"The God Virus"

[Mars Man]

You and I (and I'm sure others here) seem to definitely have an issue with time. There are some backtracking I'd like to do.

I assume this particular line here, refers to actual time on hand which can be used for being on line at JREF. That means that I do no assume it to have had any relation with the quote that it had come below. Is my understanding correct?

My point is that the character as you put it Jesus, as built up by the Gospel narratives is history. It's in an historical context. He wasn't presented as is for the purpose of using a real person for fables.

Let me see if I have this correct. First of all, again, to work from the facts. We do have three recensions which follow a similar story development. We call them the Synoptics, and they consist of the works which go by the names Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We also have one gospel narrative which does not fit this synoptic development, which goes by the title John. (Of course, the actual titles include the phrase 'according to,' and were essentially attached post 3rd Century, it seems.) Especially the synoptics, but even John too, are historio-bibliographies. They follow the general Greco-Roman literature of such similar genre, with a bit of a 'new' styling--to some extent. That means that they represent the intention to report in story form, on events, occurrences, and acts over the course of time--otherwise, history. There are a good number of other works of this genre in the Greco-Roman world. Some of these involved religious belief system events, themes, and related matters. Simply because any particular work does involve such, and for that reason alone, are we to therefore grant it as being historically accurate and correct--thus true historical fact in all its detail? Of course not. In order to attempt to verify the degree of veracity of all the pericopes of the storys, the themes and unfolding events, and such, we not only should, but have a need to test them, and cross-examine them from other, outside sources of knowledge. The gospel narratives are not different in any way.

Because they are stories, in this sense of historical reporting style, they contain characters which are involved. Until a sound and valid enough degree of historicity can be understood, we use the term 'character.' In the gospel narratives, there are many characters involved. Jesus is one of them, just as Satan is, Zechariah is, Lazarus, Peter, Mary Magdalene, and Pilate are. With investigation, we know that Pilate was an actual, historical person. We can concern to some degree that he was somewhat harsh, as an overseer for that area. We do not know his personality and character to the extent that we can say the work John portrays him in an actual historical setting. For this reason, even though Pilate was a real person, in John, we have the character Pilate of the story line. Likewise, Yeshua was a fairly common name then and there. That a Jewish male named Yeshua (since Yeshua is not for females) had been the actual founder of the movement which eventually became Christianity, is very likely. We have no reason to doubt that. The character Yeshua (Jesus in English) in the stories, is a character. If we were to want to verify the acts of that character, to see if they could have been actual historical facts, and if the personality, character, nature, and such as presented in the gospel narratives represents correct reporting, we will have to carry on our investigation as I have outlined (to a degree) above.

So, that the general autographs had been written, and in that way are facts of history, is not what you had intended to say, right? That the setting for the narratives was a generally historically correct one, is one thing you wish to say, right? You wish to say that it was not the case that authorship took an actual living person, and wrote them in to a fable as though they had modeled a particular character, after great imaginative embellishment, from someone they had known in their own times, right? I'll post jus this much, to make sure this is clear, firstly.

 

[AquaLung]

I assume this particular line here, refers to actual time on hand which can be used for being on line at JREF. That means that I do no assume it to have had any relation with the quote that it had come below. Is my understanding correct?

That's correct. And I admit that It didn't have a whole lot to do with what you actually stated. I personally am not too concerned about one's writing style. I would say, enjoy the time here while we can, and not get too hung up on a lot of things people get hung up on while interacting on forums. I mean this sure beats texting doesn't it? And we probably don't have to worry about getting a traffic ticket.

The reason I mentioned my difficulty was just to let you know my mere mortal mind is not able grasp everything being said. I didn't want to give a false impression of being able to do so.

Let me see if I have this correct. First of all, again, to work from the facts. We do have three recensions which follow a similar story development. We call them the Synoptics, and they consist of the works which go by the names Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We also have one gospel narrative which does not fit this synoptic development, which goes by the title John. (Of course, the actual titles include the phrase 'according to,' and were essentially attached post 3rd Century, it seems.) Especially the synoptics, but even John too, are historio-bibliographies. They follow the general Greco-Roman literature of such similar genre, with a bit of a 'new' styling--to some extent. That means that they represent the intention to report in story form, on events, occurrences, and acts over the course of time--otherwise, history. There are a good number of other works of this genre in the Greco-Roman world. Some of these involved religious belief system events, themes, and related matters. Simply because any particular work does involve such, and for that reason alone, are we to therefore grant it as being historically accurate and correct--thus true historical fact in all its detail? Of course not. In order to attempt to verify the degree of veracity of all the pericopes of the storys, the themes and unfolding events, and such, we not only should, but have a need to test them, and cross-examine them from other, outside sources of knowledge. The gospel narratives are not different in any way.

