Satan

[Dak]

Id be interested in seeing your basis for determining the canon then.

Pretty much "thus said the Lord" I consider inspired , once checked against the original Hebrew. Everything else is history, or commentary/perspective. There is a vast difference between useful and "inspired".

 

[Dak]

Id be interested in seeing your basis for determining the canon then.

Pretty much "thus said the Lord" I consider inspired , once checked against the original Hebrew. Everything else is history, or commentary/perspective. There is a vast difference between useful and "inspired".

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Pretty much "thus said the Lord" I consider inspired , once checked against the original Hebrew. Everything else is history, or commentary/perspective. There is a vast difference between useful and "inspired".

well the new tesament is in Koine Greek... so no hebrew there.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "thus saith the lord"... do you mean a book has to have that phrase? and what original Hebrew are we talking about? we don't possess any original copies of any biblical book... not even copies of the originals. so still unclear as to what you mean.

 

[Dak]

well the new tesament is in Koine Greek... so no hebrew there.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "thus saith the lord"... do you mean a book has to have that phrase? and what original Hebrew are we talking about? we don't possess any original copies of any biblical book... not even copies of the originals. so still unclear as to what you mean.

Well in regards to the Hebrew I mean checking the translated passage against the manuscripts (obviously of what we have).

Most of the NT is made up of Pauline Epistles, which are not inspired. Paul was a devout, educated, follower of YHWH, but he never claimed to be giving divine instructions.

Words of Jesus would be inspired (obviously).

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well in regards to the Hebrew I mean checking the translated passage against the manuscripts (obviously of what we have).

Most of the NT is made up of Pauline Epistles, which are not inspired. Paul was a devout, educated, follower of YHWH, but he never claimed to be giving divine instructions.

Words of Jesus would be inspired (obviously).

Ok that makes more sense. But here's a problem... how do you know which gospels contain the authentic words of Jesus? There were dozens of competing gospels in the early days of Christianity... the church solved the issue on the basis of church tradition and church authority both of which you reject. So again how do you know what Jesus actually said? Not only that but the 4 gospels that were eventually canonized are rife with contradictions and discepencies betweeb the events in Jesus' life and his words/speeches.
Lastly even if the translation is accurate how do you determine which books are inspired to begin with? The church relied on tradition and on areas on ehich there was still dispute they intervened and asserted their own supposedly divine authority. Again both of these are not options for you so what is your basis for knowing what is divinely inspired?

 

[Dak]

I am not aware of contradictions between what Jesus said and what he did.

I live be a simple philosophy of not worrying about what we don't know for sure.

Only 4 things covered in scripture are foundational and must be inspired to some degree. Creation (justification for the authority of God), the Commandments (instructions on how to live in harmony with the creation and with God), the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (blood sacrifice to cover when the instructions are not followed, as per the Commandments), and the return of God/Jesus to reign over the earth physically and the resurrection of the obedient(reward for obedience).

All the rest of it is nice, but not necessary.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I am not aware of contradictions between what Jesus said and what he did.

I live be a simple philosophy of not worrying about what we don't know for sure.

Only 4 things covered in scripture are foundational and must be inspired to some degree. Creation (justification for the authority of God), the Commandments (instructions on how to live in harmony with the creation and with God), the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (blood sacrifice to cover when the instructions are not followed, as per the Commandments), and the return of God/Jesus to reign over the earth physically and the resurrection of the obedient(reward for obedience).

All the rest of it is nice, but not necessary.

I meant that the gospel accounts contradict each other... an obvious example are the 4 resurrection accounts. I didn't mean that what Jesus said and did are at odds with each other.
So essentially you have determined which issues you consider essential for inspiration... which books that touch on these issues are inspired and the degree to which each of these are inspired. Essentially your own personal opinion is what determines what is inspired.

 

[Dak]

I meant that the gospel accounts contradict each other... an obvious example are the 4 resurrection accounts. I didn't mean that what Jesus said and did are at odds with each other.

Ok,I would need to go back and look at the resurrection accounts again, I was not aware of any contridictions, merely more or less information.

So essentially you have determined which issues you consider essential for inspiration... which books that touch on these issues are inspired and the degree to which each of these are inspired. Essentially your own personal opinion is what determines what is inspired.

I didn't say I was picking and choosing what's inspired. I said I focused on what would have to be inspired (if any one part of what I listed was a lie, there is zero purpose for even caring about any of it).

The rest of it may or may not be inspired, it doesn't have a practical application, so therefore to me it doesn't really matter.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Ok,I would need to go back and look at the resurrection accounts again, I was not aware of any contridictions, merely more or less information.



I didn't say I was picking and choosing what's inspired. I said I focused on what would have to be inspired (if any one part of what I listed was a lie, there is zero purpose for even caring about any of it).

The rest of it may or may not be inspired, it doesn't have a practical application, so therefore to me it doesn't really matter.

I understand you. But ultimately it is YOU who are determining what HAS to be inspired. Thus instead of say Catholic or Eastern Orthodox tradition and church councils determining the canon it is your opinion of what is the most important that determines it.

 

[Dak]

I understand you. But ultimately it is YOU who are determining what HAS to be inspired. Thus instead of say Catholic or Eastern Orthodox tradition and church councils determining the canon it is your opinion of what is the most important that determines it.

