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)
 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,257 times
Reputation: 46

Advertisements

Quote:
Mike 555 What's interesting is that you keep dogmatically stating that Luke wrote Acts around A.D. 80 when in fact no one can be sure of the exact date, but a very good argumentcan be made that both Acts (and the synoptic Gospels) were written by the early 60's.
Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 13:35a; 19:43–44; 21:20; 23:28–31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition. (http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/0)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:38 PM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 13:35a; 19:43–44; 21:20; 23:28–31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition. (scripture)
So say those who speak from the pre-supposition that predictive prophecy is impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 09:05 PM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Price is a mythicist. He is one of the very few people with any pertinent credentials at all who denies that Jesus even existed historically. Well known scholar Bart Ehrman, writing from the standpoint of an agnostic with atheistic leanings, wrote a book defending the historical existence of Jesus though obviously he doesn't believe that Jesus is God incarnate. The book is called appropriately enough, 'Did Jesus Exist?

Ehrman states the following.
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius , when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.

['Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth' Ehrman, p. 12]
Price is one of those writers. Concerning Price, Ehrman states the following.
As I will indicate more fully later, I think that Wells---and Price, and several other mythicists--- do deserve to be taken seriously, even if their claims are in the end dismissed. A number of other mythicists, however, do not offer anything resembling scholarship in support of their view and instead present the unsuspecting reading public with sensationalist claims that are so extravagant, so wrongheaded, and so poorly substantiated that it is no wonder that scholars do not take them seriously.

[Did Jesus Exist?, p. 21]
Ehrman addresses Price's argument later in the book, and needless to say, does not agree with his opinion that Jesus was simply a mythic hero. Nor do the majority of Biblical scholars. While conspiracy theorists continue to deny that Jesus existed historically, the historical evidence that Jesus existed is just too strong for any knowledgeable person to deny. Almost every qualified historian is convinced that Jesus was an historical figure.

With reference to those conspiracy theorists, Ehrman states,
And so, with this book, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of Biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, neither do I. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda.

[Did Jesus Exist? p. 5]
Ehrman is writing as an historian to whom evidence matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,574 posts, read 5,111,549 times
Reputation: 3914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
How does the orthodox church deal with "God breathed" in 2 Timothy?

So you really agree that scripture contains human errors?
WARNING, THE FOLLOWING POST IS QUITE PHILOSOPHICAL

Scripture absolutely contains human errors. But it contains stories about humans who made a boatload of errors, some of them serious, and were still considered godly men---Abraham, David, Moses to name a few.

So having a book with errors in it is no different than having a patriarch with human flaws in his character. The purpose of both is to point beyond themselves to something greater.

The traditional view of scripture was always from the point of view of the cross. God revealed Himself at the cross not just by acting toward humans but by allowing them to act in an evil manner toward Jesus. It was acting and being acted upon. The cross was God's full revelation, His ultimate "God-breathed" action precisely because it was not unilateral. It was literally in partnership with men He knew to be sinful--but He allowed it to happen.

God absorbed the evil men did and turned it around into something good for all mankind. The self-revelation of the cross is the epitome of "God-breathing" --- He revealed Himself. The bad He turned into good.

Now consider Scripture as a lesser revelation of God, because it is in the cross we see the full revelation.
In the full revelation God allowed evil to interact with His "God-breathed" work in Jesus Christ. In Scripture we have the same God--again "breathing." But God acts in exactly the same way He did at the cross, allowing evil to interact with the testimony of flawed men (flawed--indicates ungodly). Sometimes the men in that revelation acted according to their own dictates.

It is in the dialectic of acting and being acted upon that God communicates His true identity as humble, self-sacrificial love. God chose to share with us and be one with us. Being one with us, when we allow it, is "God-breathed." But sharing with us means God is acted upon BY us, and it frequently breaks His heart. God would interact with us day in and day out--but when He does He has humbled Himself to be acted upon by us.

So, too, the Scripture writers, and my understanding of what was in them. God was in them, and "they was in them", too! The consequence is that while every verse of the Bible is "God-breathed," it is not always the God self-revelation action. Sometimes it is revealing the human toward God action. That was the cross---revealing God AND revealing us.

Unless someone wishes to argue that the cross was not the most significant revelation of God toward men and in that revelation humans acted toward God even as He acted toward them, then the Bible comes in at very best a "second" view of God's interaction with humans---once again, following the lead of the greatest revelation--humans acted toward God at the same time God was acting toward us.

Fundamentalists have great problems with this because they are focused on seeing, touching, feeling, and probably grasping Scripture on their knees as they pray. I know I did as a fundamentalist. But when we see the Bible as revelation over and above the cross, we don't get it, and we don't understand how God interacts with us, (Him to us, and us to Him). Christ followers are always looking to uncover the "God to Men" portion of "God-breathed." Doesn't mean the men to God portion is not "God-breathed," because like the reception Jesus received, it was still part of God's plan. Being able to see the difference is where the Spirit of God comes in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2016, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
10,005 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Price is a mythicist.
Which Price are you referring to?

Dr. Robert M. Price or R.G. Price?

Did Jesus Exist? Dr. Robert M Price, Dr. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald Interview Part 1

Dr. Robert M. Price is a very well educated man known as the "Bible Geek" with 2 PhD's. One in Theology and one in New Testament.

