AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

704 259528
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!

Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!

I'm going to start the ball rolling:

We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?

Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj

  • 704 Replies
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

it's not us who made crutches, but God.

The crutches in this analogy are any form of subverting a language barrier. It was God's will for people to be separated and scattered instead of united. To say "[followers] are being united despite our differences in language," is to say "We are united despite God's will."

Those potential dissenters were in the minority then.

Or a majority that kept silent in fear.

Consider the fact that there were 2 Jerichos. The Jericho from the story of Joshua and the Roman Jericho were separate locations to and from which Jesus traveled.

I had a feeling you'd bring that up. Even as a Christian, I didn't accept that response. The authors are very clear about where he is on the road. Either on his way in, specifically without yet entering any Jericho, or distinctly on his way out, while continuing his journey toward Jerusalem. None of the authors said "As he walked between the twin cities of Jericho, going through one on his way to the other..." Since none of them thought it important enough to bother elaborating on which Jericho it was, and that the cities were only a mile apart, they considered that area collectively as Jericho. Any further speculation lacks scriptural support.

Luke says Jesus proclaims to his apostles that he's on his way to Jerusalem (Luke 18:31), makes it clear that he's first on his way toward the city, heals one man on the road, then enters the city, talks to a tax collector (Luke 19:1-2), then heads to Jerusalem (Luke 19:28).
Matthew says Jesus proclaims to his apostles that he's on his way to Jerusalem (Matthew 20:17-18), leaves Jericho, heals two men on the road out, then heads to Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1).
Mark says Jesus proclaims to his apostles that he's on his way to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32-33), comes to Jericho, leaves Jericho, heals one man on the road out, then heads to Jerusalem (Mark 11:1).

This is literally the topic that forced me to concede biblical errancy. Different authors write different details. Sometimes those details are wrong.

I don't think it should be included because it was not found in any of our oldest manuscripts.

If you change one part of it, the entire philosophy comes into question just like God's word.

The inclusion of dubious passages at the least brings the selection process into doubt. Since all scriptural canonicity relies on that allegedly divine and perfect process, everything is brought into doubt. There can't be room for error in terms of what is proclaimed holy. Otherwise, what's the point?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Those contradictions come from the translations. Any contradiction can be resolved using the manuscripts.
Which manuscripts?

He could, but that's not how the world works. Paper gets damaged or lost and there is no way for people to communicate ideas instantly to different languages.
So what you're saying here is that He could, if not for the fact that He couldn't, and that He couldn't for relatively trivial reasons.

We have developed computers and other technology to store data for a longggg time and we have several translations readily available for many places in the world now.
So?

Back then, when the authors wrote it, they didn't have that.
So?

That's how God planned it though. He wanted to use his people to document his word so they can tell their own account of God's attributes because the Bible isn't all about laws and how to get saved.
Their accounts are vague, confusing, contradictory, and historically inaccurate.

It's a narrative of God's works that shows how much He loves us through the experience of those authors.
Well, here's a selection of things those authors had to say on that subject.

If God wrote it Himself, you can argue that his love is all talk and no action.
Yet, as you can see, I am arguing that now.

Oh. Well even if it was modified, there is no effect on any major doctrines of Christianity.
So all of the apocrypha means nothing?

Then we have the "testimonia" of early church fathers which can reconstruct more than 99% of the New Testament written within 150 to 200 years after Jesus.
On what grounds?

No, they are being united despite our differences in language so that argument doesn't really make sense. I think there is great success in what He is trying to do.
I fail to see where you got that idea.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/World_religions_map_en.svg

True. An omnipotent God can make everyone bend to his will also but you don't see Him do that.
So? Choosing not to do something terrible does not necessitate doing everything stupid.

Because that wasn't available at the time. Or at least that wasn't God's will to.
And why would that be?

I get what you mean now, but the New Testament carries one of the most radical messages of all time.
. . . What?

Additionally, the method is actually "Does it agree with what is already known by previous revelation?" In other words, does it agree with the Old Testament.
That's saying the same thing. You're just misapplying the term 'known'.

Another regarding the wisdom of God's people is "Was it accepted by the people of God?"
And which, if any, of these are "the people of God"?

Or God has to navigate the limitations of humans to achieve his will which He also does when He saves us.
No He doesn't. That's just Him doing it all wrong. Why is His will not emblazoned on pillars of indestructible stone in every language across the globe? Why is His law not instinctively understood by all human beings? Why is His existence not clearly evident everywhere?

If you change one part of it, the entire philosophy comes into question just like God's word.
Yeah. That's kind of what we're getting at.

