"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40499659.220502140@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 03:49:09 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4045737e.211579390@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:53:03 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1hki30huv65lk6c1dv5o36a7521l3kr4e7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:45:18 GMT, "Chris"

<vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>

wrote:

<snip>

Dave, you take exception to the admonishments to study history, but

you

can't make assessments of either the content of the Bible, or it's
reliability (as in the text hasn't been changed) unless you do.

The

evidence for the reliability of the text we have is OVERWHELMING

The evidence is overwhelming that there was a *set* of texts about
Jesus /christian beliefs within about hundred years of his alleged
death.
That isn't itself any indication of the consistency, purpose or
meaning within those texts. it isn't any indication that they

reliably

report the words or even the meanings in the teachings of the

alleged

christ.
If the ORIGINAL texts contained contradictions, misrepresentations,
and outright nonsense and superstitions - then the copies will at

best

faithfully reproduce all the errors of the original.
You can RELIABLY copy nonsense, lies and propaganda.

So if you study nonsense *briefly* - and decide its nonsense - that
surely is preferable to wasting your time studying nonsense for

years.

Mark.

I didn't make any claims that the text of the New Testament accuratley
reported facts (although I believe it does); I merely asserted that

the

text

is reliable, as in no significant changes have been made.

So may we draw the conclusion that you also don't see any way to come
close to what was really meant by Jesus and that the rules that
Christians base their lives on today has little or no meaning relating
to the original directions?

No, you can't draw that conclusion :). I am a Christian. I believe that
the New Testament authentically relates the history, miracles and

doctrines

of Christ, and the history and doctrines of the Apostles and 2 of Jesus'
bothers (James and Jude).

Well his question was how do you do that?

And my answer is: you study.

After all, there's all those conflicting statements. How do you know
what to take literally and what not to?

Statements only conflict when removed from not only their immediate
contexts, but from the larger context of Biblical theology as a whole. The
philosophy of theology is a large and complex subject. The practice of
sound exegesis is not a discipline that can be entered into with no
training.

Law - people go to a lawyer.
Complex financial matters - people go to an accountant.
Lung cancer - people go to a doctor.
Theology - everyone's a theologian.

Do you see a slight incongruity there?

Do you just not care and just accept what people you know in religion
are telling you even if it makes no sense at all?

No, when something makes no sense, I reject it. Two things are necessary to
understand the Bible and theology.
1. Exegesis - I could probably teach someone sound exegetical skills in a
few months.

2. Critical thinking - some people never acquire these skills.

So... I use my own formally trained exegetical skills, in tandem with my
formally trained critical thinking skills to analyze information presented
to me and render a decision as to it's accuracy and relevance.

If so, isn't what
you putting faith in are those people rather than a deity?

It's not so. I don't out my faith in people. Certainly, many people have
greatly advanced my understanding of theology, but they are relevant only
insofar is what they say coinsides with Biblical teaching - or at least my
understanding thereof. Christianity isn't about being doctrinally correct
down to the minutiae of the letter - it's about having faith in Christ.

Do you think there's some miracle involved? That what you want to
take literally is what you really should be taking literally? Even
though that directly contradicts what others in your religion take
literally?

This is an over-simplification of the issues. Genre and authorial intent
(including intended audience and historical setting) are indicators as to
whether or not a passage is literal or figurative. We don't derive the same
meaning from Hebrew poetry as we do from Hebrew historical-narrative, for
example. Fundamentalism and liberalism generally ignore genre and authorial
intent completely when deriving their understandings, so I reject both
schools of thought. Just as you, a person in the 21st century, can figure
out that a poem doesn't mean the same thing as stereo instructions, so can
the theologically trained differentiate meaning based on genre.

Among Christians who use genre and authorial intent to derive meaning, there
is very little disagreement as to what is literal and what is figurative.

I really don't see how you can do what you say and still be a sane
person - unless you are just avoiding thinking about it.

Yes, that's it. Since I don't think as you do, or in the way you do, I must
be insane. You've hit the nail on the head with that one. I must go now,
for you have convinced me that I need to commit myself to the nearest insane
asylum. I'll try to get a message to you once I'm settled in the hopes that
you will tell my doctors exactly how I am to think in order to be sane. Uh
oh - what if one of my doctors is a behaviorist, another is a functionalist
and another believes in Gestalt Psychology? Are they all insane since they
have studied the same thing yet have different approaches and conclusions?

