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.
I had an issue with Mystic repeatedly using attempts to discredit me with condescension, and pretending they were such a superior intellect to avoid the conversation.
I'm certainly not cocky enough to say that I know more than someone who walked and lived with Jesus. Which was Mystic's position.
You jump the gun just a tad, I think. Mystic's comments were not directed at you, and he has made it clear in the past that he is not talking about the message of the NT when he talks about "ignorant savages," but about some of the perceptions of God in the OT, particularly orders to genocide and blood sacrifice. I have to agree that he often comes across as supercilious, but I think that has more to do with his passion for his perceptions than a feeling of superiority. A few posts ago macpherson made a comment about how even in our comparatively "enlightened" time some seriously savage things have been and are being done.... something to think about. I would argue that we seem to have better knowledge about consequences, but don't always seem to be able to stop them.
Oh, and apparently he has not read your comments about the use of the Bible, MysticPHD would not consider you a "Biblean."
Because the Cross is where and how our salvation was made possible. The Cross is at the very heart of the gospel. If Jesus had not gone to the Cross there would have been no salvation for anyone. The apostle Paul said, ''For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).....
The OP seems to have the correct idea, one not disproven by the above quotation or the remainder, which I have not quoted.
The sacrifice of the cross without the Resurrection would have been meaningless. A dead "saviour" is not possible. Dead prophets are simply dead prophets, not saviours. The Resurrection seals the validity and acceptance of the sacrifice.
Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained throughthelaw, Christ died for nothing!”
Has nothing to do with what I said. It's also already been answered, preempted, in the conversation above. Until you can reconcile that with the other verses I gave you, all you are doing is declaring the Bible contradicts itself. Well done.
JESUS WEPT!
As long as we are dropping random verses with no application, there is mine.
You jump the gun just a tad, I think. Mystic's comments were not directed at you, and he has made it clear in the past that he is not talking about the message of the NT when he talks about "ignorant savages," but about some of the perceptions of God in the OT, particularly orders to genocide and blood sacrifice. I have to agree that he often comes across as supercilious, but I think that has more to do with his passion for his perceptions than a feeling of superiority. A few posts ago macpherson made a comment about how even in our comparatively "enlightened" time some seriously savage things have been and are being done.... something to think about. I would argue that we seem to have better knowledge about consequences, but don't always seem to be able to stop them.
Oh, and apparently he has not read your comments about the use of the Bible, MysticPHD would not consider you a "Biblean."
I'm willing to amend my comment. Anyone, however, that uses denigratory posturing to support their claim, quickly lose credibility. But I don't carry a grudge. I can't, I can't remember things long enough to keep one very long.
That's a big confusion of the word LOGOS. In fact it's a new definition entirely. May I see your Koine Greek credentials to make that move? And what have your peers said? Was it argument or approval?
So, you feel a need to note that you are not ignorant. Interestingly enough, we are much MUCH more ignorant than those who lived and walked with Christ were. It's funny you call the people who lived it and walked it ignorant, when by definition they were intrinsically infinitely more knowledgeable than you or I on the topics.
Mystic, truly I have no beef with you personally, but you keep making it personal by implying you are smarter than everyone and know more than everyone. The people who walked and talked it... were not as smart as you, they were ignorant, which means uneducated. The irony is, all you know of the situation is what those IGNORANT people wrote in the book for you to study, but THEY are somehow the ignorant ones, and you taking second hand knowledge from an ignorant (by your standards) persons can be more informed.
Is PhD on your name just to garner some credibility? Because the more you talk and try to put me down to hold your "status" the less I believe the PhD is relevant. So I'm asking nicely, can you stick to the arguments and not trying to cram me in a random box you can denigrate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Catalyst
I didn't even comment on this part. I don't' have an issue with you looking at it this way.
I had an issue with Mystic repeatedly using attempts to discredit me with condescension, and pretending they were such a superior intellect to avoid the conversation.