If you think of it like that, it's not us who made crutches, but God. It was people's fault that He changed our languages anyways.
1 That's just hand-waving the issue. Having someone to blame for something does not make His response to it any less His doing.
2 Are you seriously trying to give God credit for the act of translation?
3 Did He actually think the tower was going to reach heaven? Just how paranoid is this guy?

Those modifications would not affect the way we worship God in any way. If we found all the copies and the originals, that would be the case.
So your argument is essentially just "the discrepancies don't matter because we have nothing free of discrepancy".

Controversial in terms of its canon status but not much so in terms of doctrine. Whether you include it or not, it doesn't affect a single major doctrine.
Well, in that case, I'm sure you can explain how Mark (or whoever) came to know what they saw at the tomb. Obviously he cannot have imagined or fictionalized the incident if his narrative is to be believed.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

The crutches in this analogy are any form of subverting a language barrier. It was God's will for people to be separated and scattered instead of united. To say "[followers] are being united despite our differences in language," is to say "We are united despite God's will."
Yeah I don't agree with this analogy haha. More on this later.

Or a majority that kept silent in fear.
Well the truth always comes out. Look at Martin Luther and the protestant Reformation. It seems like he was the minority and by the power of God, his Word was proclaimed in truth.

...This is literally the topic that forced me to concede biblical errancy. Different authors write different details. Sometimes those details are wrong.
Maybe Jesus healed a couple on his way to Jericho and a couple on his way out.

Which manuscripts?
All of them I guess.

So what you're saying here is that He could, if not for the fact that He couldn't, and that He couldn't for relatively trivial reasons.
What I should have said was that God could but that's not the way He intends for us to come to know Him.

Their accounts are vague, confusing, contradictory, and historically inaccurate.
Their accounts have never been proven false using archeology and I can understand them pretty well through the teaching and reading of the word. I have also yet to see a prominent contradiction of God between the authors.

Well, here's a selection of things those authors had to say on that subject.
Looks like the author of this article just hates God. I sense bias... I know I'm extremely biased when I choose my sources but this article just seems to miss the big picture. Tell me anything on that list and we can go at it. I'll tell you why I still worship a God who does those things.

So all of the apocrypha means nothing?
Yes. It contains historical errors, none of the New Testament authors alluded to it, and Jesus and his disciples ignored it.

On what grounds?
The quotes they use.

I fail to see where you got that idea.
God's version of success has nothing to do with numbers. Also, you know there's copies of the Bible in hella places of the world and there's people being converted in those places. This map just shows the majority of what people believe in those countries or at least their national religion.

So? Choosing not to do something terrible does not necessitate doing everything stupid.
I'm not saying that creating an "InfiniBook" or whatever is bending people to his will. I'm saying that God will do things and you see no value in them because your wisdom is so limited compared to his.

And why would that be?
Who knows?

. . . What?
That you you don't have to be condemned by the law but rather saved by grace through faith in Christ.

That's saying the same thing. You're just misapplying the term 'known'.
Oh oops.

And which, if any, of these are "the people of God"?
What is your point of bringing this up? So I know what to look for from your link.

No He doesn't. That's just Him doing it all wrong. Why is His will not emblazoned on pillars of indestructible stone in every language across the globe? Why is His law not instinctively understood by all human beings? Why is His existence not clearly evident everywhere?
It's funny to think that God can do something wrong. Often God's way of doing things goes against logic so I understand why you have so many questions.

Having someone to blame for something does not make His response to it any less His doing.
Sure. (Not sarcastic btw)

Are you seriously trying to give God credit for the act of translation?
Well if He helped to write it then He's gonna help to preserve it.

Did He actually think the tower was going to reach heaven? Just how paranoid is this guy?
Nah, God didn't appreciate that his people didn't trust Him. You gotta trust Him or He'll be upset. There's lessons to be learned if you don't rely on what God says.

So your argument is essentially just "the discrepancies don't matter because we have nothing free of discrepancy".
Actually, my argument is if we were able to compare the originals to the variants, they would essentially say the same thing.

Well, in that case, I'm sure you can explain how Mark (or whoever) came to know what they saw at the tomb. Obviously he cannot have imagined or fictionalized the incident if his narrative is to be believed.
I think the people who saw it told Him about it. Maybe it was divinely revealed to him?

The inclusion of dubious passages at the least brings the selection process into doubt. Since all scriptural canonicity relies on that allegedly divine and perfect process, everything is brought into doubt. There can't be room for error in terms of what is proclaimed holy. Otherwise, what's the point?
You're right but those who add to the Bible are obviously not part of the holy processes cuz they are not God's people. Those dubious passages that were added by God's people, like I said, changes nothing about the message so it really doesn't matter.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Well the truth always comes out. Look at Martin Luther and the protestant Reformation. It seems like he was the minority and by the power of God, his Word was proclaimed in truth.

