My Ex-nihilo Challenge

[GrayCat]

Oh ....this is too funny.

I leave this site for a couple months, come back, and this Thread is still going on exactly as it was when i left.

Did any time pass?


LOL :-D

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh ....this is too funny.

I leave this site for a couple months, come back, and this Thread is still going on exactly as it was when i left.

Did any time pass?


LOL :-D

I've got my own Heckle and Jeckle Fan Club. It used to consist of Moon[somebody] and Tanzanos, now I have Nathan Poe following me around.

Never a dull moment!

 

[GrayCat]

I've got my own Heckle and Jeckle Fan Club. It used to consist of Moon[somebody] and Tanzanos, now I have Nathan Poe following me around.

Never a dull moment!

And you still think Science should take a hike, i see. ;-)

And i get the feeling Nathan Poe might just be looking for FSTDT material in addition to debating... LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

And i get the feeling Nathan Poe might just be looking for FSTDT material in addition to debating... LOL

I don't doubt that one bit, GrayCat! I throw him a bone every once in awhile; but it looks like others grab it up!

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't doubt that one bit, GrayCat! I throw him a bone every once in awhile; but it looks like others grab it up!

Seeing as how you're not taking me up on the "Life of Jesus" challenge, I'd say the bone has no meat on it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Av, Consider the following:

The Gospel writers were Jewish, and their goal was to portray Jesus as the Jewish Messiah -- Their means to that end were to craft his life story to not only fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but to parallel, whenever possible, the events described in the lives of previous Jewish heroes from the sacred texts: Moses, David, Elijah, etc...

So, should we be all surprised that Jesus' recorded life (what little there is of it, anyway) "100% fulfills" OT prophecy, given that it was the intention of the authors to make his life do just that?

Now, the challenge: If I could show you that in so doing, the Gospel writers sacrificed historical accuracy, would you then agree that the prophecies are not 100% as you previously thought?

Come on, AV, don't let Heckle and Jeckle outsmart you -- again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, the challenge: If I could show you that in so doing, the Gospel writers sacrificed historical accuracy, would you then agree that the prophecies are not 100% as you previously thought?

You can't do that though --- Daniel gives the exact year of His birth.

In addition, there were prophecies fulfilled concerning Him that He had no control over; such as the one about the Roman piercing His side, or the visit by the Wise Men.

 

[Psudopod]

In addition, there were prophecies fulfilled concerning Him that He had no control over; such as the one about the Roman piercing His side, or the visit by the Wise Men.In addition, there were prophecies fulfilled concerning Him that He had no control over; such as the one about the Roman piercing His side, or the visit by the Wise Men.

It's written that they did these things. This is what Nathan is talking about. Don't you think there is a chance details were included because they were mentioned in the earlier profecies?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can't do that though --- Daniel gives the exact year of His birth.

The question was, if I can do it, would you accept a less than "100%" accuracy?

In addition, there were prophecies fulfilled concerning Him that He had no control over; such as the one about the Roman piercing His side, or the visit by the Wise Men.

Jesus has no control over these events, but you can bet your bottom blessing that the Gospel authors had plenty of control -- all I'm asking for is an open enough mind to entertain the possibility that these events could not have happened as they were written in the Gospels. Can you do it?

Incidentally, in the cases of the spear and the Magi -- it's interesting that you bring these two events up as examples. Don't you find it odd that each of these events are only mentioned in one out of four Gospels? (Spear in Luke, no other, Wise men exclusive to Matthew)

Seeing as how later writers built off earlier ones, wouldn't it seem plausible that certain details were added in, especially if they didn't exist in earlier texts, in order to make Jesus' earthly life seem more in line with prophecy?

Are you willing to explore this possibilty, at least far enough to refute it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's written that they did these things. This is what Nathan is talking about. Don't you think there is a chance details were included because they were mentioned in the earlier profecies?

It's hard to pencil in high-profile public events, such as His baptism, the visit by the Wise Men, and a crucifixion, if your aim is to create a false Messiah.

Both the Romans and the Jews could have stopped Christianity in its tracks, before it even got started.

