Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I  think his dichotomy is "soma psuchikon" vs "soma pneumatikon" is a comparison between a living (soul ) body and a spiritual body.  The sme thing we would say if we saw a ghost it was a form, a body but spiritual. We saw a spirit. Others within you faith view it as a metamorphosis or transformation from a physical body to perhaps dust with a second body being made by god during the resurrection. It certainly make more sense of the first man was made out of earth and dust but the second is made out of heaven. This is a dualistic statement 15: 47ff

The idea of Seneca is just a conjecture obviously Paul was evangelical wher eever he went.

There's certainly a dualism going on there -- that's undeniable. But it is body (soma), nevertheless -- that is not entirely natural (psuchikos) , but not entirely spirit (pneumatikon) or spirit (pneuma) either. As I mentioned, think the synoptic accounts of the transfiguration and the commentary on it in 2 Peter 1:16-18 give likeness to a sort of glorified, heavenly state. Paul's incident on the road to Demascus and his recount in Acts 22, at Stephen's stoning, and John's Revelation 1 vision are images of Jesus in his glorified state. The resurrected bodies will bear the image of the heavenly man and will be something of this nature.

Well you are not going to get away from the use of soma in either Jewish or hellenistic culture. There has to ultimately be a body for the soul of some type whether phsyical or spiritual or heavenly. The stars and moon were thought of as such. For the Orphic cult the psuchikos / psuche must be freed from the soma and given a new soma thus Plato and his dabbling with reincarnation.  Philo's platonism if any is in calling the body the enemy of thes oul but not designating it evil.There is the mystical body of the Church ( body of Christ). The Indo-European uses the term for non-physical or supernatural levels of existence such as the Dharma body or diamond body.  There is the astral body etc.;  In Gnosticism the term is also fluid.  All of this drives the development of usage even by the writings of Paul. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well you are

TGBaker wrote:
Well you are not going to get away from the use of soma in either Jewish or hellenistic culture. There has to ultimately be a body for the soul of some type whether phsyical or spiritual or heavenly. The stars and moon were thought of as such. For the Orphic cult the psuchikos / psuche must be freed from the soma and given a new soma thus Plato and his dabbling with reincarnation.  Philo's platonism if any is in calling the body the enemy of thes oul but not designating it evil.There is the mystical body of the Church ( body of Christ). The Indo-European uses the term for non-physical or supernatural levels of existence such as the Dharma body or diamond body.  There is the astral body etc.;  In Gnosticism the term is also fluid.  All of this drives the development of usage even by the writings of Paul.

Certainly... Paul's dualism is reminiscent of Greek thought flavored with some Hebrew though too, but I think it is uniquely Christian in how he applies it within the context of sin and death.

Paul's pattern was to use familiar concepts to help people understand the gospel. Being that most of Paul's converts were probably from Jewish synagogues scattered throughout the Roman worlds, this makes sense...

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Well you are not going to get away from the use of soma in either Jewish or hellenistic culture. There has to ultimately be a body for the soul of some type whether phsyical or spiritual or heavenly. The stars and moon were thought of as such. For the Orphic cult the psuchikos / psuche must be freed from the soma and given a new soma thus Plato and his dabbling with reincarnation.  Philo's platonism if any is in calling the body the enemy of thes oul but not designating it evil.There is the mystical body of the Church ( body of Christ). The Indo-European uses the term for non-physical or supernatural levels of existence such as the Dharma body or diamond body.  There is the astral body etc.;  In Gnosticism the term is also fluid.  All of this drives the development of usage even by the writings of Paul.

Certainly... Paul's dualism is reminiscent of Greek thought flavored with some Hebrew though too, but I think it is uniquely Christian in how he applies it within the context of sin and death.

Paul's pattern was to use familiar concepts to help people understand the gospel. Being that most of Paul's converts were probably from Jewish synagogues scattered throughout the Roman worlds, this makes sense...

 

Well the conjunction of soma and sin ...Old Adam and New is certainly developed more in Deutro-Pauline Ephesians. But with Paul there is also the dichotomy of law and Spirit as raison d'etre in line with old and new Adam, law and spirit. It is a covenant theology exampled well in 2 Corinthians 3.  The only thing that holds it from Gnosticism is soma. But then even an ascended state in body is used of the immaterial. I sold my Corpus Hermeticum to an extension of New Orleans Baptist Seminary here in Atlanta but found an interesting quote:

n the Corpus Hermeticum X.13 it states that the mind ('o nous) is vehicled in the soul (psyche), the soul in the pneuma "traversing the arteries together with the blood." The relationship between the human nous and the divine mind called Nous, as we have already seen with Cicero, is one of a part to a whole. In Hermeticism the divine mind can speak directly to a part of itself held within a human form.

