U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2013, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,048,656 times
Reputation: 258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
I think the nativity story is just another in a long line of stories establishing a back-story for that peoples' particular god(s).
RESPONSE:

From the Catholic historian, Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, 3rd edition, pg 6.

"Words for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories told about him, which although not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

Last edited by ancient warrior; 10-27-2013 at 05:57 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2013, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,048,656 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
We're talking about faith issues here. Not many facts that can be discussed.

It's all about belief and feelings.

RESPONSE:


Some people prefer that their religious beliefs have a factual basis not just "feelings."

As Wikipedia summarizes:

"Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1.Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2.Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without evidence or reason, or even in conflict with evidence and reason."

We can choose which approach we take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,048,656 times
Reputation: 258
Posted by Wardendresden:

>>And that's the FUNDAMENTAL difference between Christians and fact-finders. Christians OTHER than fundamentalists, view the Bible about faith--and to Christians truth is ONLY in faith. You haven't the eyes of faith to see truth in anything but historical facts. But the FACT of faith, is that you have to jump off a spiritual cliff with the confidence that God will catch you and care for you and take you under His wing.<<

RESPONSE:

Mark 16:17 " And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Do you recommend to believers if they have "faith" try these things? Maybe they prefer the reality in this situation rather than rely on "faith."

And a person uses prudent judgment by not jumping off a cliff and expecting to be caught.



>>Now I will give you credit for starting some interesting threads---you have an ability to perk interest in those things---and this is one of them---but there is simply no reason for any of us who hold the name of Christ dear to spend our time in discussion with a non-believer.<<

RESPONSE:

Yes. I try to ask the important questions.

So you disagree with 1 Peter 3:15?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "...but test everything; hold fast to what is good;"

Finally, 1 Cor 13:11 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 10-27-2013 at 06:36 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 6,093,550 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post

RESPONSE:


Some people prefer that their religious beliefs have a factual basis not just "feelings."

As Wikipedia summarizes:

"Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1.Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2.Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without evidence or reason, or even in conflict with evidence and reason."

We can choose which approach we take.
Most rational human beings prefer to have facts as opposed to suppositions when making decisions on important issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,048,656 times
Reputation: 258
Actually, I was born a Catholic and of course received the "Gift of Faith. " And like any good Catholic, I believed everything the Catholic Church taught me as coming directly from God. My belief continued well into adulthood.

But than I began to realize that there were errors and contradictions in what I had been taught. And the Catholic Church had revised or reversed a number if its teaching, even though some had been proclaimed as "infallible" (which would make them "irreformable" or incapable of changing).

I had several talks with God about this and we agreed that God would take back my "Gift or Faith" but He would give me instead the "Gift of Rationalism" and encourage my study of Church history.

And He did. So here I am.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,288 posts, read 5,498,434 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Posted by Wardendresden:

>>And that's the FUNDAMENTAL difference between Christians and fact-finders. Christians OTHER than fundamentalists, view the Bible about faith--and to Christians truth is ONLY in faith. You haven't the eyes of faith to see truth in anything but historical facts. But the FACT of faith, is that you have to jump off a spiritual cliff with the confidence that God will catch you and care for you and take you under His wing.<<

RESPONSE:

Mark 16:17 " And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Do you recommend to believers if they have "faith" try these things? Maybe they prefer the reality in this situation rather than rely on "faith."

And a person uses prudent judgment by not jumping off a cliff and expecting to be caught.

.
Scholars now know that Mark 16:9-20 were a scribal addition to early manuscripts. My own translation of the Bible, the ESV, has a note at the beginning of verse 9 indicating that the earliest editions did not contain these verses.

And yes, if you are a "prudent" person, you may not wish to jump from a cliff, but you are making a false analogy between the physical and the spiritual world.

When you quote individual scriptures--as do the Fundamentalists and to whom your arguments so easily compare---you miss the spirit of God that can only be seen through ALL scripture.

The whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts, it does not even resemble the individual parts. Your argument, like the Fundamentalists, are like the blind men being led to an elephant to touch a different part and compare the elephant to what it really was. To the one, the trunk was like a snake, to another, the leg was like a tree, and to still another, the tusk was like a solid pipe, and to the last, who touched the tail, it was like a rope.

In fact it was like none of these. The elephant WAS a the sum of its parts, but it did NOT represent any of the conclusions reached by the blind men.

I'm sorry you have remained blind with regard to how the spirit of God can prevail in the hearts of a few. But touching one part and claiming that it is NOT this, does not lead to the same conclusion that it CANNOT be that.

And that's as close as I can come to "rationally" explaining what will always remain "irrational" in the eyes of some.