Because they are stories, in this sense of historical reporting style, they contain characters which are involved. Until a sound and valid enough degree of historicity can be understood, we use the term 'character.' In the gospel narratives, there are many characters involved. Jesus is one of them, just as Satan is, Zechariah is, Lazarus, Peter, Mary Magdalene, and Pilate are. With investigation, we know that Pilate was an actual, historical person. We can concern to some degree that he was somewhat harsh, as an overseer for that area. We do not know his personality and character to the extent that we can say the work John portrays him in an actual historical setting. For this reason, even though Pilate was a real person, in John, we have the character Pilate of the story line. Likewise, Yeshua was a fairly common name then and there. That a Jewish male named Yeshua (since Yeshua is not for females) had been the actual founder of the movement which eventually became Christianity, is very likely. We have no reason to doubt that. The character Yeshua (Jesus in English) in the stories, is a character. If we were to want to verify the acts of that character, to see if they could have been actual historical facts, and if the personality, character, nature, and such as presented in the gospel narratives represents correct reporting, we will have to carry on our investigation as I have outlined (to a degree) above.

So, that the general autographs had been written, and in that way are facts of history, is not what you had intended to say, right? That the setting for the narratives was a generally historically correct one, is one thing you wish to say, right? You wish to say that it was not the case that authorship took an actual living person, and wrote them in to a fable as though they had modeled a particular character, after great imaginative embellishment, from someone they had known in their own times, right? I'll post jus this much, to make sure this is clear, firstly.

From what I can tell, I think I pretty much agree with everything said (and have been saying). The Bible is presented as historical fact. This doesn't mean that because it's presented as fact, we must assume it's accurate, there wasn't any misperceptions, or purposeful false information. There are of course lots of events that have been proclaimed to have happened that we would refer to as alleged, because the events as described are questionable. There are of course different stories originating from other religions at least initially presented as fact. Everything needs to be thoroughly examined. At times there are conflicting stories. Some feel that the Bible contains conflicting stories of the same event.

And yes, I wish to state that the various authors did not intend to incorporate real life characters into fictional/fantasy roles to somehow convey moral messages, i.e., Superman is actually a man named Clark Kent who leads a double life as a newspaper reporter, and community volunteer. This idea seems to circulate, and may not necessarily be what you yourself are suggesting. But I guess you may elaborate more on that more.

 

[Mars Man]

This idea seems to circulate, and may not necessarily be what you yourself are suggesting. But I guess you may elaborate more on that more.

This is kind of news to me, in a sense. I suspect (and this in only suspicion) that a lot of misinformation, along with a good degree of lack of information, may be leading to such urban legend. Again--as I will surely have to stress again and again--the people of that day and moment, were really in the heat and reality of that day and moment. Because time has since stood, there is much misreading and confounding. Additionally, because few attempt to grasp the original tongue documents, there is a fair amount of loss.

With this, also, we can get back to the matter of the description that the author of the Acts of the Apostles, Luke, had given us. There is, again, no reason to deny the actual person Saul of Tarsus, regardless of his description given by the Acts document, or by Saul's own letters. The actual person, however, as we both understand, would have had a brain, and would have been living and acting within nature as we know it, and have known it. Holding possible scenarios as to his mental condition aside, we are still not in a position to accept at full value, Luke's description of that event on the road to Damascus.

However (and this will tie in down the road, I argue), if we were to look over that setting as given us, we will quickly see that the author wises to emphasize the doctrine of the resurrection of Yeshua. Therefore, to work towards verifying even that event, we will want to firstly verify the likelihood of a resurrection. This can be tested, because (again) it is a claim to know.

 

[pauro12]

God will give us all experience that will make us believe in him anyways. It may not be now, but surely soon in your lives or maybe after death. God will surely abide, ﾆ但ﾂーﾆ陳?停?慊！ﾂ！

 

[Mars Man]

God will give us all experience that will make us believe in him anyways. It may not be now, but surely soon in your lives or maybe after death. God will surely abide, アーメン！！

On what grounds of sound knowledge do you say that? You are surely aware that no supernatural male being has made himself clearly known to an external (thus not in our heads alone) actuality of nature at large. A good number have been dreamed up, and all have failed to act as per the prescriptions of the information sources (all the writing and sayings of what that particular being is like and thinks, and what he does and expects, promises and proclaim, and so on).

