Gotcha! In reading that post, it hit me that a commentary might be exactly what I'm looking for. Reason being that interaction with a person becomes a debate and possible unintended offenses to the persons belief system. You may have already mentioned it above, but now that you have a better understanding of where I'm at; can you direct me to a commentator that you would say most reflects the beliefs of popular Christianity? Perhaps I would be able to ascertain what their reasoning is for distorting the text.. line by line.
God meets God
- Thread starter PhyloeBedoe
- Start date
Gotcha! In reading that post, it hit me that a commentary might be exactly what I'm looking for. Reason being that interaction with a person becomes a debate and possible unintended offenses to the persons belief system. You may have already mentioned it above, but now that you have a better understanding of where I'm at; can you direct me to a commentator that you would say most reflects the beliefs of popular Christianity? Perhaps I would be able to ascertain what their reasoning is for distorting the text.. line by line.
Thanks Goat! I appreciate ya man! I've given you props a few times for introducing me to a better way of evaluating conference schedules. Hey, we both could be wrong, but at least we got math
Thanks Goat! I appreciate ya man! I've given you props a few times for introducing me to a better way of evaluating conference schedules. Hey, we both could be wrong, but at least we got math
Science doesn't have a "grand unification theory", and neither does Christianity.
That looks a lot like my step-brother as a kid ... and he's not a christian that I know of.
Also, I think VPM is his man for popular Christianity for the masses but I'm not sure he'd learn much from his answers as I assume VPM would answer. I could give him my interpretation of how 'popular' Christians think. And a lot of it has to do with sin, sin nature, and wanting the blessing without the responsibility to the extent that they only read half the narrative in a line of verses. It is little different than quotes taken out of context. You can make it say whatever you want to fit your agenda. But truth takes study and flexibility and the Holy Spirit's guidance.
Natural things dominate you.
Sounds like you do have a problem with it.
With that said, you merely don't have a problem with my right to my religion. And you will not find me saying you do not have the right to your misguided ways. God is the originator of free will.
I don't care what y'all believe. I was just giving VPM a taste of his own medicine. And although you try to be different, your comments make it clear you could use some of that medicine, as well.
Jesus, Joseph and Mary, you are a HORRIBLE speller!
You BADLY misspelled "I can say anything I want and it's intellectual discussion, but if VPM says anything pro-Christian I can call it proselytizing and be rude as I want to."
Hell, for such a smart guy, you didn't even get CLOSE.
I expected better.
Well, no ... But at least you spelled it right. Proves you can when you try.
Listen up, dipshit. I wasn't trying to be intellectual. VPM doesn't deserve intellectual. It's bad enough you ride on such a high horse without you accusing me of doing the same when I don't even own a horse. So please stop being a flaming dickbag. TIA.
You misperceive damn near everything old sport
I treat no one here with disrespect
Take a lesson
Sooth your hurt butt with a beverage
I treat no one here with disrespect
Take a lesson
Sooth your hurt butt with a beverage
Your post was legible for the first time in years. I assumed that meant you were being serious.
What's wrong with being intellectual? It's far better than being a fking retard.
Oh, wait, I forgot.
Conservatives and religious people hate knowledge. It gets in the way of their fantasy world..
Nothing. I was being intellectual with Paterfamilias. He wanted to have a genuine conversation, and was actually interested in my take on the topic, so I was happy to oblige.
With VPM, I was just trolling. Because that's all the effort he's worth.
There is so much truth in that last sentence, that it's not even funny.
Intellectuals have a problem too though, in that they operate in a world in which they already have all the answers. Neither the person who is afraid of what they might learn nor the person who acts as if even new information would not change his views, are in a superior position. Imo though, neither the emotion driven idealist nor the dispassionate man of reason are capable of recognizing their own inadequacies.
I disagree with that. Most intelligent people understand that they fundamentally know nothing. That's the first realization of being intelligent. History, and science, both change constantly and new information is presented constantly.
I find intelligent people to be more agile in their opinions and willing to change and adapt to knew findings and new information. Because study on any subject only increases the unanswered questions. Anyone that has studied anything in detail understands that.
Every piece of knowledge learned on any subject only exponentially increases what is unknown to the person studying. Now, I'm not talking about the people labeled "intellectuals", by people with no intellect, I'm talking about people with intelligence.
I'll use Indiana Scott as my example. He truly believes he knows everything about basketball and can through intuition judge competence and ignores any piece of information presented to him unless he agrees with it to begin with. I see bigoted thought as more the realm of the stupid than those with higher intelligence.
Agreed. Paterfamilias is engaging in a false equivalency fallacy. While it's certainly true that intelligent people hold biases and make mistakes, their faults are not necessarily the same faults enjoyed by the fundamentally ignorant. A significant part of intelligence is learning how to subvert one's own opinions to learned facts, and change those opinions when warranted. (Even beyond that, and more difficult, is the ability to withhold even forming an opinion in the first place, in the absence of necessary information.)
Ignorant men think they already know everything. Intelligent men realize they know very little.
I agree with all of that. However, I see very intelligent people on both sides of the coin. Maybe, I have the wrong idea about intellectualism. What I think of as an intellectual is someone who responds in debate intelligently and with unemotional reason, but with an opinion made of iron. I think opinions should be elastic... always open to new information or a different paradigm.
As to that coin I referenced, it is most often made of iron on both sides.
Also a fantastic post with which I agree.
Using myself as the example to better illustrate my point. I feel that I have enough intelligence to carry through the day most of the time. I have studied things that interest me with great vigor. As TMP posted, most often the more I learned, the more I realized how much more I didn't know. Often though, while in debate, I find myself elevating that tiny amount (as I've come to realize) that I do know to the point that I think (or come across that I think) that I am some kind of an authority.