But are you on this thread to display your superior "rational" intellect, or simply to find others to climb into your boat that has a spiritual hole in the bottom? The "true" unbelievers that I know, simply wouldn't waste their time and energy on something that is so unimportant to them. But you spend a LOT of time here, which makes me believe that you have not fully escaped the teaching of your youth, and that can only be because God is not yet done dealing with you.

Blessings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,048,656 times
Reputation: 258
[quote=Wardendresden;31978765]

>>Scholars now know that Mark 16:9-20 were a scribal addition to early manuscripts. My own translation of the Bible, the ESV, has a note at the beginning of verse 9 indicating that the earliest editions did not contain these verses.<<

RESPONSE:

Yes, indeed. The writer of Mark left out the full Resurrection story so Mark 9-20 was added in the second century. A third ending the "Freer login" was added in the third century but later dropped.

John 7-8, the story of the woman taken in adultery wasn't added until the fourth century (It is missing from both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus). But all bibles now have it.

Matthew' ending about the Trinity baptismal formula was apparently added about 325 AD if you check Eusebius of Caesarea. Also observe that there are five reports of baptism in the New Testament. None are in the name of the Trinity.

The Johnannian comma, the only other reference to a Trinity, was apparently added in the 6th century to one of John's letters. Most bibles have now dropped it.

The "nor the son" phrase was dropped from Matthew' gospel since not knowing the day and hour (of the parousia) would raise questions about Jesus' divine knowledge. It's been reinstated in most bibles. Curiously, "nor the son was never dropped from Mark's gospel from which Matthew copied it..

Someone still has to correct John's crucifixion and Resurrection account which has no Passover supper or Eucharist and has Jesus crucified a day earlier that Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

>>And yes, if you are a "prudent" person, you may not wish to jump from a cliff, but you are making a false analogy between the physical and the spiritual world.<<

RESPONSE:

No I'm not. Your statement says what it says.


>>When you quote individual scriptures--as do the Fundamentalists and to whom your arguments so easily compare---you miss the spirit of God that can only be seen through ALL scripture.<<

RESPONSE:

Why? Aren't individual scriptures convincing?

>>The whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts, it does not even resemble the individual parts. Your argument, like the Fundamentalists, are like the blind men being led to an elephant to touch a different part and compare the elephant to what it really was. To the one, the trunk was like a snake, to another, the leg was like a tree, and to still another, the tusk was like a solid pipe, and to the last, who touched the tail, it was like a rope.In fact it was like none of these. The elephant WAS a the sum of its parts, but it did NOT represent any of the conclusions reached by the blind men.<<

RESPONSE:

Your elephant story is completely off point.

And if I remember my geometry, the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Do you have proof otherwise.



>>I'm sorry you have remained blind with regard to how the spirit of God can prevail in the hearts of a few. But touching one part and claiming that it is NOT this, does not lead to the same conclusion that it CANNOT be that.<<

RESPONSE:

It does if you cannot provide proof for any other conclusion.

>>And that's as close as I can come to "rationally" explaining what will always remain "irrational" in the eyes of some.<<

RESPONSE:

Only if rational proof is lacking, or the person making the explanation is irrational.

>>But are you on this thread to display your superior "rational" intellect, or simply to find others to climb into your boat that has a spiritual hole in the bottom? The "true" unbelievers that I know, simply wouldn't waste their time and energy on something that is so unimportant to them. But you spend a LOT of time here, which makes me believe that you have not fully escaped the teaching of your youth, and that can only be because God is not yet done dealing with you.

RESPONSE:

"makes me believe...?" Never "know..." I wonder why?

In Catholicism, the Second Spiritual Work of Mercy is to instruct the ignorant.

For this I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 02:58 PM
 
2,532 posts, read 2,017,708 times
Reputation: 327
[quote=ancient warrior;31980917]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post

>>Scholars now know that Mark 16:9-20 were a scribal addition to early manuscripts. My own translation of the Bible, the ESV, has a note at the beginning of verse 9 indicating that the earliest editions did not contain these verses.<<

RESPONSE:

Yes, indeed. The writer of Mark left out the full Resurrection story so Mark 9-20 was added in the second century. A third ending the "Freer login" was added in the third century but later dropped.

John 7-8, the story of the woman taken in adultery wasn't added until the fourth century (It is missing from both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus). But all bibles now have it.

Matthew' ending about the Trinity baptismal formula was apparently added about 325 AD if you check Eusebius of Caesarea. Also observe that there are five reports of baptism in the New Testament. None are in the name of the Trinity.

The Johnannian comma, the only other reference to a Trinity, was apparently added in the 6th century to one of John's letters. Most bibles have now dropped it.

The "nor the son" phrase was dropped from Matthew' gospel since not knowing the day and hour (of the parousia) would raise questions about Jesus' divine knowledge. It's been reinstated in most bibles. Curiously, "nor the son was never dropped from Mark's gospel from which Matthew copied it..

