Showing our weaknesses

arj1981

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2003
1,305
14
✟1,843.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
All the experts agree that the canon was formed as a result of removing books from the bible, etc. Most tend to agree that the text doesn’t offer a lot of definitive answers either...

There’s actually no blind faith here. Everything he says actually corresponds with my Christian textbook.

My Christian textbook even stated amongst conservative Christian scholars there's no clear consensus amongst who wrote the Pentateuch

All we can do is offer our best guess or our own hypothesis for the most part. That's basically what all of our best scholars are doing.


People have a right to pick and choose what they want to believe in for the most part bc there aren’t that many well-established absolutes in Christianity, so I can see why someone would choose one route over another. For instance, at least with Islam it is well documented that their Prophet PBUH is real. He was a real live human being and that’s never been called into question. Christianity is a different story though. The debates over Jesus Christ whether he was a living person or did he live but if all of those miracles were just attributed it to him after death, etc will continue to rage on til the end of time. Based on the non-scriptural evidence I can now see why other people are on the fence about that. That’s the point I am making. The protestant church just decided to pick and choose what verses and books they wanted to keep in their Bibles and which ones they wanted to toss out so everybody has that freedom from my perspective.

If that doesn’t make logical sense then it seems to me you are choosing to consciously ignore the varying and conflicting perceptions on everything Bible – from experts, scholars, textbooks, preachers, pastors, etc.

If archeologists, experts and biblical scholars agree that the Bible is nothing more than a book of fragmented parts in which a lot of it can’t be validated beyond a few strong hypotheses...

There aren’t that many absolutes here. True and historical research proves this. ...The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated." Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851

... Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version.
An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version


Because Christian scholars have varying perceptions that often times conflict with each other. So I was asking to see what was the point you were making. I mean, there’s no one universal answer to a lot of these questions within our religion. It all depends on how you look at it.

Again, these are my words in context.

By no means does the mere presence of contradictory books diminish the scholarship, or truthfulness of Habermas' book. And Dr. Habermas does not simply project an opinion but looks very closely at the historical record, both biblical and secular, to establish his view. [Like no other scholar does that! Give me a break.]
I think I am trying to get across to you the exact same concept but you aren’t listening to a word I am saying or your eyes are just bad (very bad). By no means does this one scholar’s book or opinion diminish the truthfulness and expertise of the next biblical scholar who might disagree with some of his findings. I said it from the very beginning, ....Christian scholars have varying perceptions that often times conflict with each other.... I never said nothing was trustworthy. I just said based upon my research it all depends on the source/information you choose to trust on an individual basis. You are free to pick and choose whose opinion you value over another.

What's the point in offering it? If its just your opinion, and just "one in a sea of many," why shouldn't we all do with your opinion what you seem to suggest ought to be done with Dr. Habermas' book and simply dismiss it? If you believe you have nothing more than an utterly subjective perspective to offer, why is it worth offering at all? We've all got our own opinions, so why ought we to consider yours? Do you begin to see the problem with consigning everything people say to the realm of simple opinion?
You must be a very short man bc everything I am saying continues to fly straight over your head. I am saying we all – whether scholars or laymen, whether Christian or secular, whether black or white, etc – are just offering an opinion on this philosophical issue (even Dr. Habermas) bc based on my personal research so many (too many, in fact) experts
agree that a lot of the physical evidence is inconclusive. Again, you are free to do with my opinion what you wish. How can I stop you? Why would I care? At the moment, your rationality and your arguments have shaped up to be one of the weakest I’ve ever come across in a long time.

No, you did far more than express your preference! You were criticizing those who were more absolute in their approach to things. The phrase, "sticking their heads in the sand" that you used implies willful ignorance and is plainly derogatory. You also declared that they were "out of touch with reality" and were "ignoring reality." This doesn't sound the least like you have an open-minded attitude toward such people. Not at all!
Absolute about what? Being ignorant? They are more absolute in their lack of understanding for sure. Such as: if we have constant dependence on Him and His leadings and not the scholastic arguments of our own brains (check quote in sig), He will continue to guide us. And you are doing nothing but preaching heresy bc my protestant KJV/NIV Bible says so. And none of the books of the Bible were edited whatsoever...even though the Catholic bible proves the exact opposite. Biblical scholars, on the other hand, are far more absolute in their understanding overall – period. Therefore, I would rather glean wisdom from them over anything or anyone else.