Well obviously faith is a choice. It's beyond obvious that what I listed is non-negotiable or there would be no reason to care about any of it. Who is doing the picking is irrelevant, because the picking is irrelevant.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well obviously faith is a choice. It's beyond obvious that what I listed is non-negotiable or there would be no reason to care about any of it. Who is doing the picking is irrelevant, because the picking is irrelevant.

Assuming Christianity were true I agree that those things are non-negotiable. However I was merely pointing out that others would say that there are other issues or issues that are connected to the ones you already mentioned that are also non-negotionable or of great importance and would also be regarded as divinely inspired truth.
Thus the picking is not irrelevant as the picking determines which books get recognized as God's truth. Thus the one's picking it should have the proper authority or the proper basis for being able to recognize said books as divinely inspired.

 

[Dak]

Assuming Christianity were true I agree that those things are non-negotiable. However I was merely pointing out that others would say that there are other issues or issues that are connected to the ones you already mentioned that are also non-negotionable or of great importance and would also be regarded as divinely inspired truth.
Thus the picking is not irrelevant as the picking determines which books get recognized as God's truth. Thus the one's picking it should have the proper authority or the proper basis for being able to recognize said books as divinely inspired.

That is if you are trying to systemize/corporatize the faith. Why should "Dr. soandso" have any more validity on matters of faith than anyone else?

 

[Thoth-Amon]

That is if you are trying to systemize/corporatize the faith. Why should "Dr. soandso" have any more validity on matters of faith than anyone else?

Because otherwise everybody can in theory become their own personal Pope determining what is most important to themselves and deciding which books they "feel" to be inspired, the degree of inspiration and the proper interpretation thereof. In other words what you get is endless divisions and confusion. If you read the New Testament writings schism and division are looked upon as sinful. There is also a hierarchical structure as well. And if you read the writings of the Church Fathers from the first two centuries they very clearly had a hierarchical structure.

 

[Dak]

Because otherwise everybody can in theory become their own personal Pope determining what is most important to themselves and deciding which books they "feel" to be inspired, the degree of inspiration and the proper interpretation thereof.

Oh the horror. Also, "Pope" is not even in the cannon as approved by the RCC.

In other words what you get is endless divisions and confusion. If you read the New Testament writings schism and division are looked upon as sinful. There is also a hierarchical structure as well. And if you read the writings of the Church Fathers from the first two centuries they very clearly had a hierarchical structure.

Schisms and divisions occur because of hierarchial structures and various interpretations by those in "charge". The church is an entirely man-made idea and organization which will disappear.

The only hierarchial setup given anywhere in scripture is the Levitical priesthood, which, due to lost genealogies, cannot currently be resurrected. Even if it were, there is no temple either.

 

[Korona]

Textual analysis is a type of rational activity, which means it's objective and universal. Religious faith is a subjective, inward, personal leap. There's no way it can be universal because it's linked so intimately with the subjective life of the religious individual.

Textual analysis will never lead you to a place where it's rational to say "yes I'm going to live my life around a faith in Christ because passages XYZ make it necessary...".

Vice versa, any rational argument you try to make (i.e. for why one text is better than another) that's speaking to faith breaks down for exactly this lack of universality.

Subjective vs objective truth, it's chalk and cheese. Occam's razor says it's ALWAYS going to be more rational to say "dudes made it all up" when it comes to religious text. If you're living a life where God became mortal and died for your salvation, that can't rest on "the Bible told me to do it" (unless you're a loony).

BTW, to be a Christian you have to believe that God is eternal and immoral but became moral and died. But if he's eternal then he didn't really die but if he died then he's not really eternal.
If you want contradictions, don't worry about the Bible, Christianity itself is a logical short-circuit.

 

[Dak]

Great post.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Oh the horror. Also, "Pope" is not even in the cannon as approved by the RCC.



Schisms and divisions occur because of hierarchial structures and various interpretations by those in "charge". The church is an entirely man-made idea and organization which will disappear.

The only hierarchial setup given anywhere in scripture is the Levitical priesthood, which, due to lost genealogies, cannot currently be resurrected. Even if it were, there is no temple either.

Actually there is a hierarchical structure mentioned in the New testament but I'm not interested in discussing this anymore since I already know where this is going. In any case whether my arguments here had any substance to them or not its ultimately pointless considering the obvious mythological character of much of the bible.

(Josh 10:12-13 NRSV) On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day".


Thanks!

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Subjective vs objective truth, it's chalk and cheese. Occam's razor says it's ALWAYS going to be more rational to say "dudes made it all up" when it comes to religious text. If you're living a life where God became mortal and died for your salvation, that can't rest on "the Bible told me to do it" (unless you're a loony).

The problem with this is that the sole source of information regarding the belief that God became man and died for your sins is the bible! We aren't born "knowing" this. We don't learn it by studying nature... it comes from a book or from other people who get their information from that same book.

 

[Dak]

(Josh 10:12-13 NRSV) On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day".

Astral Catastrophism. It's not impossible.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Astral Catastrophism. It's not impossible.

Weren't you just saying how people contradict the plain meaning of passages? What isn't plain about the passage when it says "the sun stood still and the moon stopped"? Isn't it obvious that this passage presupposes that the sun rotates and not the earth?