There is no reason to think that you have been afforded the opportunity to learn anything about God that any common person living in Jerusalem in 205 BCE would not have known, therefore you will need to stipulate and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt you claim to know. Of course, I know you cannot. I think you will know, just running ones mouth will not do a thing other than possibly waste energy and make problems.

 

[BrianLewis]

There is no reason to think that you have been afforded the opportunity to learn anything about God that any common person living in Jerusalem in 205 BCE would not have known, therefore you will need to stipulate and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt you claim to know.

Well, Biblically the "Spirit of Truth" resides with men after the resurrection. So that is not true. Whether or not you believe in such a thing, is up to you.

However, I believe it is wrong to judge others based on things that are relatively unprovable at the moment. If you can't prove the existence of a God, then what right do you have to claim to disprove it? We accept witnesses to crimes in court - in fact they are considered quite a strong testimony -, yet you can disregard witnesses to faith? That seems like a double standard from my perspective. What you are stating as fact is merely an opinion based on your current knowledge of the situation. If you don't care to learn from sources outside of history and science, then why comment on something you have no interest in learning about?

 

[Mars Man]

Well, Biblically the "Spirit of Truth" resides with men after the resurrection. So that is not true. Whether or not you believe in such a thing, is up to you.

You use the descriptive word 'biblically' here, BrianLewis. What do you exactly mean by that, and how would you exactly go about setting up the range within which such as 'biblically' will lie? No, to help out, I think there is no problem at all of understanding what the referent to the word 'Bible' is, right? So, to that degree, and in that way, 'biblical' simply refers to any copy of the Bible, regardless of what language it may be in.

But, we do know for a fact, that in the year 50 CE, there had been no Bible (as per that referent). What then are we going to find? We will find scrolls which make a number of libraries. The prime library, was that of the Philistinian canon of Hebrew and Aramaic documents. The Jewish system central (Judea) went by those largely. A number of documents were rejected as being worthy of being considered a part of the library in the year 90 CE, by a group of Jewish religious leaders. Saul, of course, as well as his troupe, used a number of LXX scrolls and codex documents.

Now, you mention the word 'resurrection.' What are you talking about here? Can you please spell that out precisely and accurately? Are you hereby asserting to know that some natural event which you call a 'resurrection' has occurred, and by which some further natural event will occur? I want to ask you to please spell this out clearly. Of course, I know what you want to get at, but, I also know that that is just a story line and not anything which happened, or can happen, in natural fact. I'd hope to get you to exercise a bit here.

You went on to touch on the matter of 'believing' in a thing. Well, what might you reason to be necessary for a person to believe in a thing, anyway? Additionally, could I please get you to fill out in some precision, just what type of believing act you may want to refer to here?

However, I believe it is wrong to judge others based on things that are relatively unprovable at the moment. If you can't prove the existence of a God, then what right do you have to claim to disprove it?

First of all, you are making a mistake with your English usage. We are not talking about just any god (at least I am not), but Yahweh. What reason might you have to think that there is something wrong, in pointing out errors in logic error and chronologically time-locked facts of history, that folks may be making when they assert or claim to know of a matter? I have never seen anyone prove that a figment of the imagination exists outside of the imagination as a real fact of nature. However, here you are missing the matter of the claim to know. It is the claim to know, BrianLewis which is testable. For instance, you seem to have made the claim to know that a 'resurrection' has occurred in some fashion, or, will occur in the future. How is it that you have come by this knowledge? You put that out on the table, and I will test it.

We accept witnesses to crimes in court - in fact they are considered quite a strong testimony -, yet you can disregard witnesses to faith? That seems like a double standard from my perspective.

This does not logically follow, actually. For example, there were some folks who were claiming to know that a certain god demanded certain activities of worship from the people of the earth (which essentially existed of that single nation state). For that reason, they took captives from battle and elsewhere (who knows where) and cut out their actual hearts while the victims were still alive, on the top of a temple, to appease that god. Their claim to know can be tested. Well, of course, in this particular case, we don't have to worry about it because that belief system died out and yet that particular god, as described by that system (the information source) did not come and destroy or kill people for no longer worshipping or believing it him.

Therefore, there is no double standard at all whatsoever. Bring any 'witness' you may want to, let the 'witness' expound on and explain his, or her, claim to know, and we'll test them out. No double standard there? Have you never heard of 'cross-examination?'

What you are stating as fact is merely an opinion based on your current knowledge of the situation. If you don't care to learn from sources outside of history and science, then why comment on something you have no interest in learning about?

