beowulf 1
Recommended Posts
Quote
QuoteNow if my interpretation of what the Bible says matches up with what the vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history (who have done all the heavy lifting of translation from the original languages) have come up with, then I have great cause to think that what I am reading is reliable.
If you lived 500 years ago your beliefs would be different.
Your own words show that. You base your beliefs on a majority.
jaybird18c must be either a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox believer, since those folks make up the "vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history" in studying, translating, interpreting, and elucidating what the Bible means.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
maadmax 0
Doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me.
The difference in translations can sometimes be a lot. Where you get huge variations is in the interpretations. Not just in current denominations but in same denomination over time. Five hundred years ago the Roman Catholics interpreted their Bible much differently then today.
So where is this consensus??
You can't even settle on one translation.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity! They base that on their interpretation of their translation of the Bible.
The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no consensus!
The difference in translations can sometimes be a lot. Where you get huge variations is in the interpretations. Not just in current denominations but in same denomination over time. Five hundred years ago the Roman Catholics interpreted their Bible much differently then today.
So where is this consensus??
You can't even settle on one translation.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity! They base that on their interpretation of their translation of the Bible.
The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no consensus!
I know, you are just trying to help other see the futility of their ways, since you don't believe any of them are correct in the first place. No versions has any meaning unless it is written in the mind. And if your version allows you to love God and your neighbor as yourself you are headed in the right direction.
...
jaybird18c 24
QuoteBut it reads to me that Jesus and God or two seperate people and that the Trinity is evident in those words.
That is your word for word grammatical translation of this?
Quote(NASB) "Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."
Quote
Not the case:
"This episode as a whole, despite its notoriety, does little to elucidate the Puritan mind of the age; but it did lead to chagrin and public remorse, which in turn reduced respect for the colony's religious leadership, especially in the eyes of the merchant class whose social and political importance were notably increased under the new charter." - Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, pg. 161.
I had to read this book for a class. Ahlstrom does not strike me as an evangelical Christian. He is an excellent historian nevertheless. This was absolutely an isolated event in the colonies and did not represent the widespread beliefs of the Puritans.
Ahlstrom is an excellent historian and this is certainly the best and most widely read survey of American Religious History. However, for more specifically colonial puritan stuff I recommend you look at Perry Miller. You could also look at Edmund Morgan or Harry Stout for slighly more recent historians. I believe Stout is an evangelical and Miller and Morgan are both atheists but all of them are excellen historians of the time period.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
Quote
As for the Jehovah's Witnesses not being true Christians, well they think the same thing of you. So who is right? You because you base your beliefs on a majority? They might be right?
Jehovah's Witnesses can't even tell the Ketiv from the Qere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
jaybird18c 24
That was kind of a difficult read for me. Very granular and encyclopedic but very good.
jaybird18c 24
QuoteQuote
As for the Jehovah's Witnesses not being true Christians, well they think the same thing of you. So who is right? You because you base your beliefs on a majority? They might be right?
Jehovah's Witnesses can't even tell the Ketiv from the Qere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI
Now that's funny. ... I don't care who you are.
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteBut it reads to me that Jesus and God or two seperate people and that the Trinity is evident in those words.
That is your word for word grammatical translation of this?Quote(NASB) "Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."
I meant to say Not evident. Was in a hurry.
QuoteThat was kind of a difficult read for me. Very granular and encyclopedic but very good.
Surveys by their nature tend to be a bit granular and encyclopedic. They also almost always stick to the most widely accepted interpretation on debateable points. I think Ahlstrom is more readable than most surveys but it is a bit dry.
I am still wondering if you accept the canonicity of the story of the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
beowulf 1
I am just pointing out the obvious inconsistency in christianity that Jaybird seems to be ignoring.
billvon 2,990
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians
>ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it.
Saint Augustine:
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. "
Severian, the Bishop of Gabala: The Sun does not pass under the Earth, but "travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall."
Saint Vergilius of Salzburg: "As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he against God and his own soul has uttered—if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth . . . thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church."
Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Athanasius taught similar things.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church for teaching that the Sun is just a star like any other and the Earth orbits it.
When Christianity was first founded, many people did indeed believe the Earth was flat, and many religious types used the Bible to "prove" it. (And yes, there are several references in the Bible that refer to a flat Earth.) That's not because they put a lot of thought into it - that's because back then the Bible was used to prove _everything._
As time went on the idea faded away, and people accepted the heliocentric theory. Recently the Church actually apologized for burning Bruno, which I think is cool (although a little late.)
This isn't unique to geocentrism. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, to ban interracial marriage and to enable religious wars. Nowadays, of course, we think all of that was a mistake, a misinterpretation of the Bible.
Now it's being used to justify banning same-sex marriage. With time that will fall as well, and future theologians will explain it away, saying "well, they were just misinterpreting the Bible; the Bible doesn't really say that gays are all that bad."
>ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it.
Saint Augustine:
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. "
Severian, the Bishop of Gabala: The Sun does not pass under the Earth, but "travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall."
Saint Vergilius of Salzburg: "As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he against God and his own soul has uttered—if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth . . . thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church."
Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Athanasius taught similar things.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church for teaching that the Sun is just a star like any other and the Earth orbits it.
When Christianity was first founded, many people did indeed believe the Earth was flat, and many religious types used the Bible to "prove" it. (And yes, there are several references in the Bible that refer to a flat Earth.) That's not because they put a lot of thought into it - that's because back then the Bible was used to prove _everything._
As time went on the idea faded away, and people accepted the heliocentric theory. Recently the Church actually apologized for burning Bruno, which I think is cool (although a little late.)
This isn't unique to geocentrism. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, to ban interracial marriage and to enable religious wars. Nowadays, of course, we think all of that was a mistake, a misinterpretation of the Bible.
Now it's being used to justify banning same-sex marriage. With time that will fall as well, and future theologians will explain it away, saying "well, they were just misinterpreting the Bible; the Bible doesn't really say that gays are all that bad."
jaybird18c 24
QuoteI am still wondering if you accept the canonicity of the story of the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark?
Yes. I do. But not because I think the canon of scripture is completely "airtight." That kind of reasoning for proving something true comes from modern epistemology, 17th Century Enlightenment period, Baconian reasoning, scientific methodology, etc. That does not apply here and is not the kind of evidence that you would need in order to show the Bible to be trustworthy. Could we be wrong about inclusion of the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery? Yes. But that's ok. Those examples are few and far between and take nothing away from the established truth of the fundamentals of the faith. With regard to canonicity, let me start by saying that the Bible is the word of God and the standard (measuring rod) for what is true. It has been since it was recorded. A formalized canon didn’t need to be established until false teachings began creeping into the church (attacks from within). By the 2nd Century AD, we have the complete canon of the NT (by the way, by the 2nd Century BC, we have a very well defined canon of the OT). Criteria for canonization include Apostolicity (written by an apostle or a close associate of an Apostle; e.g. Mark with Peter), antiquity (how ancient the usage of the book was within the Church; written within the lifetime of an eyewitness, etc.), inspiration (did God write it; does it claim to be the word of God; was it accepted by the Church as inspired), widespread acceptance (over different geographic regions, was it generally used as scripture), content/orthodoxy (does it cohere with the overall message of the progressive revelatory nature of the Bible explaining God’s plan of salvation for His people; apostolic message). However, that aside, there is in fact also an inner witness of the Holy Spirit (which is subjective and experiential) that goes into the criteria as well. The Bible points us outside of itself to God and God meets those who seek him in the middle, fills us with His Holy Spirit, and informs us of His word. So, therefore, canonization is not completely objective. It has a subjective component. That’s not to say this is blind faith in the scripture. It is very much informed and and gives us very good reason to believe in it as accurate and trustworthy.
That's not to say we are Bibliolaters. We do not worship the Bible. We worship God.
jaybird18c 24
Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.
In his book The Discovers, author Daniel Boorstin stated: ‘A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia … afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers’.1
Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’.
Lactantius
The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.
He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).
Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.
Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical.
Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.
Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
Later writers repeated the error
In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.
In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.
Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.
Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.
Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.)
Encyclopedias erase the myth
While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).
There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp
In his book The Discovers, author Daniel Boorstin stated: ‘A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia … afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers’.1
Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’.
Lactantius
The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.
He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).
Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.
Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical.
Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.
Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
Later writers repeated the error
In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.
In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.
Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.
Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.
Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.)
Encyclopedias erase the myth
While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).
There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp
jaybird18c 24
Quotejaybird18c must be either a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox believer, since those folks make up the "vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history" in studying, translating, interpreting, and elucidating what the Bible means.
Definitely not Roman Catholic. I consider myself an evangelical Christian and a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
QuoteChristianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.
This is about as lame ignoring larger witch trials for Salem and saying "what's the problem? it was only 20 women."
Forget about flat earth for a moment and address heliocentric theory instead. There's no question that the Church set back astronomy for centuries by banning books that dare to suggest the earth was not the center of the universe, by threatening (or worse) scientists who promote it.
So how is this notion ill founded, exactly?
maadmax 0
QuoteI am just pointing out the obvious inconsistency in christianity that Jaybird seems to be ignoring.
The christian religion is very inconsistent. Like all religions, it is man made. Finding God and the spiritual meaning of life through the work of Jesus and His disciples is not.
Coreece 190
QuoteThe christian religion is very inconsistent. Like all religions, it is man made. Finding God and the spiritual meaning of life through the work of Jesus and His disciples is not.
Bravo...There is definately a fine line between legalism and licentiousness, and learning to walk it is an amazing experience. The best of both worlds if you will.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Some more hate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw1TGpUElb4
"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."
Coreece 190
QuoteSome more hate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw1TGpUElb4
That's funny...just not reality, tho.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
QuoteQuoteSome more hate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw1TGpUElb4
That's funny...just not reality, tho.
No shit...they're singing about a god!!
"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."
As for the Jehovah's Witnesses not being true Christians, well they think the same thing of you. So who is right? You because you base your beliefs on a majority? They might be right?
I wrote that too quickly
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites