Changes

::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible.  Too many internal consistencies.  Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant?  Are you a liberal?  --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible.  Too many internal consistencies.  Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant?  Are you a liberal?  --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

 

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.

:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are.  They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are.  They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism.  12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism.  12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic.  Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?"  This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response.  Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers.  For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period.  Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs.  See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic.  Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?"  This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response.  Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers.  For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period.  Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs.  See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic.  Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic.  Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions.  The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses.  Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions.  The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses.  Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."  

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."  

:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.

:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.

:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for sharing that tautology -- "the bible says this, so it must be true" -- and I agree that it is very troubling when arguments of this sort are presented: validation based on an original source is hardly very compelling.  Basic problem is that these are written after Paul had established that Jesus was the "anointed one" -- note that the Greek Khristos is applied to both Jesus and David (among others), and the "anointed one" in Judaism ''is'' a son of man who becomes king ( a la David).  [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for sharing that tautology -- "the bible says this, so it must be true" -- and I agree that it is very troubling when arguments of this sort are presented: validation based on an original source is hardly very compelling.  Basic problem is that these are written after Paul had established that Jesus was the "anointed one" -- note that the Greek Khristos is applied to both Jesus and David (among others), and the "anointed one" in Judaism ''is'' a son of man who becomes king ( a la David).  [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

== Protected debate page? ==