Or he's a false prophet and his followers are doomed because salvation belongs to a small group, not a majority (Matthew 7:13-15, 2 Peter 2:1-3). You have no means of differentiating his teachings from Joseph Smith's in terms of objective truth and accuracy.

Maybe Jesus healed a couple on his way to Jericho and a couple on his way out.

This interpretation of multiple healing encounters means that NONE of the authors were accurate in retelling what he was doing. Maybe he went to the moon and fornicated with a lobster. That's not supported by scripture either, but maybe his followers were just really unobservant and missed that too. Why bother listening to them anyway?

The problem is that this is talking about the same event. There is just no getting around that. The stories clearly follow parallels. Otherwise, this would mean that the crowd kept telling the beggars to be quiet, even after Jesus just healed some and the crowd praised the miracle. Not a bright bunch, his followers.

I can understand them pretty well through the teaching and reading of the word.

Evidently not.

All of [the manuscripts] I guess.

Yes. [The Apocrypha] contains historical errors, none of the New Testament authors alluded to it,

FACEPALM
The manuscripts INCLUDE Apocrypha.
So we're back to "All of them, except the ones I arbitrarily disagree with."

and Jesus and his disciples ignored it.

At this point, you're either being dishonest or ignorant and I'm not sure which. They were all dead by the time the NT was compiled. They didn't have a board meeting on what books are acceptable. Jesus didn't leave a memo saying "Keep Luke and Matthew, but Judas was a jerk so throw his book out. And I guess leave the end of Mark in maybe? Not sure, I'll get back to you on that."

You're right but those who add to the Bible are obviously not part of the holy processes cuz they are not God's people.

What is your point of bringing this up? So I know what to look for from your link.

I think he meant, "Which denominations are/were God's People, and how do you know?" Since a requirement is for "the people of God" to accept scripture, there is a lot of disagreement in terms of what books, what sections of books, and what interpretations of books are acceptable. How do you determine who "the people of God" are? (If you say it's all Christians, you can't backpedal into a NTS argument.)

Those dubious passages that were added by God's people, like I said, changes nothing about the message so it really doesn't matter.

There is no objective way to determine which sections of scripture are divinely inspired or not, or if it's all fabrications and forgeries. You keep pulling turnabouts on whether or not scripture matters at all, even though it's directly tied to your beliefs. There are plenty of passages that harshly warn against false teachings and textual additions, so saying that it doesn't matter is truly spitting in the face of God. Going so far as to say that even "God's people" are willing to fabricate the passages is troubling, and certainly not supported by scripture.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

All of them I guess.
So, all of the manuscripts can be used to resolve any contradiction? That is highly dubious at best.

What I should have said was that God could but that's not the way He intends for us to come to know Him.
Well, why the heck not?

Their accounts have never been proven false using archeology and I can understand them pretty well through the teaching and reading of the word. I have also yet to see a prominent contradiction of God between the authors.
1 Nothing will ever be proven false by archaeology. That isn't how it works.
2 Exactly how big a contradiction is needed to qualify? Is the order in which life forms were created prominent enough? Was it plants, animals, then man/woman (Genesis 1), or plants, man, trees and more plants, all the animals, then woman (Genesis 2)?
Which mountain did Moses climb (see here)?
How about the death of Judas? Did he buy a plot of land with the ransom for Jesus's arrest and then (presumably by accident) trip and disembowel himself (Acts 1), or did he throw the money away and hang himself (Matthew 27)?
Did Jesus display signs of his holiness (see here)?
Did he say anything to Pilate during his trial (John 18), or was he completely silent (Matthew 27, Mark 15)?
What were his last words upon the cross? Was it "into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23), "my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27, Mark 15), or just "It is finished" (John 19)?

Looks like the author of this article just hates God. I sense bias... I know I'm extremely biased when I choose my sources but this article just seems to miss the big picture.
What? What article? That first paragraph on the page is an arbitrary quote from somewhere. The thing I want you to look at is the list that follows.

Yes. It contains historical errors, none of the New Testament authors alluded to it, and Jesus and his disciples ignored it.
Sure, for the Old Testament's apocrypha. What about the rest?

The quotes they use.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Which quotes are these?

This map just shows the majority of what people believe in those countries or at least their national religion.
Right, so if we take the premise that God's plan is successful and add the fact that the majority of the populace cannot agree upon a correct interpretation of His word, having everyone understand His word cannot be a part of that plan.