This, BrianLewis , makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I mean, where did this even come from? You see, this is a point in case of what I am saying. Here, you are making an inherent claim to know that I have learned from X sources which do not include any fields beyond history and science. Well, I know it's a false claim, but I wonder how you can sit there and suggest that you know that, all the while keeping a straight face?

 

[BrianLewis]

Never mind.

 

[Mars Man]

Well, I cannot speak for you, of course, but I very much mind people advocating ignorance by refusing to question if what is being propagated is, in fact, lacking a high degree of ignorance. People can, do, and pretty much always have made all kinds of claims and assertions in this general area of concern. What has not been done quite nearly enough, is for people to get out there and do the spade work of checking it out.

Now what exactly is it, BrianLewis, which you wish not to investigate, or think about, or consider, when you make the claims that you have?

 

[pauro12]

On what grounds of sound knowledge do you say that? You are surely aware that no supernatural male being has made himself clearly known to an external (thus not in our heads alone) actuality of nature at large. A good number have been dreamed up, and all have failed to act as per the prescriptions of the information sources (all the writing and sayings of what that particular being is like and thinks, and what he does and expects, promises and proclaim, and so on).

There is no reason to think that you have been afforded the opportunity to learn anything about God that any common person living in Jerusalem in 205 BCE would not have known, therefore you will need to stipulate and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt you claim to know. Of course, I know you cannot. I think you will know, just running ones mouth will not do a thing other than possibly waste energy and make problems.

We will see someday who's right or wrong. Anyways, its a matter of knowing what really is true and surely well have our answers someday. Agree?

 

[Mars Man]

That's not the way it works, actually. We do know enough at the moment, to be able to understand a number of things quite soundly. The matter of having sound and valid knowledge is what substantiates what is true and what is false. What I have been saying is in some areas, more likely the case, in other areas, far more likely the case, in others most likely, far most likely, and then as good as fact, and, fact.

What you have quoted from an earlier post of mine, is as good as fact. We don't need to wait and see if it's true enough; it is.

 

[AquaLung]

This is kind of news to me, in a sense. I suspect (and this in only suspicion) that a lot of misinformation, along with a good degree of lack of information, may be leading to such urban legend. Again--as I will surely have to stress again and again--the people of that day and moment, were really in the heat and reality of that day and moment. Because time has since stood, there is much misreading and confounding. Additionally, because few attempt to grasp the original tongue documents, there is a fair amount of loss.

I agree.

With this, also, we can get back to the matter of the description that the author of the Acts of the Apostles, Luke, had given us. There is, again, no reason to deny the actual person Saul of Tarsus, regardless of his description given by the Acts document, or by Saul's own letters. The actual person, however, as we both understand, would have had a brain, and would have been living and acting within nature as we know it, and have known it. Holding possible scenarios as to his mental condition aside, we are still not in a position to accept at full value, Luke's description of that event on the road to Damascus.

However (and this will tie in down the road, I argue), if we were to look over that setting as given us, we will quickly see that the author wises to emphasize the doctrine of the resurrection of Yeshua. Therefore, to work towards verifying even that event, we will want to firstly verify the likelihood of a resurrection. This can be tested, because (again) it is a claim to know.

The likelihood of any resurrection is always going to fall into the unlikelihood category by default. However, while I wouldn't qualify certain events as equal to the resurrection of Christ, there have been cases where people do come back to life while their funeral is taking place, coming close to being buried, etc.

The problem with the issue of the resurrection of Christ is that there's probably a lot more to it than merely trying to come to a conclusion as to whether or not it happened. It's not quite the same thing as coming to a conclusion that an asteroid hitting the earth destroyed all dinosaur life. If we come to that conclusion, it has no direct bearing on our life. We can merely store this conclusion into our memory bank for after dinner conversation.

If one concludes that the resurrection of Christ did take place, they are placed into a position to act upon what they will do with the information/conclusion. Therefore, I think there's a way to demand proof in such a way that the person making the demand knows the evidence won't appear. Sort of like going to Hawaii (back when photography didn't exist) to prove to oneself that polar bears don't exist (instead of Alaska).

 

[Mars Man]

The likelihood of any resurrection is always going to fall into the unlikelihood category by default. However, while I wouldn't qualify certain events as equal to the resurrection of Christ, there have been cases where people do come back to life while their funeral is taking place, coming close to being buried, etc.

Yes, there are two good points here. For one, we do have the known event of what is now specifically called 'clinical death.' In this state, a person is not of the 'somatically death' state, which is absolutely fatal--full cell death with the hair and nail cells being the last to survive to the very end. (Yes, strange as it may seem a fully dead corpse can grow a face fuzz.)