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:e21l30hg4823iu1gp72h0c0hlov1sqb86e@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:24:57 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:h6qi301vi53t5pr94dvmih56bp618v18r6@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:53:03 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1hki30huv65lk6c1dv5o36a7521l3kr4e7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:45:18 GMT, "Chris"

<vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>

wrote:

<snip>

Dave, you take exception to the admonishments to study history, but

you

can't make assessments of either the content of the Bible, or it's
reliability (as in the text hasn't been changed) unless you do.

The

evidence for the reliability of the text we have is OVERWHELMING

The evidence is overwhelming that there was a *set* of texts about
Jesus /christian beliefs within about hundred years of his alleged
death.
That isn't itself any indication of the consistency, purpose or
meaning within those texts. it isn't any indication that they

reliably

report the words or even the meanings in the teachings of the

alleged

christ.
If the ORIGINAL texts contained contradictions, misrepresentations,
and outright nonsense and superstitions - then the copies will at

best

faithfully reproduce all the errors of the original.
You can RELIABLY copy nonsense, lies and propaganda.

So if you study nonsense *briefly* - and decide its nonsense - that
surely is preferable to wasting your time studying nonsense for

years.

Mark.

I didn't make any claims that the text of the New Testament accuratley
reported facts (although I believe it does); I merely asserted that

the

text

is reliable, as in no significant changes have been made.

That's exactly right - so you are not really talking about the same
subject as the person you replied to.

Mark.

Mark, I was primarily responding to the issues Dave raised with respect

to

supposed revisions that have been made to the text of the Bible.

Sure -I was just making the point that that was only a minor part of
what he was saying.

I can't prove anything to anyone about the Bible. History confirms that
generally, the Bible is accurate on historical accounts, although on some
particulars history says otherwise.

King Herod ordering male children in Bethlehem killed for instance.
The time of Jesus Birth - it is literally impossible for him to be
born when Matthew says AND when Luke says - for example.

Interesting. And you get your date for the census from where? Joesphus!

Here's some things you should be aware of about Josephus:

1. He asserts that Jesus, James and John the Baptist were real historical
figures.

2. His text is very corrupt. Eusebuis quotes portions that are unknown in
any extant manuscripts. Historians assert that Christians monkied with the
text for their own ends.

Conclusion - Josephus is NOT a reliable source. Therefore, your assertion
is not really valid.

That's the nature of history - the
futher back in time one goes, the less precise and more open to a
historian's interpretation the facts become.

Sure, but impossibility isn't altered by the passage of time.
So for example if he was born in the Reign of King Herod then he was
not born during the time of the census - and no amount of time passing
can render it possible to be born at two separate times.

See above.

I can't prove anything at all. However, I find it strange that everyone

who

doesn't believe considers themselvs master theologians and historians, as

in

thinking it's unreasonable for a Christian to assert that perhaps they

don't

actually understand what the Bible teaches, or that perhaps they don't
really know all the historical facts.

Chris

I can see why you would say "You haven't read it all - how can you
critique it!" - it's a good tactic.
But if I had read say only the varying accounts of the resurrection
and the events surrounding it then reading the rest of the NT over and
over again for the next twenty five years and teaching myself greek
aramaic and hebrew - it still will never alter the fact that the
stories are incompatible.

Do you, or do you not understand that the genre of the Gospels is synoptic.
That's SUMMARY. Summaries are, by nature, editorialized. They present
different details in different ways according to the author's inclinations.

These are not 21st century newspaper articles or corporate financial
reports. They are editorialized summaries.

Also no amount of reading and learning is ever going to let you KNOW
with certainty which "bits" are intended to be literal history and
which bits metaphor. I accept that metaphor and allegory is in there -
but no amount of scholaship will bring absolute certainty.
Some people are better informed than others - but if you have read
*enough* to know its a fallible human made document then there is no
need to read more.

Yes, since I don't agree with you, I haven't read *enough*. What an
incredibly small minded view!

Can you read the first page of a James Bond Novel and decide whether
its fiction or history? "you havent read the whole book!" doesn't seem
a rational response to someone who has read the first page and decided
its fiction does it?

A James Bond novel never presents itself as anything other than fiction.

I
don't see your point.

I would say I know *enough* to know what kind of book the bible is - i
know *enough* not to treat it as history, for example.
No amount of learning can ever change that - learning more cannot
*take away* what I already understand.

Your lack of belief has no bearing as to the Bible being fact or not.

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:e21l30hg4823iu1gp72h0c0hlov1sqb86e@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:24:57 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:h6qi301vi53t5pr94dvmih56bp618v18r6@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:53:03 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1hki30huv65lk6c1dv5o36a7521l3kr4e7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:45:18 GMT, "Chris"

<vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>

wrote:

<snip>

Dave, you take exception to the admonishments to study history, but

you

can't make assessments of either the content of the Bible, or it's
reliability (as in the text hasn't been changed) unless you do.