I am in seminary. I am learning all of these things from a conservative Christian college and a conservative Christian textbook which I posted images of in a previous thread. Biblical scholars don’t react irrationally or fly off at the handle anytime you go to speak. Wonder why? Maybe it is bc they actually put the time in to do the research first before they speak. And the bible says, "12Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; 13the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness. (Ecclesiastes 10:12) I think scholars are the ones to be commended (after all, they are considered the authority figure in this field) and not the other way around. In the words of Shakespeare, “thou protest too much” and it reveals nothing more than inferior intellect, whereas there is an air of civility and mutual respect amongst biblical scholars. There's no accusatory inquisition or empty threats of expulsion simply bc one expresses a difference in opinion.


In fact, the canon of Scripture was not so much decided upon as it was simply formally acknowledged;
the biblical canon wasn't so much determined as it was discovered. There were also a set of standards to which each book was held in proving it to be worthy of being part of the canon.
Which one is it? Was there a set of standards to determine which books belonged in the canon or was it purely discovered? These statements make no sense. They are contradictory. Regardless, all of google would disagree with the former. How was the canon formed (aka determined)?

Textual criticism (or "lower criticism" as it is sometimes called) examines the twenty-thousand plus extant ancient manuscripts of Scripture and from them pieces together with an extremely high degree of accuracy what the original text of the Scripture actually was. Higher criticism looks at the origins of the Bible, not necessarily the accuracy of the text of the Bible itself. Check out the following link for more info on biblical textual criticism:
I knew this is what you were saying but I may have worded it wrong and I didn’t feel like causing further confusion by going back and forth so I asked you to elaborate on it. This is stuff I will eventually get to in seminary but so many questions come to mind after reading that article. First, this entire discussion has been on the entire bible, not just the New Testament. Secondly, don’t you think there’s one huge misstep in the Aunt Sally example that this author didn’t take into account? Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The person who originally wrote the recipe is alive and cogent and can probably recall most of it from memory without needing to look at another copy. We don’t have that luxury when it comes to century-old manuscripts. Thirdly, I personally have never questioned the deity or existence of Jesus Christ during this discussion or in RL. Fourth, from what I googled, there are just as many skeptics of text reliability as with everything else I’ve mentioned earlier.

Lastly, how does this preclude personal interpretation on an individual/philosophical level? Short answer: it doesn’t. People will continue to pick and choose exactly what they want to believe. Again, that’s another point I’ve been making this entire time. Here’s Islam’s stance on
NT Textual Criticism and you agreed that everyone has a right to their own opinion. That link states: Throughout the book Parker argues that texts changed (and perhaps were even penned originally by the evangelists in such a way as to deviate from the oral tradition) in order to accommodate new situations by church communities. Even the link you provided constantly reiterated the fact that there were well over hundreds of thousands of fragmented bits of text which were discovered over centuries of time which scholars used to piece the bible together, again, over centuries of time.

This article goes onto state
: Textual reliability and number of manuscripts does not mean that the Bible is reliable historically. No one is arguing that textual reliability = historical reliability. But as noted at the beginning, one cannot suggest that the history recorded by a text is accurate unless the text itself is accurately recorded.

Food for thought, if this method is so reliable how come within the Christian community alone, we can’t even pin down
Christ’s birthday? But many scholars believe that the reference to 25 December is a late correction of the date actually stated by the author (31). The author's date may be preserved in a single manuscript which curiously contradicts itself by giving two dates: both 25 December and 2 April (32). For two reasons, it is likely that 2 April is the original reading.

Long story short, since we are all thousands of years removed from the actual events themselves, no one can say for sure what actually did or did not take place. I’ve been saying that from the very beginning. All and all this was a good talk. However, after this post, I will be out of pocket for the next few days bc I have tests to study for and papers to write for school. Hope everyone enjoys their holiday. God bless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You are becoming increasingly personal in your posts. More and more you are offering opinions about what you think of me personally and my motives for writing. I'm not interested in being the target of your ad hominem attacks. Please desist in making them. Thanks.

I think I am trying to get across to you the exact same concept but you aren’t listening to a word I am saying or your eyes are just bad (very bad).
My eyes are fine, thanks. And I am listening. How are your eyes and ears, since we are on the topic?

I said it from the very beginning, ....Christian scholars have varying perceptions that often times conflict with each other.... I never said nothing was trustworthy. I just said based upon my research it all depends on the source/information you choose to trust on an individual basis. You are free to pick and choose whose opinion you value over another.
Uh huh. It sounds here like you're saying that a thing is trustworthy only if the individual assessing that thing thinks it is. Is this right? I can see a problem or two with that kind of thinking. Can you?

You must be a very short man bc everything I am saying continues to fly straight over your head.
Here's one of those personal remarks I was writing about. Feel free to leave these sorts of comments out of our discussion. I am of average height, by the way. These kinds of remarks make you seem very defensive and short-tempered.

