I can't imagine not believing in God. (page 61)

Witness My Fury

wtfever speaks much sense....

tec on the other hand does not.

tec

Sure, tec. If you want to sit around discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that’s cool- but it won’t cut it in the real world, lol.

Why would angels dance on the head of a pin?

I mean, do angels dance at all?

Do they like pins?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

AGuest

Then why call him God

Because that's that title that man needs in order to try and identify someone they don't know. Unfortunately, many are called gods. Even the one called "Satan" and "Devil"... both of which are identifiers, not names.

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

SA

Etude

"Because that's that title that man needs in order to try and identify someone they don't know."

I call someone I don't know a "stranger".

tec

No, apparently you don't. You want to insist that I explain away the only reference that says somebody was able to write something down (a disciple) while you ignore that the bulk of disciples according to Bible texts were "unschooled" and you want to ignore that for the people of the time, that is what was expected and that for the people of the time, only the very top percent of the populace would have been literate. You also want to ignore that even if disciples were able to read and write (not that such a thing is evident), the level of writing in the canon was way beyond what they would have known. So yes, they were illiterate. Compare that to the level of education of a 6-year old of today. Do you think most adults with that level of proficiency can have the skills to write in such prose? Maybe in your own mind. Besides, there's no point in considering any of that "testimony" when you can't even establish that the writer is actually the apostle and not some other dude.

You have been explaining it away... and I have not ignored the 'unschooled' comment. (though I dispute that the comment of itself means what you state it) My point was and still is:

It is written that at least one disciple was literate enough to write down his testimony. (this does not make it true; but it does dispute that the bible says they were all illiterate... my entire point on this matter, that has gone off on a tangent... which I participated in)

Those who were witnesses gave their testimony orally (whether they were literate or not), and then some later wrote that testimony down.

The book of John does not have to be written by the apostle John. But the 'disciple Jesus loved' - whoever that might be - is said to have written down his testimony.

Luke was not an apostle, but is referred to as a doctor... whether that makes him literate or not, I do not know... I don't think it means that he has to have been schooled in the law. But Luke was not an eye witness to Christ; he investigated and wrote down what others had witnessed. In his opening he states (in fact, his opening says a lot about this whole conversation that we are having):

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the world. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainy of the things you have been taught."

Right, we've considered that before. But then, you're defeating your own premise. If subsequent writers wrote things down, that may confirm rather than contradict that the "original" disciples and apostles did not do the authoring.

First... why is it all or nothing? Why not a mixture of things that happened? Reality tends not to be 'all or nothing'. We say 'exception to the rule' because there are always exceptions to the rule.

Well, I had given you an example in the past, which apparently went right over your head,

It did not go over my head. (or maybe it did... because it does not apply to your point: that none of the apostles were capable of writing down one of those gospels, because according to the bible, all of them were incable of such literacy)

Whether that is true or not, or that the verse in the bible is true or not, is another matter. But you did say 'according to the bible'. If you are going to 'accord to the bible', then how can you ignore one verse that states that one disciple did write down his testimony?

Likewise, it is patent to me from the Bible that Jesus' followers were of the peasantry and didn't muster the skills to write to the level of the canon.

Joseph of Arimathea?

you're going to ignore all of this and decide that because the possibility exists that some person might have been literate, then you will place some sort of legitimacy to the canon

Does it have to be written by the eyewitness to have 'some sort of legitimacy'?

The oral testimony cannot have been written down by someone else who followed the oral testimony, and still have some sort of legitimacy?

I do not consider it inerrant or anything of the sort. I simply consider it as being testimony to Christ, and testimony to what the people believed and did at the time.

The thing is, it wasn't the NT that people based their faith upon, or even the testimony of others. Those things just helped us to hear about Christ. But one must go to Him to know Him, to be taught by Him (the Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit)

The ONLY identification of the author of the gospel of John is the disciple Jesus "loved" most. That is the sole reference that caused the people who established the canon to call a document "The Gospel of John". So, if that disciple is not John the apostle, then John the apostle never wrote the gospel and the other disciple you assume did instead. Doesn't that suggest to you that the authorship of that gospel is in question? Even if a disciple could have written things down, do you think he would have been literate enough to produce the gospel of John? If so, you must have some foundation that at least one disciple was erudite.

That is the only reference? Interesting.

And I already thought that the authorship of that gospel is in question. Isn't authorship in question in most of the gospels? Other than perhaps Luke, or the letters stated to have been written by Paul.

Not all the disciples were peasants, Etude. Such as Joseph of Arimathea.

fact that Acts 4:13 mentions John specifically means that the one Jesus "loved" most was indeed incapable of writing a gospel." I don't think that's what you were arguing.

You're right, it wasn't what i was arguing. I had not made the connection between the author of john and that verse.

However, the authorship of the book of John BEING John has to be conclusive for that to even matter.

That verse also has to be referring to illiteracy, rather than referring to being unschooled so as to teach about the law and God. (not a rabbi, or trained in the teaching of the law)

Peter and John had 'no right' to be going about teaching about God. They were not 'schooled' to do so.

In any case, they may well have been illiterate, according to the info on illiteracy of the time. It does not, however, mean that every disciple was so. It also does not mean that the 'disciple that jesus loved' is the one who wrote John... only that the one who wrote John referred to the written testimony of the 'one who Jesus loved'.

You assume that what you hear (especially the parts you favor, the ones you get to pick) are true.... referring to hearing/reading from others

No, I don't. If the Spirit confirms to me something that i have read (or if something I read is corroborated by Him), then I can know that it is true.

In my analogy, I was referring also to people who knew the president in person. Just listening to them does not mean that I know the president. I can know about him from that. But I have to go to him personally to know him, myself.

Did you miss that "natural" means coming from nature and thereby being explainable by natural processes?

No I did not miss that.

But we cannot explain everything... yet. Some deem the unexplainable as supernatural. Some simply say... untrue, or, don't know.

What some deem supernatural... is something natural... that is not known or explained yet.

No. Water and land can be explained by the same natural rules. They are not different realms.

If there are different realms Etude... would they not both still be natural? If we discover another realm, and learn all about it, then does it not become natural? It is only supernatural until we have knowledge about it, and work those laws that govern it into our full knowlwedge of existence.

If some already have that knowledge, then to them, it is natural now.

Before we knew of another realm, we would only be knowing in part the full nature of existence.

I know you already think they were literate and were responsible for the writing of the canon.

If you still think that after reading this post, then please read it again ;)

Peace to you,

tammy

NewChapter

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

I like this. I had to look it up, because it is so good. It looks like it is attributed to Epicurus: Died in Athens 270 BC. I don't know how I never saw this before. Thank you.

wtfever

The difference between Religion and Science is this.....Science says I dont know and Religion claims to know absolutely what it cannot know! Take for instance the scientific model of starting with a hypothysus and setting out to disprove it and arriving at conclusions based on evidence....religion on the other hand uses faith as a way to disregard mounds of evidence even when its right and front of them and is the process of non thinking!

NewChapter thanks once again and if you havent already look at richard dawkins and watch some of the god delusion on you tube or better yet buy the book,

still thinking

Why would angels dance on the head of a pin?

I mean, do angels dance at all?

Do they like pins?...tec

I dunno...I can't find a scripture...so can't discuss it....

I can't imagine not believing in God.

Share this