I'm saying that God will do things and you see no value in them because your wisdom is so limited compared to his.
Sorry, but that isn't going to work. You've established that He's an almighty being, so no matter what obscure roundabout paradoxical way He manages to make it work He's still doing it wrong.

That you you don't have to be condemned by the law but rather saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Merciful deities aren't radical. It's typical of pantheons to have at least one.

What is your point of bringing this up? So I know what to look for from your link.
Each column is a major denomination, each row is a book that is deemed either canonical or apocryphal. Which denomination (if any) is right?

It's funny to think that God can do something wrong.
Well, it's one of only two ways He could plan something like this without doing it perfectly. The other is not wanting it to work.

Actually, my argument is if we were able to compare the originals to the variants, they would essentially say the same thing.
Okay, but that isn't an effective counter to Emp's statement:
"There's no way of knowing the extent to which their copies of the OT were modified as well."

I think the people who saw it told Him about it.
The three people who saw it ran away in fear and told no one. It's explicitly stated in the passage.

Maybe it was divinely revealed to him?
What, like in a dream?

You're right but those who add to the Bible are obviously not part of the holy processes cuz they are not God's people. Those dubious passages that were added by God's people, like I said, changes nothing about the message so it really doesn't matter.
But, see. That wasn't just any dubious passage. It was supposed to be Mark's testament of Jesus's ressurection and appearance to the apostles. As Goldhill puts it:
"For the first time it could be demonstrated without any doubt, to the scholarly mind, that the end of Mark, as people have known it for hundreds of years, was not the ending as Mark had written it. That meant that there was a real doubt about all of the gospels."

Going so far as to say that even "God's people" are willing to fabricate the passages is troubling, and certainly not supported by scripture.
Pretty sure it was a typo, Emp.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

After reading that one article, I realized I was wrong.

Often God's way of doing things goes against logic

So He's both bound and not bound by logic?

Sure, for the Old Testament's apocrypha.

Even the OT likely wasn't solidified in their time.

Pretty sure it was a typo, Emp.

I doubt it, because somebody was allegedly divinely guided and ended up putting false passages into the official canon. The only people with the authority to have decided on what's scripture were "God's people." Therefore, "God's people" are responsible for including it. If it was divinely guided, this means it was God's will to include lies. If it was a typo, and he meant that "God's people" weren't the ones who included it, then heathens and heretics have been meddling in the process from the start, further substantiating the point that the entire process was fundamentally flawed and unreliable.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

You have no means of differentiating his teachings from Joseph Smith's in terms of objective truth and accuracy.
Joseph Smith's teachings are inconsistent with the Bible even though he says he believes in it.

This interpretation of multiple healing encounters means that NONE of the authors were accurate in retelling what he was doing. Maybe he went to the moon and fornicated with a lobster. That's not supported by scripture either, but maybe his followers were just really unobservant and missed that too. Why bother listening to them anyway?
The problem is that this is talking about the same event. There is just no getting around that. The stories clearly follow parallels. Otherwise, this would mean that the crowd kept telling the beggars to be quiet, even after Jesus just healed some and the crowd praised the miracle. Not a bright bunch, his followers.
I'll get back to you on this if I can.

Evidently not.
What makes you say that?

The manuscripts INCLUDE Apocrypha.
So we're back to "All of them, except the ones I arbitrarily disagree with."
Are you suggesting that I take such a flawed book as truth? I know you're going to bring up that all of the scriptures are flawed but not really.

At this point, you're either being dishonest or ignorant and I'm not sure which. They were all dead by the time the NT was compiled. They didn't have a board meeting on what books are acceptable. Jesus didn't leave a memo saying "Keep Luke and Matthew, but Judas was a jerk so throw his book out. And I guess leave the end of Mark in maybe? Not sure, I'll get back to you on that."
We are talking about the Apocrypha here not the NT. Also who actually regards the gospel of Judas as canon?

There is no objective way to determine which sections of scripture are divinely inspired or not, or if it's all fabrications and forgeries. You keep pulling turnabouts on whether or not scripture matters at all, even though it's directly tied to your beliefs. There are plenty of passages that harshly warn against false teachings and textual additions, so saying that it doesn't matter is truly spitting in the face of God. Going so far as to say that even "God's people" are willing to fabricate the passages is troubling, and certainly not supported by scripture.
I was mainly talking about the end of Mark 16 that was added. This part actually adds no new information but because it was added by a scribe it shouldn't be considered canon.

Well, why the heck not?
I don't know. I'll think about this question.