I am saying we all – whether scholars or laymen, whether Christian or secular, whether black or white, etc – are just offering an opinion on this philosophical issue (even Dr. Habermas) bc based on my personal research so many (too many, in fact) experts agree that a lot of the physical evidence is inconclusive.
The matter of the historicity of Christ is not a philosophical issue. Its one of historical fact. Maybe before you assume Dr. Habermas is "just offering an opinion," you should read his book.

Again, you are free to do with my opinion what you wish. How can I stop you? Why would I care?
Well, if you care so little about how others respond to your opinion, why offer it in the first place?

At the moment, your rationality and your arguments have shaped up to be one of the weakest I’ve ever come across in a long time.
Funny, I was thinking pretty much the same thing about what you've been writing...

Absolute about what? Being ignorant? They are more absolute in their lack of understanding for sure. Such as: if we have constant dependence on Him and His leadings and not the scholastic arguments of our own brains (check quote in sig), He will continue to guide us.
All of this is a deflection from the point of my comments about your close-minded view of those you think "avoid reality" and "stick their heads in the sand."

Biblical scholars don’t react irrationally or fly off at the handle anytime you go to speak.
Well, that's nice, I guess...

In the words of Shakespeare, “thou protest too much” and it reveals nothing more than inferior intellect.


Another personal attack - and a very rude one, too. My intellect is just fine, thanks - your nasty comment notwithstanding. I doubt you'll be able to see this, but of the two of us your protests are far greater.

In fact, the canon of Scripture was not so much decided upon as it was simply formally acknowledged;
the biblical canon wasn't so much determined as it was discovered. There were also a set of standards to which each book was held in proving it to be worthy of being part of the canon.
Which one is it? Was there a set of standards to determine which books belonged in the canon or was it purely discovered? These statements make no sense. They are contradictory. Regardless, all of google would disagree with the former. How was the canon formed (aka determined)?
You realize that the phrase "not so much" does not express an absolute. By and large, what was formally recognized as the canon of Scripture were those books already in common use among Christian believers. There were, however, certain things that were looked for in deciding if a book was genuinely inspired of God and ought to be formally recognized as canonical. As it turns out, some of the books that were considered for inclusion into the canon did not exemplify those characteristics typical of books acknowledged as canonical and were therefore rejected. This makes sense to me...

I'd like to see you prove that "all of Google" disagrees with the idea that the canon of Scripture was more formally acknowledged than determined.
Food for thought, if this method is so reliable how come within the Christian community alone, we can’t even pin down Christ’s birthday? But many scholars believe that the reference to 25 December is a late correction of the date actually stated by the author (31). The author's date may be preserved in a single manuscript which curiously contradicts itself by giving two dates: both 25 December and 2 April (32). For two reasons, it is likely that 2 April is the original reading.
I don't recall the Bible ever stating an exact date of Christ's birth. Really, what practical difference does it make to walking with God to know? Perhaps this is why we haven't been given an exact date in Scripture. In any case, none of what is discussed in the article you linked to has anything directly to do with biblical textual criticism. It is a question that is being pursued almost entirely outside the text of the Bible. That there is some controversy about establishing when exactly Christ was born from extra-biblical sources, doesn't, of course, mean that there are a multitude of such problems determining the actual original text of the Bible.

Insofar as this is the case, one may say that everything we know about the world and perceive in it is subjective.

I wish you would get this through your head that you are actually the ONLY one that’s been saying and doing this throughout this entire discussion.
Oh? I don't think so. Consider the following:

"Let me ask you: Is one stone added to another stone going to amount to two stones? Could the answer be four or seven, if I like? Or is the answer all in how you look at it? Is a completely black dog also white, or purple? How many right angles does a circle have?Is the answer totally at the mercy of personal perspective?"

You responded: "Pretty much.."


I asked, "Could someone say correctly that a circle contains ten right angles or twenty?

You said, "It all depends on who you ask."


So, I asked you some questions about absolute facts and you responded that all of them were "pretty much" at the mercy of personal perspective, which is another way of saying "subjective." You didn't respond by affirming that these things were absolutely true, but instead agreed that subjective opinion determined what could be said about them. You may not have intended it, but your response suggested a very subjective approach to reality.

I’m the one that’s actually been countering this viewpoint throughout but you aren’t listening to me.
Not true:

"Trust me. There's not a lot of absolutes in Christianity (whereas with open-heart surgery it is a different story), so again, it all depends on who you ask."

I truly believe now that no one's knowledge (especially here on this forum...not in a mean way...just as an observation) is all it is cracked up to be.

(What's interesting to me here is that you qualify your comment by writing, "especially here on this forum." Obviously, you anticipated that people would think you were making a general statement about everyone everywhere. But instead of denying that this is what you were doing, you only say that it is "especially" true of people on this forum. It seems very clear to me, despite your declarations to the opposite, that your statement wasn't directed solely at those posting on this site.)