I don't think R.G. Price in my link is the same person as Dr. Robert M. Price.

*Confirming that they are not the same person even though they have very similar messages.

Book review: The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

Quote:
R. G. Price JULY 19, 2011
Thank you for the review. Just a few notes. In case anyone is wondering, I am not the same person as Robert M. Price, seems to come up a lot…
What I like about the website that I discovered How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

Is that R.G. Price makes this claim.
Quote:
I want to make something very clear: Not only do I think that "Jesus never existed", I think it's very possible, given the evidence, to build a solid case which proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Jesus did not exist. The primary pieces of evidence in my case against the existence of Jesus are in fact the Gospels themselves.
He also says this about his website:
Quote:
What this website is not: This website is not about "conspiracy theories", or any other such nonsense. This website is about documentation that I feel, based on my own experiences growing up and living in America, is not exposed to public scrutiny to the extent that it should be.

I do not intend to convince anyone of anything. I am merely presenting material. Just like me, everyone is free to research the facts on their own, and I encourage everyone to research anything I have presented here in further detail. All facts presented on this website are subject to challenge. If you see anything that you have proof is factually incorrect, then e-mail me and tell me, or you can do so publicly in the Feedback section. I have made changes to the material of the website based on feedback in the past.
So far everything that he has written I have been able to verify.

Last edited by Matadora; 03-22-2016 at 12:42 AM.. Reason: Confirming that Robert M. Price is not the same person as R.G. Price
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2016, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,257 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The only way to determine the meaning of what Luke wrote in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is to examine the grammar. And since, as can be seen from a verse such as 1 Corinthians 14:2 where akouó is plainly used in the sense of 'understanding' rather than 'hearing,' then unless you believe that Luke made a mistake in reporting both instances and contradicted himself, then it is more reasonable to recognize that Acts 22:9 refers to the men with Paul hearing but not understanding the voice which spoke to Paul. And as noted, that is the way in which many Bible translations have translated the verse. I think it is pretty clear that while everyone saw the light, and everyone heard the voice, only Paul understood the voice.

If you disagree, then we are in disagreement and will continue to be so.
RESPONSE:

Yes. I am dealing with the issue at hand. Did Paul's companions hear or not hear the voice? This is an entgirely different matter than understanding what was said.

You evidently want to avoid the rather obvious contradiction among the accounts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2016, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,257 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
So say those who speak from the pre-supposition that predictive prophecy is impossible.
RESPONSE: No. So speak historians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2016, 07:25 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,257 times
Reputation: 46
Default Factual errors in "inspired" scripture

[quote=Wardendresden;43441025]WARNING, THE FOLLOWING POST IS QUITE PHILOSOPHICAL

Scripture absolutely contains human errors. But it contains stories about humans who made a boatload of errors, some of them serious, and were still considered godly men---Abraham, David, Moses to name a few.

So having a book with errors in it is no different than having a patriarch with human flaws in his character. The purpose of both is to point beyond themselves to something greater.

RESPONSE:

You are confusing two different issues. We are not talking about errors the bible characters committed, but whether or not that accounts in the bible are real events or just stories containing obvious mistakes.

Don't confuse them!

Inspiration Incompatible with Error, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS,20

"...so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

"...because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers.

In sum, if the biblical accounts contain historical or factual error, they are not inspired by God who cannot err, but are only human writings.

Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 03-22-2016 at 07:27 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2016, 07:30 AM
 
2,651 posts, read 1,381,453 times
Reputation: 303
The Bible and Information Theory

Modern information theory, which is applied routinely in the error detection and correction techniques used in electronic data transmission, can be applied to the idea of inerrancy in the information conveyed by the scriptures.

The Bible, by its own witness, consists of an ensemble of messsages emitted by its originator, God, into the noisy channel of human history. Clearly, its divine Originator knew the character and magnitude of the noise in the channel of transmission when He composed the messages in the ensemble. Equally clearly, He would have no difficulty encoding the information in this ensemble of messages in such a way that it could be inerrantly received by every intended recipient, in spite of the effects of the noise upon its individual message elements-that is, in spite of scribal errors, editorial or redactional emendations, or by any other occurrences that would cause the text viewed by the recipient to differ in some ways from the text originally committed to the channel of transmission
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2016, 07:53 AM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Which Price are you referring to?

Dr. Robert M. Price or R.G. Price?

Did Jesus Exist? Dr. Robert M Price, Dr. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald Interview Part 1

Dr. Robert M. Price is a very well educated man known as the "Bible Geek" with 2 PhD's. One in Theology and one in New Testament.

I don't think R.G. Price in my link is the same person as Dr. Robert M. Price.

*Confirming that they are not the same person even though they have very similar messages.

Book review: The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory


What I like about the website that I discovered How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

Is that R.G. Price makes this claim.


He also says this about his website:


So far everything that he has written I have been able to verify.
I didn't read the articles you posted in post #85. I started to, but when I saw the name Price, I assumed it was Robert M. Price whose position I already Know. I had never paid attention to his middle name, so seeing the initial 'G' didn't cause me to think it was anyone other than the one to whom I referred.

The point however is that virtually every trained scholar who studies in the area recognizes that Jesus existed historically.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-22-2016 at 08:28 AM..
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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