Someone still has to correct John's crucifixion and Resurrection account which has no Passover supper or Eucharist and has Jesus crucified a day earlier that Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

>>And yes, if you are a "prudent" person, you may not wish to jump from a cliff, but you are making a false analogy between the physical and the spiritual world.<<

RESPONSE:

No I'm not. Your statement says what it says.


>>When you quote individual scriptures--as do the Fundamentalists and to whom your arguments so easily compare---you miss the spirit of God that can only be seen through ALL scripture.<<

RESPONSE:

Why? Aren't individual scriptures convincing?

>>The whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts, it does not even resemble the individual parts. Your argument, like the Fundamentalists, are like the blind men being led to an elephant to touch a different part and compare the elephant to what it really was. To the one, the trunk was like a snake, to another, the leg was like a tree, and to still another, the tusk was like a solid pipe, and to the last, who touched the tail, it was like a rope.In fact it was like none of these. The elephant WAS a the sum of its parts, but it did NOT represent any of the conclusions reached by the blind men.<<

RESPONSE:

Your elephant story is completely off point.

And if I remember my geometry, the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Do you have proof otherwise.



>>I'm sorry you have remained blind with regard to how the spirit of God can prevail in the hearts of a few. But touching one part and claiming that it is NOT this, does not lead to the same conclusion that it CANNOT be that.<<

RESPONSE:

It does if you cannot provide proof for any other conclusion.

>>And that's as close as I can come to "rationally" explaining what will always remain "irrational" in the eyes of some.<<

RESPONSE:

Only if rational proof is lacking, or the person making the explanation is irrational.

>>But are you on this thread to display your superior "rational" intellect, or simply to find others to climb into your boat that has a spiritual hole in the bottom? The "true" unbelievers that I know, simply wouldn't waste their time and energy on something that is so unimportant to them. But you spend a LOT of time here, which makes me believe that you have not fully escaped the teaching of your youth, and that can only be because God is not yet done dealing with you.

RESPONSE:

"makes me believe...?" Never "know..." I wonder why?

In Catholicism, the Second Spiritual Work of Mercy is to instruct the ignorant.

For this I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.
You can do all kinds of study and find what you want to discredit the Bible. But when I read it the Spirit who is the Teacher, bears witness. Theology by the mind of man is not Christianity. Knowing Christ by the Spirit is and will always be the only way to know Truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,288 posts, read 5,498,434 times
Reputation: 4049
Default Faith

As I stated at the end of post #30, growth in God, or for that matter, faith, is from the heart to the head to the hands. If you have to have it in your head first, you simply will never experience it. And if it never gets to your hands (your actions), then it is doubtful it ever got into your heart.

And yes, there are many scribal additions to the scriptures, which can be confusing. All the more reason to study the Bible very carefully and knowledgeably. And there is absolutely no reason to believe some of the "additions" to the scripture were not inspired. We know for sure many of them were made to overcome what was seen by early Christians as heresies.

Men have always had a sense of the divine. John Esposito, no Christian for sure, but a Georgetown University professor of religion and international affairs with an emphasis in Islamic studies, has written that, "the record of human life indicates that in every society over the last 100,000 years, a progressive complexity in the mastery of tools was accompanied by the development of language ability and the unmistakable presence of religion." In other words, religion emerged with tools and fire--and has remained equally important with the others.

To often people have created "tribal" gods of their faith, and I do have concern that that is exactly what is happening in the United States, worshiping a god that is hostile to outsiders, and that should keep in check any tooting of religious horns of righteousness. Yet to ignore the centrality of religion in the make-up of man, is in itself irrational.

The nativity stories help us better understand how God came into the consciousness of Christians, and it should be a warning as well, for far too many Christians are quick to praise the Babe in the Manger while forgetting that the man the Babe became told us to take up our cross and follow Him. That is a lot harder to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2013, 03:53 AM
 
376 posts, read 324,164 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
Since Christmas is approaching, we will be hearing the nativity accounts in Matthew's and Luke's which do not appear elsewhere.

But some questions arise immediately. Is this an historical event or only a story?

Matthew 2 claims that Jesus was born during the life time of King Herod who died about 4 B.C.

Luke 2 claims that Jesus was born during the census of Judea conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius (when Herod's son and inheritor Archelaus was exiled) in 6 AD (see Josephus, Antiquities).

Because there is a ten year difference, at least one of these accounts isn't historical.

Which is it? How can we tell?
Herod's death being 4BC isn't an unchallanged fact. Modern scholarship set it in 1BC because there were more eclipses...
Neither is the census unchallanged. There were several.
Picking the right census, checking the astronomy events before and after His birth with astronomy software and using the priestly courses there is no contracdiction at all. Jesus was born 3BC. Herod who died 1BC ordered to get boys up to 2 year of age killed. That's also a small indicator. 3BC+2=1BC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top