Nothing will ever be proven false by archaeology. That isn't how it works.
Well it can support it can it not?

Was it plants, animals, then man/woman (Genesis 1), or plants, man, trees and more plants, all the animals, then woman (Genesis 2)?
Plants, animals, then man/woman. The meaning seems to be lost in translation.

Which mountain did Moses climb (see here)?
Same mountain. Different names.

How about the death of Judas? Did he buy a plot of land with the ransom for Jesus's arrest and then (presumably by accident) trip and disembowel himself (Acts 1), or did he throw the money away and hang himself (Matthew 27)?
First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying. He indirectly bought the field through the chief priests.

Did Jesus display signs of his holiness (see here)?
Obviously He did. Only to those who were seeking a sign to follow Him did not receive one. He never performed a miracle in order to attract followers but rather to extend his grace.

Did he say anything to Pilate during his trial (John 18), or was he completely silent (Matthew 27, Mark 15)?
He says something. He goes silent on the insistence of the Jewish leaders.

What were his last words upon the cross? Was it "into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23), "my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27, Mark 15), or just "It is finished" (John 19)?
There are actually 7 phrases that are considered his last words. They are in no particular order.

What? What article? That first paragraph on the page is an arbitrary quote from somewhere. The thing I want you to look at is the list that follows.
The list contains commentary by an author.

Sure, for the Old Testament's apocrypha. What about the rest?
Those were not divinely inspired.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Which quotes are these?
The quotes they take from the books of the New Testament.

Right, so if we take the premise that God's plan is successful and add the fact that the majority of the populace cannot agree upon a correct interpretation of His word, having everyone understand His word cannot be a part of that plan.
No one fully understands God's word because God's word is God's will and we are always trying to add our own will into his which distorts it. Fortunately, we as his people are continuously learning his will through the Holy Spirit and proper reading of scripture.

Sorry, but that isn't going to work. You've established that He's an almighty being, so no matter what obscure roundabout paradoxical way He manages to make it work He's still doing it wrong.
It's wrong because He should be imposing his will on anything and everything to achieve what He wants?

Merciful deities aren't radical. It's typical of pantheons to have at least one.
It's not mercy that is radical but rather the fact that we don't have to work for our salvation. Jesus already paid the price for it. Don't bring up a god who sacrificed himself for humanity because those who worshipped that god still offered up their good works and/or own sacrifices in order to gain favor. Nothing I can do can make God love me more or make Him love me less.

Each column is a major denomination, each row is a book that is deemed either canonical or apocryphal. Which denomination (if any) is right?
Protestants for sure. Anglicans and Lutherans could be included I think.

Well, it's one of only two ways He could plan something like this without doing it perfectly. The other is not wanting it to work.
Who are you to say it's not perfect? Your version of what is perfect is probably selfish.

What, like in a dream?
Wait no they told people. Mark 16 says they didn't tell anyone because they were afraid but we know that's only part of the story when we take into account the other gospels and that Mark probably lost its ending based on its abrupt ending. It could have been missing details that the other gospels covered.

So He's both bound and not bound by logic?
No He is certainly bound by logic. God's will for us is not logical for us sometimes because it means giving up something that is normally highly valued by people. Like I might be called to give up my high paying job in order to become a lower paying job as a pastor. Or even giving up the comfort of my home and move to an entirely unknown place to spread the gospel. Maybe I should have said that often God's way of doing things goes against our rationality.

I doubt it, because somebody was allegedly divinely guided and ended up putting false passages into the official canon. The only people with the authority to have decided on what's scripture were "God's people." Therefore, "God's people" are responsible for including it. If it was divinely guided, this means it was God's will to include lies. If it was a typo, and he meant that "God's people" weren't the ones who included it, then heathens and heretics have been meddling in the process from the start, further substantiating the point that the entire process was fundamentally flawed and unreliable.
"God's people" are also responsible for discerning whether it belongs in the Bible or not after the discovery. The process might be flawed but the truth always prevails.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

We are talking about the Apocrypha here not the NT. Also who actually regards the gospel of Judas as canon?

I think what he means is that Jesus and his disciples were long dead by the time the 'collected edition' that is known today as the Bible was put together. So they could not have "ignored" the apocrypha, as you said, neither could they have selected the canon. This was done somewhere around the second century, if I'm not mistaken, when all authors had a nice big argument about who was right and who wasn't, and in the end the orthodox section (edit: or maybe I should say, those who nowadays are considered orthodox) shouted the loudest, won the argument and decided that their parts were canon and the rest heretical. History is written by the winners, as they say.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

The apocyrphal books were written before Jesus's time. Jesus could not have selected the NT canon but He knew the Old Testament canon and used those books in his teaching. He did not use the Apocrypha (He ignored it) because they were not inspired.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

You are mistaken. According to National Geographic, researchers date the Codex Tchacos, which contains the only known written copy of the gospel of Judas, to around A.D. 220-340. The oldest known reference of a gospel of Judas dates from the treatise Against Heresies by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, from A.D. 180. That treatise dates more or less from the time when all the various Christian denominations had their big hissy fits to find out who ought to be considered canon.

