reasonable way you can claim that his testimony isn’t about objective facts, because it refers to actual external events and not to his internal preferences.

Accurate testimony about an objective event is, by definition, objective.

Besides my point still stands - the people that wrote about Jesus had a vested interest in his story ie the were believers. Where are the documents describing Christ from outside his circle?

One thing at a time. At the moment I'm trying to deal with your claim that the written testimony from inside his circle is to be dismissed on the grounds that it was written down years after the events. Your concessions in the matter of the holocaust survivor have disproven that claim, and I'm just trying to see if you're willing to admit it.

 

[socialisview]

actually ya, enoch was transfered to heaven.

 

[Catherineanne]

actually ya, enoch was transfered to heaven.

I meant Methuselah. If you check the maths, he dies the same year as the flood, but we are not told how.

 

[socialisview]

thats his father. i guess he died of old age. mathulsulah was suppose to respresent something of destruction.

 

[Foolish]

It's a gift.



An Introduction to the New Testament, R Brown, Chapter 3

So Christians accept that there are Significant differences between the various versions of the bible and that Some of the dubious elements were removed.

Effectively no one knows what the original said.

 

[Foolish]

A court of law expects discrepancies between different witnesses. If you don't have discrepancies you can be sure of collaboration.

You might like to read up on Wittgenstein's Poker

Of course the people who write any story have an interest that motivates them to write - and other people to preserve that writing.

Josephus is the only major other contemporary writer detailing events in Jerusalem at that time. He's writing about the same time as Luke and has his own agenda. He mentions Jesus in passing because he doesn't see him as significant.

You need to realise just how sparse surviving writing on that period is in general, and in particular when it comes to Palestine. There are very few texts about Herod the Great or even Tiberius Caesar - massively prominent figures at the time. And each of those texts has an agenda.

As I've mentioned before; there's a significant chance that the references to Jesus in josephus' account were added by Christian scholars.

And the key difference between the NT and the accounts of Herod or Tiberius is that no one bases their life on herod. No one quotes Tiberius as though it has a divine meaning. No one bases their belief system on Herod and tries to influence governments in relation to their interpretation about what Herod would think about stem cell research or how he would favour one state above another.

 

[Foolish]

May I join the conversation? If a vested interest is "groups that seek to control a social system or activity from which they derive private benefit", a definition from WordWeb, how does this apply to the New Testament writers? Also, what do you consider "His circle"? Generally, His circle is considered the original apostles. If this is the case, Luke, Mark, Paul, and James were not in "His circle".

His circle were the people that believed he was the lord.

Their vested interests were that they dedicated their lives to his message. They were hardly objective is my point.

 

[ebia]

As I've mentioned before; there's a significant chance that the references to Jesus in josephus' account were added by Christian scholars.

scholars differ on their opinion on that (it kind of begs the question a bit), but that's beside the point in question, which is the scarcity of writing - that's the answer to your question "why isn't there a heap of non-Christian writing about him".

And the key difference between the NT and the accounts of Herod or Tiberius is that no one bases their life on herod. No one quotes Tiberius as though it has a divine meaning. No one bases their belief system on Herod and tries to influence governments in relation to their interpretation about what Herod would think about stem cell research or how he would favour one state above another.

again, that's not the question I'm answering.

Jesus is better documented than the emperor of the known world at the time of his death. That's the perspective things need to be kept in.

 

[ebia]

So Christians accept that there are Significant differences between the various versions of the bible and that Some of the dubious elements were removed.

Effectively no one knows what the original said.

The number of significant question marks is very small. Keep things in perspective - this is the best preserved set of ancient texts by a huge margin.

 

[Foolish]

The question on the table is about the ability of the holocaust survivor to accurately testify, 60 years later, to the essential elements of what he saw in the camps. You’ve conceded that he can be expected to provide such accurate testimony.

Lawyers quibble over non-essential details only when the essential ones don't help their case. For the holocaust survivor the essential elements are that the Nazis raided his house, that he was in a death camp and that he's the lone survivor of his family. He might not remember word for word what the Gestapo officer said when he was arrested, but "You're under arrest" is close enough and anyone who wants to quibble about that merely shows the weakness of his case.

There is no reasonable way you can claim that his testimony isn’t about objective facts, because it refers to actual external events and not to his internal preferences.

Accurate testimony about an objective event is, by definition, objective.


One thing at a time. At the moment I'm trying to deal with your claim that the written testimony from inside his circle is to be dismissed on the grounds that it was written down years after the events. Your concessions in the matter of the holocaust survivor have disproven that claim, and I'm just trying to see if you're willing to admit it.

Jesus is quoted in the bible. Do you believe these quotes are accurate?

Do you believe Jesus actually said those things?

We're talking remembering specific things here, not the general gist.

How can someone give an objective account of something that happens to him?

Definition of objective: a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. I can't believe that he would be uninfluenced by emotion after millions of my kin were exterminated. Or indeed if I were a devoted Christian I wouldn't be able to give uninfluenced testimony. Surely that's the very definition of a believer?

 

[Foolish]

scholars differ on their opinion on that (it kind of begs the question a bit), but that's beside the point in question, which is the scarcity of writing - that's the answer to your question "why isn't there a heap of non-Christian writing about him".


again, that's not the question I'm answering.

Jesus is better documented than the emperor of the known world at the time of his death. That's the perspective things need to be kept in.