Also, there is the case of medula, pons, or upper brain stem structure damage which can result in the temporary state of what is called 'locked-in syndrome (LIS).' This is the state (and some few patients have it permanently, due to major, unrepariable damage) in which a person will have full consciousness, and yet lack total motor control other than (in most cases) eye lid control. Of course, with careful checking for pulse, heart beat, and so on, a person can see that the LIS patient is not dead; but back then... it had probably been missed some. At any rate, temorary damage (even by a certain illness which affects that area of the brain stem) can cause this for a short period. Further more, we do have reports in the Greco-Roman literature about certain religious men bringing the dead back to life.

Then, since we have this certain amount of sound and valid empirically accumulated knowledge, which has stood the test of sample space and time scale, we know that a dead cell cannot be reactivated after a certain threashold of time. Especially is this true for brain cells and the matrix of connectivity that is required for proper cognitive function. Three days of having been in the state of somatic death is a 'closed case.'

The problem with the issue of the resurrection of Christ is that there's probably a lot more to it than merely trying to come to a conclusion as to whether or not it happened. ...

(Only quoting this much, but answering towards that general block) Yes, this line of general take--namely, that a lot will be involved--is quite better from a good methodological approach, I would agree. The general concept of this 'resurrection' theme, of course, was quite specifically Jewish in origin. We can find traces of it in the Tanakh. (2 Kings 13:20, 21; Dan 12:1-3) Also the authors of NT wanted to make it clear that the Sadducee sect did not hold that there was any truth in that resurrection theme. (Mt 22:23, 31; Mr 12:18; 20:27) Therefore, we would have to check out how it came about in the Second Temple Period system, or earlier, which led to its being within the mental framework of Judaism itself, as of the beginning of the first century CE.

After having come to see that, we can see how it had been applied in the doctrine of the earlier early Christians. Then, as for what is reported on in the historical contextual setting, we have claims to know of a said event. We can test these claims. However, we have to do so within the bounds of what is known. However, I will say here, as I think you may be beginning to see come together in our exchanges, it will have to go back to eventually testing the claim to know that the said god Yahweh can stand up to the test of time. As I have said before (of course, by means of a great summary statement, because of the involvement in presenting it all in detail...which to a degree can be done on an internet forum formate, and which I'd be willing to do, over time), however, this god too has failed.

O.K. gotta go now, without fully developing what I had wanted to say here. Maybe will get back tomorrow, or on Thursday. Sorry.

 

[BrianLewis]

Maybe God hasn't failed you, maybe he doesn't care to be tested by an arrogant man. Only those that seek to learn with an open mind and an open heart are shown the answers they seek.

 

[Mars Man]

Nature just doesn't work that way, BrainLewis. A person can cover themselves with sackcloth and ashes, and squat in the dust screaming and pounding the ground for the rest of their life, and it's simply not going to make this thing they say they know to an actual fact of nature, an actual fact of nature--beyond it being that inside the confines of their brain. You can sit there and talk about this certain god that you have learned about from those who learned about it from others of hundreds of years ago had written about it based on what they had been told by those who could actually read, and teach, from the written documents that they had recieved from some who had pieced together a bunch of stuff from of old, and put their own words, sentences, and sections in it here and there, and still have nothing over any other particular god that you have never heard anything about at all--even the same processes had been pretty much gone through, to some extent.

Can't you see what I am saying here, BrainLewis. Can't you see the bearing that the best of actually known-to-be-so history, in its proper chronological development is saying? I can only assume that you must believe that when someone told that this god God was a real being, as per present day Christian teaching, that you have come to believe those claims to know. (If it is the Christian gods which you want to say you know to be true beings in nature.) If you say that you know some matter to be a true fact of nature, then I am going to ask you how it is that you have come to know of that? I am going to ask you to demonstrate that your knoweldge is sound and valid. I am going to do that by testing it against knowledge which is sound and valid--for example, that the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon revolves around the earth, and that death is the absolute end of that cognitive being of one's self.

In other words, you seem to simply be asserting to know, and at the same time are suggesting that you know simply because you claim to know, and there is nothing else left to do--if one opens themselves to believing without thinking about it at all, then they will believe. And, by believing, they have thus come to know for a fact that what they have believed simply by believing it, is more than just a belief, but has become actual, external reality. Nope. That's dead wrong.

 

[BrianLewis]

how it is that you have come to know of that?