So here's the point. If, as an intelligent person, I realize that what I don't know far, far exceeds what I do know even on topics that I have studied deeply, how could I possibly begin to view someone else's opinion as greatly inferior to my own? It's because my ego gets in the way during debate. Sometimes long after a discussion, it will hit me that the other person actually made good points and maybe even swayed my opinion. My ego, though, would never allow for that admission during debate.
This is what I think of as intellectualism. On the one hand I say that I'm intelligent enough to realize how little I actually know, while, on the other hand, I'm too egotistical to put that understanding into practice while in discourse with others.
Last edited:
Recognizing how much you don't know doesn't mean you have to downplay what you do. I know more about first century Christianity than most. By a lot. In most (non-academic) settings, I'd be considered an authority, thanks to the high level of education I received on the topic at IUB. But, put me in a room with actual experts with Ph.D's, and I'll keep my mouth shut and learn. It's perfectly possible for me to recognize that I know more than Random Internet Person, while still also recognizing that I know virtually nothing compared to, say, Dr. David Brakke. I guess what I'm saying is humility is an important part of intelligence, but don't let it trick you into ignoring your own knowledge when said knowledge would actually be useful. It's all about context.
BTW, the popular aspect was irrelevant to me. I only meant that, as a learned believer, you could give Pater direction and advice I am not qualified to give myself. And I'd never direct someone who genuinely wanted to learn about Christianity to our resident fraud.
Speaking again of 1st century Christianity. How are the writings of Josephus viewed in University level studies? I haven't read him myself, but have heard him quoted quite often. I guess what I'm asking is; Are his writings on the Roman/Jewish war treated as actual history, or is it viewed as possibly mythological like the bible. Showing my ignorance here, but as I've already stated I've efforted to concentrate my study first of all (and possibly errantly) on the bible itself..
Josephus is an important historical source for understanding 1C Palestine. He was certainly writing history, although he includes Jewish mythology as history in Antiquities, so that should be recognized as such. Also, historians at the time did not strive to be quite as objective as we expect from historians today. That's not a slight on ancient historians; it just reflects a difference in what was expected of those writing history. Audiences then expected different things that they do now. So you can't ignore his point of view and biases while reading his works.
Since we're talking about Christianity, if you're curious about the references to Jesus and John, the generally scholarly view is this:
1. The reference to James the brother of Jesus is authentic.
2. The reference to the execution of John the Baptist is authentic.
3. The longer reference to Jesus probably contains an authentic kernel that was later added to and changed by Christian copyists.
However, it's important to remember that Josephus was writing some 60 years after the events in question, so "authentic" doesn't necessarily mean "accurate." His writings on the Jewish-Roman War, however, were written very soon after the events, and he himself took part in the war, so they are considered more historically accurate, although obviously written from a particular pro-Jewish POV.
Thanks! I'm actually watching/listening to a youtube video of a Tessa Rajak lecture. It seems interesting so far.
You can't think your way to heaven.
(Not sure who said that. Prolly a basketball coach or a welder.)
(Not sure who said that. Prolly a basketball coach or a welder.)
Okay... This is it for me in this thread, but I find something new every day. Think about the fight for prayer in school, and how you probably hear or see a prayer session every day of your life.. go ahead and try not to run into one on your radio dial or television.
Matthew 6:6 - But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:6 - But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
The term Last Days refers to what is called the Time of the Gentiles. In 586b.c. Judah lost control of Jerusalem and therefore the Holy City where it was said that God put His Name there would be under gentile control. So, truthfully this time started in 586b.c.My view is that it ends when Jesus returns and sets up His earthly Kingdom for 1,000 yrs
Some biblical writers talk about the end of the age which is what you might be thinking about when you hear the phrase,"the last days".. This would refer to days that are definitely in our future. 1 Peter 4:7 says The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.Daniel 8:19 says He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Evolution is a theory which does not require a first cause. Of course it would be at odds with Christian doctrine which says God is the First uncaused Cause. I too thought the video was stained with mere human wisdom. The truth is we can't know that God is the First uncaused Cause unless He tells us. The plain reason is because we were not there. This is the weakness in evolutionary theory as well. When a scientist says, 4.6 billion yrs ago this happened, my first question is how do you know it was this exact time? Also what real evidence do you have that this happened at all let alone that it happened during this time frame.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I strive to be a biblical thinking believer in Jesus Christ. What I mean by that is you have to understand what the Bible is teaching without putting your preconceived modern notions into it. Only when a person understands what the Bible is actually saying to it's intended audience can one then understand what God has for them. The real issue with many in Christian circles is the doctrine of innerency. Did the biblical author teach everything God desired for him to teach without error? I believe God did. For instance Peter makes the point in 2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. I am in the camp that says God has spoken and we can understand what He said if we will first just believe it. And second we have to study to rightly understand and proclaim the Word of Truth. I am not sure how popular my view is today. I do know this, it doesn't matter to me if it is popular or not.
Hi Van, thanks for getting back. I know I've been critical of Christianity here, but I'm digging the bible. I just don't understand what appear to be some wild misinterpretations.
In 1 Peter 4:7, what do you suppose Peter meant by near. In the KJV, it says "at hand"? When you look at the Greek you get this...
1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence
So, how could 2000 years and counting equal extreme closeness, immediate imminence- even a presence? You have to keep in mind too, that Peter wasn't just speaking to the wind, he had a real live audience with whom he was trying to convey a message of truth.
I just don't see how it's possible that this verse and countless others means what Christians of today think that it means. What are your thoughts on this?