Edit: Ugh, I cannot link directly to this page due to a word in the link that gets censored. Just type in "National Geographic lost gospel" in your browser, you should find it.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Joseph Smith's teachings are inconsistent with the Bible even though he says he believes in it.

How do you measure consistency without referencing your subjective preconceived notions?

Are you suggesting that I take such a flawed book as truth?

You said the manuscripts are used to determine accuracy. He asked "Which manuscripts" you use to resolve contradictions. You said "All of them." The manuscripts include apocrypha among other inconsistencies. It's on you to differentiate which manuscripts are acceptable and which ones are flawed.

I was mainly talking about the end of Mark 16 that was added. This part actually adds no new information but because it was added by a scribe it shouldn't be considered canon.

How do you determine which sections were added, aside from parroting what you've been told?

First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged.

Even as a Christian, I didn't accept that combination. Acts specifies that he fell headfirst. Or are you saying he hanged himself by his feet?

Those were not divinely inspired.

How do you determine what was divinely inspired or not?

Nothing I can do can make God love me more or make Him love me less.

That's hotly disputed between denominations.

Who are you to say [the method by which God spreads His message is] not perfect?

Because denominations exist. If the message was perfectly clear, there would be no conflicting interpretations, and no need for apologetics.

The quotes they take from the books of the New Testament.

They were quoting copies which may have been altered. Some quoted Mark 16's ending.

No one fully understands God's word because God's word is God's will and we are always trying to add our own will into his which distorts it. Fortunately, we as his people are continuously learning his will through the Holy Spirit and proper reading of scripture.

That's entirely irrelevant to what Fish said.

learning his will through the Holy Spirit

Can you elaborate on what this means? Nearly every denomination defines "His will" and "Holy Spirit" differently.

and proper reading of scripture.

How do you determine what interpretation of scripture is proper? And which translations?

No He is certainly bound by logic.

What's your response to the logical problem of evil?

"God's people" are also responsible for discerning whether it belongs in the Bible or not after the discovery.

You still haven't revealed who "God's people" are and were, and how you made that determination. You've implied that it's Protestants, yourself included, but which ones and why? And which groups prior to the Reformation?

The process might be flawed

How? Is it not divinely guided?

The apocyrphal books were written before Jesus's time.

You're lumping OT Apocrypha with NT Apocrypha.

Jesus could not have selected the NT canon but He knew the Old Testament canon and used those books in his teaching.

Even the OT canon likely wasn't solidified until after his death.
Wiki Dead Sea Scrolls:
"In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100."

He did not use the Apocrypha (He ignored it) because they were not inspired.

He only quoted a few lines from what eventually became OT canon books. Even if you arbitrarily include the rest of those quoted books, what about Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah? They were "ignored." Are they uninspired as well? If not, this argument is irrelevant.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Are you suggesting that I take such a flawed book as truth?
Are you trying to imply that you don't?

We are talking about the Apocrypha here not the NT. Also who actually regards the gospel of Judas as canon?
[...]
I was mainly talking about the end of Mark 16 that was added. This part actually adds no new information but because it was added by a scribe it shouldn't be considered canon.
http://files.sharenator.com/Facepalm_Infinite_Picdump_22-s576x768-133073.jpg

1 The new testament HAS apocrypha. See for yourself.
2 People don't regard the gospel of Judas as canon specifically because the Vatican declared it apocryphal.
3 The ending of Mark was this:
16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are mostly retellings of Mark (Matthew often repeating Mark word for word). The gospel of John is more of a fanfiction where the "disciple whom Jesus loved" inserts himself into the story, often changing it drastically. The gospel of Mark is the most important one and it ends on a scene that none of the apostles had witnessed.
4 The long ending wasn't known to be an addition until 1844, at which point people realized that their "sacred immutable word of God" was not faithful to the original script.

Well it can support it can it not?
Support what? Biblical stories? The best historical (i.e. non-biblical) support for any of the events of Jesus's life is that Pontius Pilate was probably the prefect of Judaea at the right time.