Read the book yourself. I was a skeptic before giving it a go. There is just too many occurances of profound philisophical statements that ring absolutely true, so much so that it cuts through all the clutter and garbage that people spout today. When comparing it to other books like the Analects, or the Book of Songs, or books written by Plato, which may have a handful of philisophical statements that ring true, I have to conclude that this is a book like no other. The Bible has one of these wonderful jewels every other page. Profound philisophical truth is evidence for me. What rings true to you? Do you read Plato looking for historical backing, or are you looking for something more? Perhaps you are not interested in philosophy.

Faith doesn't bring the answers. Faith comes from studying, and studying accompanied by faith brings a greater understanding of multiple meanings, the broader picture and a "feeling" when there are mistranslations that would confuse a beginner.

 

[Mars Man]

Read the book yourself.

I appears that you may have missed something along the way, if, you are under the impression that I have not read and studied the documents which got grouped together in the particular canonical structure that they have, and which some of got put into a single volume book.

There is just too many occurances of profound philisophical statements that ring absolutely true, so much so that it cuts through all the clutter and garbage that people spout today.

Here we find some tems which will need expounding on. For one, when a person uses the term 'philosophical' one will need to delimit the range of that term for their usage--otherwise the reader will not know whether it is referring to the more formal, academic standard, or to the general 'life outlook-like' viewpoint concept. When espouses that there is a lot of clutter and garbage being spit out today, one might want to give examples of what domain they may be referring to, and additionally, to what degree. I think most will readily agree, that in the mass media, for example, as well as in most any other field, there is going to be an amount on nonsensical stuff. We have to weigh and sift all that, to get to any firm parts. Sound and valid knowledge will be used along with the scientific method (in the broadest sense, here) for that.

When comparing it to other books like the Analects, or the Book of Songs, or books written by Plato, which may have a handful of philisophical statements that ring true, I have to conclude that this is a book like no other. The Bible has one of these wonderful jewels every other page.

While I fully understand the high truth value of the statement that the Bible is not really a book, but rather a collection of documents into a library, of sorts, I also understand that we have it as a book, today. There are of course a lot of good, philosophically reasoned out points, a good number of natural truths, and so on. I would not say 'every other page,' but they are definitely there. What proves truthful and sound from these, prove to be so, and what does not, does not. Because some assertions, opinions, or understandings and claims are realistic, are true, and are pointing to actualities of nature, does not mean that all are.

Profound philisophical truth is evidence for me. What rings true to you? Do you read Plato looking for historical backing, or are you looking for something more? Perhaps you are not interested in philosophy.

Profound philosophical truth, when by such modification is therefore just that (profound philosophical truth), is evidence for itself by such conclusion, right? That which rings true, may at times ring true due to sound and valid knowledge which tends to far more support, rather than deny, the assertion or claim that is under inspection. The pitfall lies in being able to find that which rings true in light of the aforesaid, without reading truth into it before investigating it, or working to understanding it more fully. This is kind of the thing I have been discussing with AquaLung recently, here.

That which rings true for me, rings true due to just as I have written above. Coming to understand accurately and correctly is a must, and this is a process that one goes through. It's a methodological process which is built upon reasoning and ration along with emotional tagging. Furthermore, it is one which must begin it's journey from as neutral a position of understanding as possible, to adhere to and maintain untainted by unincluded a prioris and priming--which is really quite hard a thing to do, actually!

Some of the works of Plato do contain historical pericopes and blocks, or sections--such as his reporting on Socrates. Most of his work is philosophical in nature alone, and becuase of the time period, is an mixture of theist-involved religious belief system statment, and an effort to explain things about nature as the Greeks generally understood them at that point in time. There are of course some good things in Plato, but a bunch of nonsensical things too--as testing through sound and valid, empirically accumulated knowledge at our point in time concludes. Aristotle's works are more towards what is very much a natural science, and even his misnamed 'Meta Physics' is an attempt at some of the unknowns not mentioned in his 'Physics.' Of course, the Mahabharatha has some good points in it, and some things which ring true, as well as the Bhavadagita and a number of portions of the Vedas as well. The Quran has some good points and true to nature statements in it as well.

Faith doesn't bring the answers. Faith comes from studying, and studying accompanied by faith brings a greater understanding of multiple meanings, the broader picture and a "feeling" when there are mistranslations that would confuse a beginner.