In the case of ecstasy, the soul traverses to astral planes away from the physical body. The pneuma, being that part of the body holding the soul, is also left behind, and the soul travels instead in an ochema that is distinctly not the pneuma. In the Great Magical Papyrus the so-called Mithras Liturgy mentions that one has "to be born again (metagenetho)" into a heavenly body (soma teleion) in order to make such a journey. We also hear of being "born again" in the Corpus Hermeticum Libellus XIII. Here Tat inquires of Hermes Trismegistus, "You said that no one can be saved until he has been born again'what manner of man is he that is brought into being by Rebirth (paligenesis)'" Hermes answers that in his rebirth there was formed an immaterial, immortal body (athanaton soma), and that he "passed forth out of myself and entered into an immortal body."

Afterward he was no longer the man he once was. Instead he had become "a god, and son of god," no longer material himself but partaking in "the substance of things intelligible (noetes)." Similarly in the mystery religions, through initiation the pneuma is replaced by another kind of body for the soul. This rebirth (renatio) is made following the second death; acted out in the initiation rites of the mysteries. First there is the death of the soul as it became encumbered in the pneuma of the body, then the second death that releases the soul from the pneuma into a new vehiculum. The renatio is also a reconstitutio of the human form, with the soul freed and the nous revealed. The human nous is thereby "resurrected" (anastasis) into direct contact with the gods. From the Dionysiac mysteries, Euripedes speaks of the "the miraculous birth" and of "the wondrous babe of god, the Mystery (Bacchae 519). The Gnostics looked to Paul for the same idea where he claimed that he had already been resurrected in his lifetime, and that he had traveled to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2).

Philosophers had been primarily concerned with how an immaterial soul related to a material body. The religious movements had concern in how a human soul related to the gods. In the mystery religions the concern was over how a person in this life could be in immediate contact with the gods. The answer for them was that through initiation one recognized their own divinity. Cicero, referring to the Eleussian mysteries, says, "know then that you are a god (De Republica VI.17; De Natura Deorum II.61). Plutarch says that humans are divine "and inferior in no whit to the celestials save in immortality." To connect with the gods Seneca advised, "Withdraw into yourself (Recede in te ipsum)." In the mystery religions the pneuma became a spiritual body of the soul. Initiation purified the pneuma allowing it then to function as an intermediary between the human nous and the divine Nous. Hermeticists and Gnostics saw the divine in man as having been separated from God, then ensnared in a material form. Gnostics took this idea a step further. In Gnostic cosmology the physical universe was created by an evil demiurgic deity, matter was itself evil, and the souls of men had been stolen by the Archons from the World Soul identified as Sophia, or the Wisdom of God, before being imprisoned in a fleshy body. In some Gnostic texts this theft and capture of souls is made in the allegory of the rape of Sophia by the Archons. Paul tells of how the Sophia (Wisdom) of God had been hidden before the ages, that the Archons of the ages of the physical universe were unaware of the Gnostic god or his actions, and therefore "the Lord of Glory was impaled," and that only to certain people had these things been revealed "through the pneumatos (1 Cor. 2:7-9)."

Already with Paul the argument is made in I Corinthians against those "senseless, unreasonable ones" who speak of a resurrection of the earthly body. "Flesh and blood are not able to inherit the Kingdom of God." He puts forward the idea that divine seeds (spermaton) are sown into a body of soul (soma psychikon), but that they are then replaced into a different body, the soma pneumatikon that carries the seeds heavenward. "Speirati soma psychikon, egeiretai soma pneumatikon." Paul had completely reversed the relationship of the soul and pneuma held in Greek philosophy, and to no avail. Each of the Christian communities to which Paul wrote his Epistles became Marcion Gnostics, Marcion holding his authority directly from Paul. At Alexandria Paul's pupil Theudas taught Valentinius, who then traveled to Rome in 136 CE, where he established the predominant form of early Christianity. Valentinian Gnosticism spread throughout the Roman Empire in 155-175 CE. From 175-230 a new literal form of Christianity arose with Irenaenus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus. Each attacked Gnosticism in its varied forms, eventually the literal interpreters replacing Gnosticism as Christian orthodoxy.

http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Religionis/animamystery.php

 

My point is that even in Egyptian practice from the book of the dead it was not the mummified body but a type of projection in a higher realm that resurrects. Soma does not necessarily mean material or physical. It certainly did to a large extent with Judaism but then they too were influenced by Hellenistic  ideas some of which became full blown Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. 