In addition, a false messiah's false disciples wouldn't allow themselves to be martyred, unless they really believed in what they wrote and claimed.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question was, if I can do it, would you accept a less than "100%" accuracy?

If you could do it, I would have no choice but to accept it. Bear in mind that you have one doosey of a hurdle to clear --- our motto.

Jesus has no control over these events, but you can bet your bottom blessing that the Gospel authors had plenty of control --

Again, they wouldn't have let fake controls take them to an early grave, unless they really believed in what they wrote.

-- all I'm asking for is an open enough mind to entertain the possibility that these events could not have happened as they were written in the Gospels. Can you do it?

I'm all ears --- go for it --- make my day. But again, let me remind you: you have one giant hurdle to clear --- our motto; and I intend to make you yet again an example on a public forum (as I have so many people here) of how it works.

Incidentally, in the cases of the spear and the Magi -- it's interesting that you bring these two events up as examples.

There is no such thing in the Bible as "the Magi." They were called "wise men." But that's just my "warning shot" --- keep it King James ---

(You can tell I'm looking forward to this, can't you?)

Don't you find it odd that each of these events are only mentioned in one out of four Gospels? (Spear in Luke, no other, Wise men exclusive to Matthew)

Not at all. I conjecture they all wrote about the spear and the Wise Men. Their writings were then given to Luke, who collated the data and separated them into a gospel for the Jews (Matthew's), a gospel for the Romans (Mark's), a gospel for the Greeks (his own), and a gospel for John's audience (I can't remember who that is, right offhand).

Seeing as how later writers built off earlier ones...

Says you.

... wouldn't it seem plausible that certain details were added in...

Just the opposite --- they were filtered out. See my previous paragraph.

...especially if they didn't exist in earlier texts, in order to make Jesus' earthly life seem more in line with prophecy?

Back to my point about a fake martyr's complex: there is no such a thing.

Are you willing to explore this possibilty, at least far enough to refute it?

Absolutely --- go for it. But be assured, it's you who are going to get an education on my apologetic skills --- however strong or weak they may be.

I look forward to this.

 

[Psudopod]

It's hard to pencil in high-profile public events, such as His baptism, the visit by the Wise Men, and a crucifixion, if your aim is to create a false Messiah.

Both the Romans and the Jews could have stopped Christianity in its tracks, before it even got started.

I'm not saying their aim was to create a false messaih. In fact, if they genuinely believed in what they were doing, they'd have more reason to check their prophesies and make sure they tie up. it's very easy for someone's memories to be confused or lead. If one of the aposals was lookign at the phrophies before he wrote his gospel, he could have remembered things happening that did not actually take place. Eye witness accounts are actually notoriously unreliable, especially in traumatic situations.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you could do it, I would have no choice but to accept it. Bear in mind that you have one doosey of a hurdle to clear --- our motto.

Believe me, AV, I'm well aware of your motto -- soon to be your epitath.

Again, they wouldn't have let fake controls take them to an early grave, unless they really believed in what they wrote.

Wait just a minute there -- the Gospel writers taken to an Early grave? how do you know this?

I'm all ears --- go for it --- make my day. But again, let me remind you: you have one giant hurdle to clear --- our motto; and I intend to make you yet again an example on a public forum (as I have so many people here) of how it works.

So, you're already admitting a closed mind on this? No matter. Your motto is nothing more than words, and since you should most likely prepare to eat them, be thankful they are short and sweet.

There is no such thing in the Bible as "the Magi." They were called "wise men." But that's just my "warning shot" --- keep it King James ---

Fair enough -- I shall remember that it is only a very specific set of words you worship.

(You can tell I'm looking forward to this, can't you?)

For now -- but my prophecy still stands: You'll accuse me of blasphemy and /thread out as soon as the going gets tough.

Not at all. I conjecture they all wrote about the spear and the Wise Men. Their writings were then given to Luke, who collated the data and separated them into a gospel for the Jews (Matthew's), a gospel for the Romans (Mark's), a gospel for the Greeks (his own), and a gospel for John's audience (I can't remember who that is, right offhand).

Well, here's an interesting theory I'd never heard before: You're saying that Luke and Luke alone wrote all four gospels, one under his own name, and the other three under pseudonyms?

