|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2002 : 16:41:26 [Permalink]
|
What's really creepy is how this white European man ended up inside Mary's belly and no one commented on how white her kid was.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2002 : 19:36:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As I originaly stated the Biblical view of God is Triune.
A doctrine which has yet to make anything resembling sense.
quote:
The question you asked must be answered in that light,namely,"Do I really think God[The Son took on a REAL human nature in which his body] is made up of atoms arranged in apattern that looks like Jesus?" Then my answer is still yes.
What the hell? Are you just making up ways of existence as you go? Where, exactly, do you think this physical body of God resides?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 00:36:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, you wait until you have a document thoroughly revised and harmonized. What is your basis for rejecting the earlier manuscripts?
No,if you had read the Preface pp's x&xi you would have seen its based on some of the oldest texts.
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 01:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I originaly stated the Biblical view of God is Triune.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A doctrine which has yet to make anything resembling sense.
To Phd. in your original question you stated:DA, I'd like to ask you, mostly out of curiosity, about your concept of God. Primarily, I would ask that you provide a working definition, something you can tell others that gives them a general idea about what you speak when you reference God. Now perhaps I could have said it like this "My concept of God is derived from the Bible,which I believe teaches very clearly that He is a Triune Being.In other words there are three Persons who are all called Jehovah who share the one nature of Deity.Now you latter complained that I was being to vauge, quote:
Could you be more specific? The Bible doesn't define God, it merely outlines his more recent exploits. I'm thinking more along the lines of what thing the noun "God" refers to. When you talk presently about God, you're ostensibly not referring to a character in a book, so I suppose you must be referring to something that can be accurately accommodated by a noun. Please enlighten.
I am talking about Persons who have Revealed Themselves by thier,Words("I AM the LORD your God... and you shall no other gods before ME"Ex.20:1),and deeds (Jesus "showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive"from the dead,Acts 1:3).You can't be more clear than that,how else do you "know" anyone except by thier words and deeds?
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 05:51:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In other words there are three Persons who are all called Jehovah who share the one nature of Deity.
What do you mean by "persons"? And how can 3=1?
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 06:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
You can't be more clear than that, ...
So clear, in fact, that:- Apollinarianism
- Arianism
- Docetism
- Ebionitism
- Eutychianism
- Gnosticism
- Marcionism
- Monarchianism
- Monophysitism
- Monotheleticism
- Nestorianism
- Sabellianism
is just a partial list of significant trinitarian and related heresies advocated by dedicated and learned early Christians. How sad that they lacked your grasp of the obvious. It would have no doubt averted a good deal of bloodshed.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/06/2002 06:54:04 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 07:54:18 [Permalink]
|
DA,
What does it mean to say, "the Bible... teaches very clearly that He is a Triune Being"? The Bible simply says some things about the father/son/holy ghost and the trinitarian doctrine is inferred from that. But what is the significance of the words in the Bible that you now understand how one person can be three? Are they magic words? Do they impart some emergent knowledge that doesn't exist in the individual words themselves? Greater thinkers than you and me have read those very same words and don't understand it. Is it possible you don't understand it, but simply assume its truth without question?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2002 : 19:19:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
No,if you had read the Preface pp's x&xi you would have seen its based on some of the oldest texts.
I can't tell if you're being dishonest or simply confused. To which oldest texts are you referring? Clearly your Bible is based on Byzantine rather than the older Alexandrian sources. Clearly your Old Testament is based on one of the Masoretic traditions rather than the much older Septuagint. Do you actually understand the history of what you're reading, or are you simply making this stuff up on the fly?
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 10:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Clearly your Old Testament is based on one of the Masoretic traditions rather than the much older Septuagint. Do you actually understand the history of what you're reading, or are you simply making this stuff up on the fly?
"The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an EARLIER stage of Hebrew text.They were consulted as were the Smaritan Pentateuch and ANCIENTscribal traditions relating to textual changes." Preface NIV p.x. rather than the much older Septuagint. I am astonished that you aren't aware that "Septuagint" is a Greek translation from the Hebrew.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 12:13:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
"The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an EARLIER stage of Hebrew text. They were consulted as were the Smaritan Pentateuch and ANCIENTscribal traditions relating to textual changes." Preface NIV p.x. rather than the much older Septuagint. I am astonished that you aren't aware that "Septuagint" is a Greek translation from the Hebrew.
But I am not at all amazed by some of the crap you write.