I hope that is clear.
My personal view is the message is inerrant, not the words/translations etc...
I'm certainly not cocky enough to say that I know more than someone who walked and lived with Jesus. Moderator cut: Orphaned
Moderator cut: Orphaned reference responding to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Catalyst
They weren't stupid people at the time of Christ. We still study their math in schools. We still can't duplicate their engineering. They actually knew enough about medicine to drill holes in head to relieve swelling. They did surgeries. They killed infections. They made boats that are STILL the design used to day for efficiency. Some of the greatest military minds the world has known came from then. The basic outline for governments, ALL democratic governments in the world came from them. Politics came from them. Philosophy came from them. Before science discovered the ATOM, it was imagined by a philosopher who lived before Christ, (I think I'm right there, but of that era).
They weren't inbred hillbilly rednecks with missing teeth that couldn't spell. To boldly sit there and explain they were ignorant, is one very arrogant, hubris laden, cocky view of one's self. AND it prevents conversation, it insults me, and it's empty posturing by Mystic. THAT was my issue.
As I said to macpherson . . . I have never ever suggested our ancestors were not intelligent . . . just ignorant (lacked knowledge) compared to an educated modern civilized 21st century human being. Aristotle was brilliant but he thought women were the result of defective sperm! I have used an example of the differences lack of accurate knowledge has on interpretation and reporting of events regardless of the level of intelligence involved. The following descriptions compare the way a modern man would interpret what he has seen with the way the same event would have been interpreted by a Viking intellectual. First the actual event as it would be described in the modern interpretation:
A man lands a helicopter in a clearing of the forest, takes out a .45 calibre automatic pistol, shoots it at a rabbit, then returns to the helicopter and flies away into the clouds.
The Viking, on the other hand, would probably describe it in a manner similar to the following:
Thor came hunting in a flying chariot with his hammer that throws lightning bolts, and then went back to his home in the clouds.
It is important to recognize that the Viking's interpretation is not the result of low intelligence, but is the result of a lack of valid information. The previous description would probably have been produced by a Viking genius, as long as he lacked any knowledge of gunpowder and helicopters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
You jump the gun just a tad, I think. Mystic's comments were not directed at you, and he has made it clear in the past that he is not talking about the message of the NT when he talks about "ignorant savages," but about some of the perceptions of God in the OT, particularly orders to genocide and blood sacrifice. I have to agree that he often comes across as supercilious, but I think that has more to do with his passion for his perceptions than a feeling of superiority. A few posts ago macpherson made a comment about how even in our comparatively "enlightened" time some seriously savage things have been and are being done.... something to think about. I would argue that we seem to have better knowledge about consequences, but don't always seem to be able to stop them.
Oh, and apparently he has not read your comments about the use of the Bible, MysticPHD would not consider you a "Biblean."
Thank you nate . . . you are correct about my professorial attitude seeming supercilious . . . and I have been trying to determine exactly what Xian's Bible views are.
I just want us on the same page for conversation. If your thoughts are not as denigrating as your words were, I'll figure it out eventually, but only by pointing it out and hearing your answer to what I perceived. So bear with me. (I nearly said bare with me, which would have been a disaster. whew.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Moderator cut: Orphaned
Moderator cut: Response to orphaned portion of a prior post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
[mod] Orphaned
Moderator cut: Response to orphaned portion of a post/off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
As I said to macpherson . . . I have never ever suggested our ancestors were not intelligent . . . just ignorant (lacked knowledge) compared to an educated modern civilized 21st century human being.
Which was my objection. I never said you said they weren't intelligent, (although in another post I think I did discuss their intellectual abilities). My gripe here was claiming the people who wrote and lived the events are ignorant, is intrinsically oxymoronic. They lived it, they didn't need an education on it, THEY were THERE! I guess I was putting more thought on NT authorship but even the OT as well. I'll probably side with you on some of the stories, Noah, Adam, etc... I don't consider them historical but I don't think they were intended to be historical. They have a message that if simplified to a story is great with me, I don't wanna read a complete history of creation and man's existence, just gimme the high lights.,,,, right?