The

evidence for the reliability of the text we have is OVERWHELMING

The evidence is overwhelming that there was a *set* of texts about
Jesus /christian beliefs within about hundred years of his alleged
death.
That isn't itself any indication of the consistency, purpose or
meaning within those texts. it isn't any indication that they

reliably

report the words or even the meanings in the teachings of the

alleged

christ.
If the ORIGINAL texts contained contradictions, misrepresentations,
and outright nonsense and superstitions - then the copies will at

best

faithfully reproduce all the errors of the original.
You can RELIABLY copy nonsense, lies and propaganda.

So if you study nonsense *briefly* - and decide its nonsense - that
surely is preferable to wasting your time studying nonsense for

years.

Mark.

I didn't make any claims that the text of the New Testament accuratley
reported facts (although I believe it does); I merely asserted that

the

text

is reliable, as in no significant changes have been made.

That's exactly right - so you are not really talking about the same
subject as the person you replied to.

Mark.

Mark, I was primarily responding to the issues Dave raised with respect

to

supposed revisions that have been made to the text of the Bible.

Sure -I was just making the point that that was only a minor part of
what he was saying.

I can't prove anything to anyone about the Bible. History confirms that
generally, the Bible is accurate on historical accounts, although on some
particulars history says otherwise.

King Herod ordering male children in Bethlehem killed for instance.
The time of Jesus Birth - it is literally impossible for him to be
born when Matthew says AND when Luke says - for example.

Interesting. And you get your date for the census from where? Joesphus!
Here's some things you should be aware of about Josephus:

1. He asserts that Jesus, James and John the Baptist were real historical
figures.
2. His text is very corrupt. Eusebuis quotes portions that are unknown in
any extant manuscripts. Historians assert that Christians monkied with the
text for their own ends.

Conclusion - Josephus is NOT a reliable source. Therefore, your assertion
is not really valid.

"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:404a9874.221040828@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:24:57 GMT, "Chris"

wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in

news:h6qi301vi53t5pr94dvmih56bp618v18r6@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:53:03 GMT, "Chris"

wrote:

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in

news:1hki30huv65lk6c1dv5o36a7521l3kr4e7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:45:18 GMT, "Chris"

<vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>

wrote:

<snip>

Dave, you take exception to the admonishments to study

you

can't make assessments of either the content of the Bible, or

reliability (as in the text hasn't been changed) unless you

The

evidence for the reliability of the text we have is

The evidence is overwhelming that there was a *set* of texts

Jesus /christian beliefs within about hundred years of his

death.
That isn't itself any indication of the consistency, purpose

meaning within those texts. it isn't any indication that they

reliably

report the words or even the meanings in the teachings of the

alleged

christ.
If the ORIGINAL texts contained contradictions,

and outright nonsense and superstitions - then the copies will

best

faithfully reproduce all the errors of the original.
You can RELIABLY copy nonsense, lies and propaganda.

So if you study nonsense *briefly* - and decide its nonsense -

surely is preferable to wasting your time studying nonsense

years.

Mark.

I didn't make any claims that the text of the New Testament

reported facts (although I believe it does); I merely asserted

the

text

is reliable, as in no significant changes have been made.

That's exactly right - so you are not really talking about the

subject as the person you replied to.

Mark.

Mark, I was primarily responding to the issues Dave raised with

to

supposed revisions that have been made to the text of the Bible.

I can't prove anything to anyone about the Bible. History confirms

generally, the Bible is accurate on historical accounts, although

particulars history says otherwise. That's the nature of history -

futher back in time one goes, the less precise and more open to a
historian's interpretation the facts become.

I can't prove anything at all. However, I find it strange that

who

doesn't believe considers themselvs master theologians and

in

thinking it's unreasonable for a Christian to assert that perhaps

don't

actually understand what the Bible teaches, or that perhaps they

really know all the historical facts.

Are you implying the people that don't believe should not ask
challenging questions?

Why?

Not at all. I have observed, however, that generally people don't ask
questions to get answers where Christianity is concerned. Questions

asked so that the answer may be rejected, confirming to the asker that

or his position is correct.

Occasionally, people ask questions because they really want an answer,

these instances are very rare. Check any Christian newsgroup for
confirmation of this. Personally, I've never seen anyone ask a

get an answer and say something like, "Thanks for your response. I

don't agree with your point of view, and I have a lot of other

but in this case, you have answered my question." That's just not the

it goes.

Chris