Phrases like "The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an EARLIER stage of Hebrew text" are little more than childish gibberish unless you know their relevance - and you clearly don't. Which Scrolls specifically? What material bearing? Which "EARLIER stage of Hebrew text?
And what are we to make of your wondrous announcement that the Septuagint "is a Greek translation from the Hebrew"? Is it relevant at all?
Again, what is your reason for choosing the Byzantine rather than the older Alexandrian textual sources?
P.S.: When you quote something, if you wish to add emphasis (e.g., "EARLIER", "ANCIENT"), please have the decency to indicate 'emphasis added'.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/07/2002 12:16:12 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 15:27:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What do you mean by "persons"? And how can 3=1?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time it was decided that it took three persons to be one god didn't it also take three persons to be Caesar. They were each Caesar and together the three were still called Caesar.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 09:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time it was decided that it took three persons to be one god didn't it also take three persons to be Caesar.
Interesting point; you could well be correct. For me, the problem becomes one of trying to select which of the many Greco-Roman and/or Pagan parallels to point to as the source of this silliness. Take, for example, the Hecate Triple Goddess.
The Trinity was the victor of two competing Christologies. On the one hand, you have Arius of Antioch fighting a desparate fight in defense of traditional monotheism. On the other, Alexander of Alexandria - i.e., Egypt. It's interesting to note that the nomina sacra IHS represents not only Yeshua but, also (coinsidently?), served quite nicely as an acronym for the Egyptian trinity of Isis, Horus, and Seb. Home-grown trinitarianism was a well established mysticism in Egypt. It may well be that Greek-influenced Egyptian paganism was more instrumental than Greek-influenced Roman paganism.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/08/2002 09:08:21 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 12:02:12 [Permalink]
|
I tend to think that Hecate had 3 aspects. Not unlike Mary the cheif goddess of the Galatians (she had temples in Tarsus and even in Alexandria) She was, of course, just the local version of the goddess that was worshiped across Celtic Europe who we Irish locally called Brig. Her three aspects were the virgin, the nymph and the crone. Much like the three Marys who attended the crucifixion.
With Mary/Brig it was 1=3 instead of Jesus 3=1.
The 1=3 wasn't uncommon from India to Ireland. Could be the Jesus authors got slightly confussed and meant to say that the one god makes up the three persons instead of the other way around.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2002 : 11:55:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But what is the significance of the words in the Bible that you now understand how one person can be three? Are they magic words? Do they impart some emergent knowledge that doesn't exist in the individual words themselves? Greater thinkers than you and me have read those very same words and don't understand it. Is it possible you don't understand it, but simply assume its truth without question?
To Phd.,I don't apply any"magic" or "some emergent knowledge that doesn't exist in the individual words themselves?" to the words of the Bible but simply thehistoric-grammatical method used in all exegesis.Granted,as you point out it is a very difficult subject.However,I don't recommend we don't attempt to understand it or"simply assume its truth without question?" First,we already accept mysteries about our "known" universe (light is it a wave or particle?),so we shouldn't be confounded when the "alleged" Creator contains some as well.Secondly,as I've pointed out on another thread,the Biblical notion of God is continually set in antithesis of pagan concepts(so Slaters's and RD's allegations are irrelevant),which leads an open mind to ask just how or why "Orthodox Jews" would embrace this concept Jehovah without some Powerful Evidence(i.e. the Resurection of Jesus from the dead).
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2002 : 12:21:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Phrases like "The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an EARLIER stage of Hebrew text" are little more than childish gibberish unless you know their relevance - and you clearly don't. Which Scrolls specifically? What material bearing? Which "EARLIER stage of Hebrew text?
And what are we to make of your wondrous announcement that the Septuagint "is a Greek translation from the Hebrew"? Is it relevant at all?
Like I said on the other thread you are confused.But I'll attempt to give you some elementary facts to straighten out your fuzzy logic.First, if you had checked out anything on "The Dead Sea Scrolls " you would have known one of the most significant finds was The Isaiah Scroll,circa 200BC,and when they compared it to the Massortic text they found it to be within 98% the same.Secondly,if you can't figure out why ,if you want a translation from the Hebrew,you should't use The Septuagint(which is a very excellent translation into the Greek language)then i just don't know what to say.Finally,I recommend you switch to decaf because I haven't a clue where you get the idea that I"m against the Alexandrian text:" what is your reason for choosing the Byzantine rather than the older Alexandrian textual sources?"
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