"I just said based upon my research it all depends on the source/information you choose to truston an individual basis."

"Each person’s voice (especially on Christianity and the Bible) is only one opinion in a sea of many. There aren’t that many absolutes here."

This all sounds like you take, overall, a subjective view of the world and of truth. Again, it may not have been what you intended, but this is the impression these statements have given.

You see, I got the impression initially from what you'd written that you were convinced that, because everything is subjectively perceived, objective reality and absolute truth were an illusion.
I actually NEVER stated that. I never said anything like that in fact. If I did, please repost those remarks.


Here is an example of what I mean when I say you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. I said you gave me the IMPRESSION of these things, not that you had actually explicitly stated them.

In this instance, you once again purposely took my words out of context and isolated a single solitary statement that was purely about religion in order to apply it to the entire spectrum of reality, yet you aren’t actually refuting my position on religion and personal philosophy in the least bit.
Is what is true for the "entire spectrum of reality" not true for the part of that reality that is concerned with religion and personal philosophy?

Cont'd on second post.

Selah.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Cont'd from last post:

During a philosophical discussion, both parties will present research, history, and knowledge which favor their position but in the end both will reach a clear consensus on who’s right and who’s wrong based on the fact that 1+1=2 and there are no right angles in a circle?
Nowhere do I make anything like this kind of assertion. You are extrapolating far beyond my words. In fact, here you are guilty of arguing in the strawman fashion of which you accuse me!

you say I shouldn’t confuse subjective perspective (which is exactly what I’d categorize as personal philosophy, spirituality and religion) with objective reality (which, imo, is categorized as modern medicine, math, science, gravity etc.) - anything that’s generally universally accepted as indisputable facts.
I guess I'm not as convinced as you are that matters of religion and personal philosophy are as free of concrete moorings in objective reality as you suggest here. Conversely, the fields of math, science, and medicine are not as established in concrete fact as you may think. Science, for example, rests upon several untestable, brute givens, or presuppositions (aka assumptions) that are totally philosophical in nature.

For instance, to me, gravity would fall into the latter category but you (not me) just tried to apply it to this philosophical discussion in your previous statements. I repeat, selah. Notice, you (not me) are the only one constantly drumming up parallels between concrete facts and philosophical subjectivity – two polar opposite concepts btw - throughout this entire discussion.
Again, this is a strawman argument. The connections you claim I am making are really your assumptions about what I mean rather than what I actually am writing.

The basic rules of logic which govern mathematics also apply to personal philosophy. In this regard, at least, they have something in common.

You’re absolutely full of nothing but double talk and then you wonder why I view your opinion on this matter as substandard.


You really don't understand much about philosophy, do you? I'm not going to give you a primer on basic logic and its application to how we think. CHeck out the 'net, if you're really interested.

I never said anything like this nor have I concluded that “debate by itself precludes definitive answers”. If I did, quote me on that.
I never said that you did. I said you seem to think this way. In the event that what you seem to think is actually what you do think, I offered my analogy. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't.

I have reiterated over and over again that most experts agree that a lack of concrete evidence is the reason for no definitive answers.
Really? I have heard rather differently from men of high scholarship in things biblical. Please prove that most experts agree as you say they do.

I hope your exams go well!

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

arj1981

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2003
1,305
14
✟1,843.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Done with this conversation. You are waxing on and on about the same stuff without really listening. If I later clarified what I truly meant by previous ambiguous statements (which I literally did several times) then that should be the end of the straw man tactics. However, you just kept misrepresenting my position post after post regardless. Tired of the lies. God bless. Selah.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: briareos
Upvote 0

arj1981

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2003
1,305
14
✟1,843.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I want you to realize that all you are doing in this post is complaining that my statements seemed vague to you. They meant one thing instead of another. Yada, yada, yada. But you are readily neglecting the fact that throughout I have repeatedly clarified my position and restated it several times. Regardless, you keep wanting to change my position around and argue about a stance I never took. “That’s not what you meant! This is what you meant! And this is what you believe!” But you can’t speak for me. You can’t read my mind or tell me the intent behind my words and actions. Only I can do that. Just bc you read something one way doesn’t mean I or others read it back in the exact same fashion. Ironically, that’s the very definition of subjectivity. All of us (pay attention closely bc this is an absolute) interpret things different ways, so it certainly doesn’t make you right just bc these are the conclusions you’ve drawn from what I typed. I don’t care if the way I worded things confused you at this point bc I more than made up for it through the numerous times I literally restated my position during this discussion. I don’t want to reengage the discussion or rehash what the debate was actually about - as someone told me, we’ve come to an impasse and I’ve already moved on – but for the umpteenth time I thought I would clarify my position by directly addressing your last response.

Selah
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0