Now here you have gone and made a statement (first clause of the second sentence) which seems--at least to me, and at least on the surface and in light of what you have written to date--to contradict your up-to-the-moment posted comments. What is interesting, is that the example of faith (that is, believing a matter to be an actuality of reality out there) which is expounded on just a touch in the document To The Hebrews, at 11:1-12:1), is essentially what you have just put forward, and yet which is what extremely few actually do ! Time and again I have been appalled at the ironic hypociasy of this situation. It is too bad, you see, that the second clause of that sentence once again goes back to what I have just now highlighted--the hypocrisy. If you don't think I have read you correctly on that second sentence in full, then please, by all means, to expound and amplify it so as to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that I have in fact, misread, or misconstructed, you.

You also mention 'misinterpretations. I wonder, why do you do that? Can you read the Hebrew and the Greek fairly well enough? Do you have the resource material to grasp the difficult grammatical points and such, so that you can talk about 'mistranslations? (Surely meaning mistranslations from the original tongues, into English.) Give me a good post, please.

 

[BrianLewis]

I appears that you may have missed something along the way, if, you are under the impression that I have not the documents which got grouped together in the particular canonical structure that they have, and which some of got put into a single volume book.

Having and reading are two different things. I presume you have not read at least half of the book considering you had to ask, "what resurrection are you referring to" earlier in one of these threads.

Because some assertions, opinions, or understandings and claims are realistic, are true, and are pointing to actualities of nature, does not mean that all are.

Is that an assumption or are you talking about something specific? I am surprised that you ask for me to drudge through common media for example of nonsensical gibberish, but you won't elaborate on something like this.

Of course, the Mahabharatha has some good points in it, and some things which ring true, as well as the Bhavadagita and a number of portions of the Vedas as well. The Quran has some good points and true to nature statements in it as well.

How would you compare the density of "philosophical truths" from these books to the Bible? You don't have to answer that, if you have not read it. I wouldn't expect any scholar to embrace or vilify a book if they have not read it. Yet, for some reason, many people do when it comes to the Bible. I guess that's another difference between other works and this one.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"We accept witnesses to crimes in court - in fact they are considered quite a strong testimony -, yet you can disregard witnesses to faith?"

Oooohh, you make a losing argument there, Brian. Human witnesses are in fact very unreliable. Five different witnesses to an event will usually give five different accounts.

For a good, comedic yet very accurate, depiction of the reliability of courtroom witnesses, go watch the film "My Cousin Vinny." I'm no Joe Pesci fan, but I do like that one. And there's Marisa Tomei to drool over!

The Bible has wisdom in it, but you do have to acknowledge that it is ALL human wisdom. Nothing in the Bible exceeds or supplements the extent of human knowledge of 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. To me, that's quite telling as to what the Bible is.

 

[Mars Man]

Having and reading are two different things. I presume you have not read at least half of the book considering you had to ask, "what resurrection are you referring to" earlier in one of these threads.

OOPS ! That was an error on my part. Sorry. I had failed to type in 'read and studied.' I have edited that in now. Apologies on the miss. There are at least four resurrections mentioned in the total of the documents. It is for that reason that I had been asking you. The said resurrection of Yeshua is not the only one, you see.

Is that an assumption or are you talking about something specific?

That is pointing to a number of things. I apologize for not being able to offer the entire list at this very moment, but there are many. For example, here, while the circulation of water in the weather patterns is a fact of nature, as presented in the Tanakh, that there is a dome above the earth, is not. That the Persian political leadership released all captives from the Babylonian empire, upon defeating it, and encouraged the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, is a true historical fact. That it was Yahweh who had made that happen, doesn't hold water at all. (and so on and so forth....)

How would you compare the density of "philosophical truths" from these books to the Bible?

First of all, you will need to spell out how you are intending to use the term 'philosophy' here. Then, you will need to give an example of what the difference is between just a brute philosophical truth, and whatever 'density' may be inherent in it. (I kind of think you may be meaning to ask about the degree of truth value any statement has?) One book written by Yoram Hazony, The Philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures kind of goes to a gross extreme in this line of thinking. He posits that the whole deal about Yahweh and the law, and revelation itself, is just prop for the philosophical message, and not any statement about any god at all. Obviously, it is a bunch of wishful thinking when looking at historical and archeaological evidence itself, but he seems to make one very soundly reasoned out argument. Centuries of reading the Tanakh as foreshadowing the NT is an error of Christian bias. For a proper understanding and read of the Tanakh, it must be "carefully disentangled from the concerns of the New Testament texts." That much of his porposition and position is spot on.

At any rate, BrainLewis, it is you who has to perform now. The ball is in your court, and instead of just demanding that I respond towards your questions, you need to make your presentation and clarify your terms.

 

[BrianLewis]

Oooohh, you make a losing argument there, Brian. Human witnesses are in fact very unreliable. Five different witnesses to an event will usually give five different accounts.