(BTW, just in case a literalist such as yourself gets the worng idea, I'm using "interesting theory" as a euphamism for "utterly absurd crock of bovine excrement." Wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea.)

Says you.

granted, it's not as exciting as the "Luke as single author" theory, but it works.

Just the opposite --- they were filtered out. See my previous paragraph.

Your previous paragraph hints that Luke decided that certain would-be followers of Jesus shouldn't, didn't need to, or didn't deserve to hear certain details of Jesus' life, ministry, and death.

Now, had Luke been inspired by God, God might have seen fit to warn Luke as to the utter futility of his editing, since all four accounts would eventually be compiled side-by-side, where they could be compared and contrasted.

An omniscient God might've tipped Luke off to that, and saved him the embarassment of a theological Epic Fail.

This would kind of take some of the plausibility out of your "interesting theory," wouldn't it?

Back to my point about a fake martyr's complex: there is no such a thing.

All martyrs are real if the hoi polloi think they're real -- I get it. Guess who's job it was to convince the people of this?

Absolutely --- go for it. But be assured, it's you who are going to get an education on my apologetic skills --- however strong or weak they may be.

Considering that thus far, your apologetic skills consist of either

• Chanting your motto ad nauseam, or
• Concocting "interesting theories" with no Biblical or hr historical support whatsoever

I'd say this won't be so much an education of your alleged "apologetic skills" as it is of your stubbornness and self-importance.

And believe me, the lesson isn't for my benefit.

I look forward to this.

Then let the games begin. Two Gospels claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem. You believe this because of your motto; I say it's part of the heroic myth.

As a gentleman, I'll give you the first round -- got anything besides your motto to support the Bethlehem story?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not saying their aim was to create a false messaih. In fact, if they genuinely believed in what they were doing, they'd have more reason to check their prophesies and make sure they tie up. it's very easy for someone's memories to be confused or lead. If one of the aposals was lookign at the phrophies before he wrote his gospel, he could have remembered things happening that did not actually take place. Eye witness accounts are actually notoriously unreliable, especially in traumatic situations.

Either it really happened, or they faked the happenings. Are you suggesting that they were so deluded that they sat down and collaborated with one another, making up stories about fake Roman guards, etc.? And the Jews believed them? Was Paul in on this too?

 

[Psudopod]

Either it really happened, or they faked the happenings.

Id this was the case we'd see more evidence outside of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, here's an interesting theory I'd never heard before: You're saying that Luke and Luke alone wrote all four gospels, one under his own name, and the other three under pseudonyms?

Did you even read what I wrote? Please go back and read it again --- more slowly.

-- got anything besides your motto to support the Bethlehem story?

No --- what more do I need? My job is to exalt the Gospels, not some extra-Biblical author. I don't care if the whole Library of Congress was full of writings on Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Id this was the case we'd see more evidence outside of the bible.

Keep looking.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Did you even read what I wrote? Please go back and read it again --- more slowly.

Ah, Luke edited all the Gospels -- still an "interesting theory."

No --- what more do I need? My job is to exalt the Gospels, not some extra-Biblical author. I don't care if the whole Library of Congress was full of writings on Jesus.

Now you see? All this time, I thought a Christian's job was to exalt Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you see? All this time, I thought a Christian's job was to exalt Christ.

LOL --- cute --- I was hesitant to word it that way --- hoping you wouldn't catch it, so I could make the point with more emphasis.

Let me rephrase: My job is to honor God's Word, not someone else's words about God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

LOL --- cute --- I was hesitant to word it that way --- hoping you wouldn't catch it, so I could make the point with more emphasis.

Never mind emphasis -- your point needs to be accurate (after being coherent) before it should be emphasized.

Actually, that's not necessarily true -- The Bible is a perfect example of emphasis over accuracy.

Let me rephrase: My job is to honor God's Word, not someone else's words about God.

And yet, by worshipping the Bible, you're doing exactly what you claim to want to avoid -- Jesus being God's Word, and the Bible being someone else's words about God.

(Actually, if we were to look a little deeper into the meaning of Logos, we'd see that not even the Christians are doing it right)