Plants, animals, then man/woman. The meaning seems to be lost in translation.
You're really grasping at straws here. This is what your source says:

"The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals."

Which is based on a blatant contextomy. This is what Genesis 2 actually says:

"18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air [...]" King James Version

"18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air [...]" New Revised Standard Version

"18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air [...]" Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

"18 And Hashem Elohim said, It is not tov that the adam should be alone; I will make him an ezer (a helper) suitable for him.
19 And out of the adamah Hashem Elohim formed every beast of the sadeh, and every oph HaShomayim [...]" Orthodox Jewish Bible

"18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air." New English Translation

"18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[e] him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[footnote: Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens [...]" English Standard Version

"18 The Lord God said, “It isn’t good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him.” 19-20 So the Lord took some soil and made animals and birds." Contemporary English Version

The animals are clearly and unambiguously made specifically so Adam can have a helper after he was put in the garden.

Same mountain. Different names.
Okay. Why?

First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying. He indirectly bought the field through the chief priests.
Grasping at straws again.

"16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Acts 1 KJV
No mention of hanging, no mention of the priests.

"3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in." Matthew 27 KJV
No mention of where he died, no involvement in buying the field.

He says something. He goes silent on the insistence of the Jewish leaders.
He doesn't:

"33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." John 18 KJV

There are actually 7 phrases that are considered his last words. They are in no particular order.
Right, so which of them was actually his last statement and why did at least two of the gospels fail to record it?

The list contains commentary by an author.
So? Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents of wanton cruelty are contained within the holy bible?

Those were not divinely inspired.
And why is that?

The quotes they take from the books of the New Testament.
So, what you're saying is that "[The testamonia] can reconstruct more than 99% of the New Testament written within 150 to 200 years after Jesus." and that this is based on quotes taken from the New Testament, thereby proving beyond any doubt that the New Testament contains information contained within the New Testament. Huzzah!

Fortunately, we as his people are continuously learning his will through the Holy Spirit and proper reading of scripture.
Who are these people of his, then, and how do they determine what a proper reading is?

It's wrong because He should be imposing his will on anything and everything to achieve what He wants?
What? It's wrong because He is imposing his will on everything to achieve what He wants, but he still isn't getting what He wants (unless he's a sadist, of course).

Don't bring up a god who sacrificed himself for humanity because those who worshipped that god still offered up their good works and/or own sacrifices in order to gain favor.
Fine; I'll leave Yaweh out of this, but you're still making a vacuous truth. Salvation through Jesus is no more radical than salvation through honorable death or through familial cannibalism.

Protestants for sure. Anglicans and Lutherans could be included I think.
Okay. And why is that?

Who are you to say it's not perfect?
I am me. I thought that was obvious.

Your version of what is perfect is probably selfish.
1 Nice Bulverism.
2 There is calamity and suffering.
A benevolent God does not want calamity and suffering.
A competent benevolent God will ensure that His plans do not involve calamity and suffering.
Therefore, there is not a competent benevolent God.

Wait no they told people. Mark 16 says they didn't tell anyone because they were afraid but we know that's only part of the story when we take into account the other gospels and that Mark probably lost its ending based on its abrupt ending. It could have been missing details that the other gospels covered.
So now you're saying it had a long ending, but lost it, and later got it back again, except it was wrong this time? For God's chosen people, those scribes can't have been very good at their jobs.

God's will for us is not logical for us sometimes because it means giving up something that is normally highly valued by people.
No. It isn't logical for us because it means everything is perfect while also royally screwed up and despite it all being His doing, it's somehow your own fault if you end up arbitrarily ****ed.

"God's people" are also responsible for discerning whether it belongs in the Bible or not after the discovery. The process might be flawed but the truth always prevails.
So, apparently, what you're saying is that God's people are doing God's will by assuming something is true, guessing that something else is true, forgetting they had no proof that it was true, and realizing centuries later that they were wrong the whole time.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Same mountain. Different names.

Okay. Why?

It seems that Horeb was the original name, but Sinai later came colloquially, in reference to a Sumerian moon god. Different people called it different things. But this is quite problematic if one considers Moses to be the direct singular author of both books.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

He only quoted a few lines from what eventually became OT canon books.

Additionally, we have no way of knowing if these quotes weren't added simply for the message to be more compelling to Jewish dissenters.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

How do you measure consistency without referencing your subjective preconceived notions?
Just read the Bible and you can see that their teachings obviously contradict what it says. They believe that you can become a god because God was once like us. But God said "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.” -Isaiah 43:10. They also think you can earn salvation. In the Bible, it says God gives salvation as a free gift. Ephesians 2:4-10.

