|
||||||||
Getting to Heaven |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#151 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Quote:
Are you sure they where concerned with editing the old testament? I thought they where mainly concerned with Christ's Divinity and Icons respectively? I could be wrong. Perhaps you can cite something?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#152 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Then they may be scholars but they are not Historians. Miracles are not the province of Historians.
![]() Historians cannot say whether or not miracles occurred. We have enough trouble with that in our time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Im not sure how far back the surviving ot books and various rabinical commentries go, but it's nothing like ''maybe 40 years after the events'', as with luke's gospel. And clearly, there were no humans around to watch ''the spirit of god, hovering over the waters'' (genesis) .........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman in debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1FTVyQ7LKQ Ehrman speaks from 38:50. Details numerous contradictions from around 44 mins (and many more later). Around 56 minutes he says much about the gospels alleged authorship. In summations of part 1, Ehrman says at 2:15:35 (2hrs 15mins 35 seconds in) : "no scholar in (North America) says the gospels are historically accurate" |
|
|
|
|
|
#155 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,400
|
I don't mind going to pet Heaven, if people Heaven is full!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#156 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
I don't mind going to pet Heaven, if people Heaven is full!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#157 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
On modern biblical criticism, it's worth reading the essay ''fern seed and elephants'', by c s lewis, there's a copy online ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#158 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
On modern biblical criticism, it's worth reading the essay ''fern seed and elephants'', by c s lewis, there's a copy online ........
If I read it correctly, Lewis is making a plea to just read the books for goodness sake. I think SULLA would applaud, and I would also agree that just reading the New Testament for the inspirational experience of it is an authentic practice. From that point of view the sort of doctrinal analysis people like Bultmann articulate serves little purpose. You are either inspired by the text or you are not. Otherwise, just read Bultmann and see if his books inspire - good luck with that. But while Lewis touches on historicity, he does not really embrace the idea, and if he feels people like Bultmann are attempting it, he couldn't really have understood it at all - though he hits on the elephant in immediately (why accept the resurrection as literal truth and then go on to argue the toss about the feeding of the five thousand?). For me historicity is not just about what may be literally true - (It's living myth for goodness sake. If you don't understand the difference between myth and fiction we can't even begin a discussion!). It's more about context .... so Jesus cast the evil spirit into the herd of swine and they dived of the cliffside .... so why were orthodox Jews herding swine?? And what might a historic answer mean for that teaching? edit: The sad thing for me is that many clergy seem to lay the greatest store by what can be believed to be literal truth, and I have heard Christmas sermons lay out in great detail what can be dismissed as fiction and what remains as 'true' belief. I think they miss the point of their own religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#159 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
There are present day miracles. Placebos are a form of miracle. People are cured by something that has no active ingredient. Just their belief. So why should we be doubtful that miracles occurred 2000 years ago,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
There are present day miracles. Placebos are a form of miracle. People are cured by something that has no active ingredient. Just their belief. So why should we be doubtful that miracles occurred 2000 years ago,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#161 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Most of what are usually described as miracles can be nothing more than rare statistical eventualities, coincidences, or simply something that cannot be currently explained.
e.g. If the chances of surviving a plane crash are 1 in 10, 000 (just for example, I don't know what the chances are), then it is possible to be that 1 in 10, 000. Miraculous in the contemporary sense of the word - yes - but a miracle? Most likely not; especially as it discounts the other 9, 999 that didn't survive in the example. Or, in bolly's example, all those who were 'cured' without belief... |
|
|
|
|
|
#162 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Or, in the case of historical miracles, may be an act of fiction or folklore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#163 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Happy New Year Bolly - hope you have had a good rest.
Child has been living in London and was home for the holiday. Lots of cooking and eating. |
|
|
|
|
|
#164 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
|
Quote:
obviously, the gospels were assembled from a verbal set of circulating stories, which were then written down, as it slowly became clear that jesus wouldn't return ''immediately''. The origin of the 3 synoptic gospels being ''source Q'', which is unlikely ever to be discovered, but you never know ...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#165 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Quote:
I very much doubt source Q even existed. You shouldn't state it as if it's existence is fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#166 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
obviously it existed, although, you yourself would probably call it ''fiction'' ..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#167 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Quote:
Yeah, because of that annoying thing called scepticism which doesn't seem to apply when you study theology, where it's much "I think it, so it's plausible"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#168 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
The Q gospels probably did exist, as well as those known as L, earlier writings that Luke would have read. Also Mark most likely read earlier writings. This is a widely held opinion of scholars. Not just believer-scholars,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#169 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Quote:
There are present day miracles. Placebos are a form of miracle. People are cured by something that has no active ingredient. Just their belief. So why should we be doubtful that miracles occurred 2000 years ago,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#170 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
most biblical scholars, of whatever religious persuasion, believe source q existed. It's an hypothesis that ''explains the facts'' All this does, really, is assign a date for writing down the synoptic gospels, that must be earlier than Mark .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#171 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
well, things like reanimating dead dudes, and curing leprosy, are not really ''power of autosuggestion mind over matter'', though it wd be nice to hav much more detail. Anyway, bolly, happy new year. At one point i thought you'd left ds, never to return, so happy to see u haven't .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#172 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
|
Placebo is an effect on symptoms, not the underlying illness itself. And that effect can be negative as well as positive -most definitely not a ‘cure’ by any stretch of the imagination. Bolly is getting a little excited by calling it a ‘miracle’, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#173 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
Placebo is an effect on symptoms, not the underlying illness itself. And that effect can be negative as well as positive -most definitely not a ‘cure’ by any stretch of the imagination. Bolly is getting a little excited by calling it a ‘miracle’, I think.
And the difference is.,, |
|
|
|
|
|
#174 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
|
Quote:
A miracle in Jesus time was being healed by belief in being healed. A miracle in our time is being healed by belief the placebo is working.
And the difference is.,, |
|
|
|
|
|
#175 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
|
Quote:
A miracle in Jesus time was being healed by belief in being healed. A miracle in our time is being healed by belief the placebo is working.
And the difference is.,, Or not then, quelle surprise. Jesus supposedly cured lepers and the like by belief. Give a leper a sugar pill and tell them it will cure them and they might be in less pain, but they will remain lepers. Conversely, give a cancer patient who's otherwise non-symptomatic a sugar pill and tell them it's chemo, and they might get side-effects as if it actually were chemo, but the cancer will continue to progress* You cannot 'cure' (or cause) symptoms and equate that to curing the underlying disease. *This is in no way advocating something so unethical, by the way. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:44.