Witness testimony is accepted in court.

The Bible has wisdom in it, but you do have to acknowledge that it is ALL human wisdom.

I am not an athiest, so why do I have to?

At any rate, BrainLewis, it is you who has to perform now. The ball is in your court, and instead of just demanding that I respond towards your questions, you need to make your presentation and clarify your terms.

I believe I have already stated my opinion, and there was no response. Well, I don't really consider examining nouns and pronouns to be anything more than misdirection though. Maybe other peoples' opinions differ... My contention is a philosophical one, yet all I get is history grammar in return.

 

[Mars Man]

I believe I have already stated my opinion, and there was no response.

Well, actually I know that you have stated an opinon which you hold. I am answering towards that, but going from the detail which underlies the entire project. This is a response, but it kind of like having to develop an argument based on the most fundamental facts firstly, don't you see?

Well, I don't really consider examining nouns and pronouns to be anything more than misdirection though. Maybe other peoples' opinions differ... My contention is a philosophical one, yet all I get is history grammar in return.

I don't know. I just cannot seem to escape the fact that it looks like you are not willing to do anything other make an assertion (an opinion alone, at that) and expect it be be as though it were a fact of nature, without wanting to do as much as to lift a finger to demonstrate that more than mere opinion, it is something really worth considering as an actual historical fact.

Now, you had earlier written as though you were concerned about mistranslations from the original tongues. Do you fairly understand the orginal tongues. You are surely not going to sit there, straight-faced, and try to make it seem as though I should believe you were being truthful in telling me that the original texts had been written in English... or even Latin, for that matter, are you?

Maybe we should do good to take some single point that you hold as an opinion. Do you believe it to have been an actual historical fact any given person in history past has actually somatically died, and then had returned to a living condition just exactly as if nothing at all had happened? If you do believe this to have been an actual historical fact, on what grounds and evidence do you claim to do so? How would you demonstrate the soundness and validity of those grounds and that evidence?

 

[BrianLewis]

Now, you had earlier written as though you were concerned about mistranslations from the original tongues. Do you fairly understand the orginal tongues. You are surely not going to sit there, straight-faced, and try to make it seem as though I should believe you were being truthful in telling me that the original texts had been written in English... or even Latin, for that matter, are you?

Should I dignify this with an answer? It's not usually considered polite to put words into other peoples' mouths. In fact, I would call it unethical.

Maybe we should do good to take some single point that you hold as an opinion. Do you believe it to have been an actual historical fact any given person in history past has actually somatically died, and then had returned to a living condition just exactly as if nothing at all had happened? If you do believe this to have been an actual historical fact, on what grounds and evidence do you claim to do so? How would you demonstrate the soundness and validity of those grounds and that evidence?

The soundness of philosophical ideas is dependent on a person's opinion, not history, math, science, etc.. Do you consult history when making dinner?

 

[pauro12]

That's not the way it works, actually. We do know enough at the moment, to be able to understand a number of things quite soundly. The matter of having sound and valid knowledge is what substantiates what is true and what is false. What I have been saying is in some areas, more likely the case, in other areas, far more likely the case, in others most likely, far most likely, and then as good as fact, and, fact.

What you have quoted from an earlier post of mine, is as good as fact. We don't need to wait and see if it's true enough; it is.

Yes you were right with regards to FACTS, and I guess it is agreeable that none of us all knows all facts in this world, or is in need to learn for facts before we will be aware that there is such kind of fact existing. This is what I mean when I said that sooner or later we will know who's right or wrong, because I've already had found some facts about him that I have discovered by myself, and judging on how you disapprove proves that you haven't had found your own convincing facts about him. So as pertaining to facts, let me replace what I have posted, "We will soon be seeing who is right or wrong, base on the very last fact that we will be able to discover or will know in our entire life."

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Witness testimony is accepted in court."

And often discredited by cross-examination in court. See "My Cousin Vinny."

"The Bible has wisdom in it, but you do have to acknowledge that it is ALL human wisdom." - My words here.

"I am not an athiest, so why do I have to?" - Brian Lewis

Because truth is truth. NONE of the information in the Bible is super-human or beyond the time and place of its writing. There are no instructions for, say, building an airplane or operating a computer. No revelation that the sun does not go around the earth, but vice versa. No information even as to other parts of the world in the same era. No words about the Emperors of China or Japan, or the natives of S. America.

Such super-human revelations would in fact be good evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired. But there is not ONE thing that was not already known or believed by people of the Middle East 2,000 years ago.