AND considering this part popped up after you had brushed me aside on an assumption and did it in a way that clearly showed you put your views above mine before you even knew mine, YES I INTENDED to haul you back in. I can't talk with someone who is so busy being right and the canon of all knowledge that they can't take time to address the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
following descriptions compare the way a modern man would interpret what he has seen with the way the same event would have been interpreted by a Viking intellectual. First the actual event as it would be described in the modern interpretation:
A man lands a helicopter in a clearing of the forest, takes out a .45 calibre automatic pistol, shoots it at a rabbit, then returns to the helicopter and flies away into the clouds.
The Viking, on the other hand, would probably describe it in a manner similar to the following:
Thor came hunting in a flying chariot with his hammer that throws lightning bolts, and then went back to his home in the clouds.
It is important to recognize that the Viking's interpretation is not the result of low intelligence, but is the result of a lack of valid information. The previous description would probably have been produced by a Viking genius, as long as he lacked any knowledge of gunpowder and helicopters.
And the message hasn't changed, just the nouns. So, your point is? That makes it erroneous somehow???? If you think so, you are missing the point. AND THIS POPPED UP in regards to inerrancy right?? So don't divert from that now please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
and I have been trying to determine exactly what Xian's Bible views are.
Ask for my views. You were not searching before but assuming/telling me what they were.
The message is inerrant. If you read (as most pathostheists do) the bible expecting to find a documented history of the exact facts of creation, it's woefully disappointing. I can dismiss the details in parts, and accept that it is still inerrant because the message is divine, and divinity is capable of getting the message across.
So, while God may or may not have spoken directly to someone and said go kill the women and children is irrelevant to me, the thought of how it would happen has a truth I own as correct.
I would contend there will be NO message that contradicts itself in the book. Example, in another thread the Jesus line saying call no one else father that would teach you, referring to Rabbis, and Paul saying He is people's father because he teaches them.... I would contend that there is a reconciliation there, that would accommodate both statements, and that until it was dug into enough to get there, I didn't have a proper understanding.
I also don't take the posture that I'm "smart enough" that I should be able to fit all of the bible in a box and judge if it's right or wrong.
I'm a bit of an eastern thinker here, there is more wisdom in finding the next question, than there is in making up an answer.
Mystic the sperm and its vitality and thor hunting in the bush has nothing to do with the topic in the thread unless there is a point, I think that seems fair.I have knowledge in my field I know you do not, and so it goes for everyone including through the ages, so what ? what has this is got to do with the thread topic ? Plus I gotta go for now.
Mystic the sperm and its vitality and thor hunting in the bush has nothing to do with the topic in the thread unless there is a point, I think that seems fair. I have knowledge in my field you certainly do not, and so it goes for everyone including through the ages, so what ?
Can you explain what this is about relative to the thread topic ? Plus I gotta go for now.
It has to do with how lack of knowledge influences interpretations and recordings . . . especially relevant for ancient recordings being interpreted today with modern knowledge.
It has to do with how lack of knowledge influences interpretations and recordings . . . especially relevant for ancient recordings being interpreted today with modern knowledge.
but a topic is specific . Some translate the OT as inspired and also in a way to teach the youngsters. The human race couldn't survive with how this idea is painting them.
Last edited by macpherson; 10-02-2013 at 04:15 PM..
It has to do with how lack of knowledge influences interpretations and recordings . . . especially relevant for ancient recordings being interpreted today with modern knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macpherson
but a topic is specific . Some translate the OT as part inspired and also in a way to teach the youngsters. The human race couldn't survive with how the idea is painting them.
::Sigh:: Waste of time.
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.
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.
Which was Mystic's position. 