How do you determine which sections were added, aside from parroting what you've been told?
Haha you got me there.

Even as a Christian, I didn't accept that combination. Acts specifies that he fell headfirst. Or are you saying he hanged himself by his feet?
What do you think about this explanation?

How do you determine what was divinely inspired or not?
Remember when we talked about the process of determining the canon? That's how.

That's hotly disputed between denominations.
Which denominations?

Because denominations exist. If the message was perfectly clear, there would be no conflicting interpretations, and no need for apologetics.
The message isn't perfectly clear, but what should be clear is the gospel of Christ.

Can you elaborate on what this means? Nearly every denomination defines "His will" and "Holy Spirit" differently.
God's will used here is what God plans to do and the Holy Spirit is the one who works in us to become who He intends for us to be. What do other denominations say?

How do you determine what interpretation of scripture is proper? And which translations?
Exhortation and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure about translations.

What's your response to the logical problem of evil?
God is not omnibenevolent.

You still haven't revealed who "God's people" are and were, and how you made that determination. You've implied that it's Protestants, yourself included, but which ones and why? And which groups prior to the Reformation?
Anyone who believes in an unfiltered version of the gospel is a child of God. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

How? Is it not divinely guided?
It is, but it's evidently flawed.

You're lumping OT Apocrypha with NT Apocrypha.
Oh. Well, I mean the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Even the OT canon likely wasn't solidified until after his death.
Wiki Dead Sea Scrolls
The early churches determined the canon based in part on Jesus's teaching which is impotant because Jesus is God and God ultimately determines the canon.

He only quoted a few lines from what eventually became OT canon books. Even if you arbitrarily include the rest of those quoted books, what about Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah? They were "ignored." Are they uninspired as well? If not, this argument is irrelevant.
It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired.

The new testament HAS apocrypha.
Guys, I get it lol. I'm talking about the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Facepalm! I get it now. Lol

You're really grasping at straws here. This is what your source says:

"The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals."

Which is based on a blatant contextomy. This is what Genesis 2 actually says:

Like I said, the meaning seems to be lost in translation when it should have been translated to "had formed".

He doesn't:
He does.

The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
John 19:7‭-‬9 NIV

Right, so which of them was actually his last statement and why did at least two of the gospels fail to record it?
It doesn't say. Two of the gospels didn't find it necessary to include I guess.

So? Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents of wanton cruelty are contained within the holy bible?
Yes. It is not wanton lol.

And why is that?
The Holy Spirit did not superintend them.

So, what you're saying is that "[The testamonia] can reconstruct more than 99% of the New Testament written within 150 to 200 years after Jesus." and that this is based on quotes taken from the New Testament, thereby proving beyond any doubt that the New Testament contains information contained within the New Testament. Huzzah!
Ignore my argument haha.

What? It's wrong because He is imposing his will on everything to achieve what He wants, but he still isn't getting what He wants (unless he's a sadist, of course).
God has a decretive will and a perceptive will. He will impose his decretive will but not his perceptive will (his will that we follow the law). https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/wills_sproul.html

Fine; I'll leave Yaweh out of this, but you're still making a vacuous truth. Salvation through Jesus is no more radical than salvation through honorable death or through familial cannibalism.
The difference is that through Jesus's death we take his place as God's heir and Jesus took our place as God's enemy. It was definitely radical to the Jews. It turned all their legalism upside down.

Nice Bulverism.
You're right. I might have been too judgy. I apologize.

So now you're saying it had a long ending, but lost it, and later got it back again, except it was wrong this time? For God's chosen people, those scribes can't have been very good at their jobs.
God's people aren't perfect. That's what I've been trying to say.

No. It isn't logical for us because it means everything is perfect while also royally screwed up and despite it all being His doing, it's somehow your own fault if you end up arbitrarily ****ed.
I never said everything is perfect. No one said that. God's plan of restoration to fix the royally screwed up world is perfect.

So, apparently, what you're saying is that God's people are doing God's will by assuming something is true, guessing that something else is true, forgetting they had no proof that it was true, and realizing centuries later that they were wrong the whole time.
Not necessarily. But I mean the Catholic church was wrong for a while until Luther and others stood up.

It seems that Horeb was the original name, but Sinai later came colloquially, in reference to a Sumerian moon god. Different people called it different things. But this is quite problematic if one considers Moses to be the direct singular author of both books.
Interesting. Would it be wrong to compare it to how people can call someone by one name and then another name when talking to a different audience. For example, I call my uncle Uncle Reuel when I'm talking to family and then I call him Pastor Reuel when talking to my friends at church.
Showing 496-510 of 704