Jesus was adopted as the empire's religion, so it's little surprise there's so much written evidence. The point remains that it's evidence written by biased believers and even that evidence has had changes made to it through to years.

Do you believe in Christ because you find the evidence of his divinity the most compelling?

 

[Catherineanne]

So Christians accept that there are Significant differences between the various versions of the bible and that Some of the dubious elements were removed.

Effectively no one knows what the original said.

That is not what the piece I quoted said at all; far from it.

For someone purporting to seek objectivity this is most bizarre; you don't even read objectively; you read with your own agenda firmly in place, and it colours your interpretation.

 

[Catherineanne]

Jesus is quoted in the bible. Do you believe these quotes are accurate?

Do you believe Jesus actually said those things?

We're talking remembering specific things here, not the general gist.

How can someone give an objective account of something that happens to him?

Definition of objective: a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. I can't believe that he would be uninfluenced by emotion after millions of my kin were exterminated. Or indeed if I were a devoted Christian I wouldn't be able to give uninfluenced testimony. Surely that's the very definition of a believer?

Yes, the Lord said those things.

The books of the NT are written by believers for believers, to encourage them in their faith. The believers who write are telling what they know, for certain, to be true. We then take what they say, try it for ourselves, and find it to be equally true for us. None of us relies on a collection of ancient books; our faith is a living faith, in a living God, with Christ himself as our foundation. Not just the Christ of the Bible, but the one we each know in our own lives.

Whether you call Scripture objective is really neither here nor there. The NT was not written to convince atheists 2,000 years later to change their minds; it was never intended as a prostelysing book, but as a book of encouragement for those who already believe.

Asking it to be the book you want it to be instead is really not going to work. You might as well complain that the collected works of Leo Tolstoy are not a recipe book, or a guide to the internet. We all have to accept the Bible for what it is.

 

[ebia]

Jesus was adopted as the empire's religion,

not until hundreds of years later. We are talking about documents written and preserved while the movement was small and persecuted. The emperor cult at the time doesn't give us the texts about its emperors.

What you are demanding by way of textual evidence is anachronistic - it doesn't connect with the reality of the time.

The point remains that it's evidence written by biased believers and

all such texts are written by people with an agenda. Josephus (for instance) had just much of an agenda in writing his histories. Texts are not written by dispassionate objective observers.

even that evidence has had changes made to it through to years.

small discrepancies that are able to be tracked because of the volume of manuscripts. I repeat - these are the best attested ancient documents on existence by a huge margin. We know where the discrepancies are and they don't change anything significant.

Do you believe in Christ because you find the evidence of his divinity the most compelling?

I find the evidence for the resurrection so compelling that I would have to take the rest really seriously.

 

[chilehed]

Jesus is quoted in the bible. Do you believe these quotes are accurate?

Do you believe Jesus actually said those things?

We're talking remembering specific things here, not the general gist.

How can someone give an objective account of something that happens to him?

Definition of objective: a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. I can't believe that he would be uninfluenced by emotion after millions of my kin were exterminated. Or indeed if I were a devoted Christian I wouldn't be able to give uninfluenced testimony. Surely that's the very definition of a believer?

Is there a reason you don't want to deal with this in a disciplined manner? Jumping from one topic to another without being willing to critically examine them one at a time harms your credibility.

The holocaust survivor specifically remembers the objective fact that he was arrested, was sent to a death camp, and that his entire family was murdered there. You've conceded that his testimony can be accurate even after 60 years, and it's the accuracy of the testimony that's important. That's what I've been meaning by objective: it's an accurate account of an external event. Subjective would be an account of an internal event: I experience chocolate as tasting better than durian, for example.

So you must concede that the objection which you've raised, and that I'm addressing right now (that testimony necessarily must be disregarded if it speaks of past events), has been disproven because you yourself have admitted that it's false.

 

[hedrick]

So Christians accept that there are Significant differences between the various versions of the bible and that Some of the dubious elements were removed.

Effectively no one knows what the original said.

I'm not sure about significant. Lot of minor differences. A few larger ones, e.g. phrases present in one textual tradition but not another. I've looked at a few of the differences. I've never seen one that mattered, where it wasn't pretty clear which reading is original (e.g. 1 John 5:7–8). What dubious elements are you thinking of?

I don't think I've ever been involved in a disagreement where it turned out that the source was differences in the NT text. It certainly comes up when you're looking at the interpretation of a single text. But Christians typically don't set doctrine or ethical standards based on a single passage.

I'm a bit more concerned about the differences in perspectives among the authors. While I don't accept the view you'll sometimes see that Paul contradicts Jesus at every turn, there is certainly a difference in approach. But between Paul and the Synoptics I don't think there's any real question which is more likely to correspond to Jesus' views.

But we have the same debates about what Luther and Calvin really meant, what the framers of the Constitution meant, and just about everything else that matters. People are really good at finding their own interpretations of things. I'm afraid all you're seeing is that the Church is human.

The fact that God turned over Jesus' mission to this very human process is interesting, but if you look at how Jesus taught, he wasn't focused on precise theology or ethical rules. He tended to focus on intention, and also tended to deal with people in a way that encouraged them to react personally. If he had really wanted precise agreement, there are things I think he would have done differently. But I do think there are better and worse interpretations of Jesus, and between what we know of the 1st Cent Jewish context and Jesus teachings, I'm pretty confident about at least the right general approach.