Paul seems not only to use the familiar concepts but believe and adapt them to his hermeneutic of who Jesus was.  The usage of terms are not as cut and dry as we often think. And the fluidity I think pours throughout the NT period and the NT itself.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:My point is

TGBaker wrote:

My point is that even in Egyptian practice from the book of the dead it was not the mummified body but a type of projection in a higher realm that resurrects. Soma does not necessarily mean material or physical. It certainly did to a large extent with Judaism but then they too were influenced by Hellenistic  ideas some of which became full blown Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. 

Paul seems not only to use the familiar concepts but believe and adapt them to his hermeneutic of who Jesus was.  The usage of terms are not as cut and dry as we often think. And the fluidity I think pours throughout the NT period and the NT itself. 

Thanks for the quote....

I agree that it is not as cut and dry as we'd like to think it is.

I do not think that Paul is being platonic or even neoplatonic here. The dichotomy that he is painting includes "body" on both sides of the dichotomy as if the dichotomy was not between body and spirit, but that which is perishing and that which is immortal. On the same token, it does not wreak of gnosticism either because the focus is not on knowledge or the gnosis, rather on resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 2 would probably be more akin to this though, along John 3 when Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.) The choice of words in Paul's writings I think is deliberate as his pattern was to use familiar concepts to aid in understanding of the Christian gospel. Now, this does not, as you note, preclude the possibility that body is necessarily physical. 1 Cor is one of the earliest NT writings. Protognosticism did not start taking shape probably until the latter part of the first century, and why I think John's writings have a more gnostic flavor to them, but are actually apologetic against this, particularly 1st John. I don't think Paul is having to deal with the gnostic baggage here, and to apply gnostic thought to Paul would be anachronistic. In fact, when full blown gnosticism appeared, they rejected Paul's writings because he placed a lot of emphasis on holy living. The Gnostics were either ascetics or libertine, and would have a hard time with passages like 1 Cor 7 or Romans 12:1.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

My point is that even in Egyptian practice from the book of the dead it was not the mummified body but a type of projection in a higher realm that resurrects. Soma does not necessarily mean material or physical. It certainly did to a large extent with Judaism but then they too were influenced by Hellenistic  ideas some of which became full blown Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. 

Paul seems not only to use the familiar concepts but believe and adapt them to his hermeneutic of who Jesus was.  The usage of terms are not as cut and dry as we often think. And the fluidity I think pours throughout the NT period and the NT itself. 

Thanks for the quote....

I agree that it is not as cut and dry as we'd like to think it is.

I do not think that Paul is being platonic or even neoplatonic here. The dichotomy that he is painting includes "body" on both sides of the dichotomy as if the dichotomy was not between body and spirit, but that which is perishing and that which is immortal. On the same token, it does not wreak of gnosticism either because the focus is not on knowledge or the gnosis, rather on resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 2 would probably be more akin to this though, along John 3 when Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.) The choice of words in Paul's writings I think is deliberate as his pattern was to use familiar concepts to aid in understanding of the Christian gospel. Now, this does not, as you note, preclude the possibility that body is necessarily physical. 1 Cor is one of the earliest NT writings. Protognosticism did not start taking shape probably until the latter part of the first century, and why I think John's writings have a more gnostic flavor to them, but are actually apologetic against this, particularly 1st John. I don't think Paul is having to deal with the gnostic baggage here, and to apply gnostic thought to Paul would be anachronistic. In fact, when full blown gnosticism appeared, they rejected Paul's writings because he placed a lot of emphasis on holy living. The Gnostics were either ascetics or libertine, and would have a hard time with passages like 1 Cor 7 or Romans 12:1.

Heavens no I don't think Paul shows Gnosticism. I think there are ideas that had not been systematised into Gnosticism floating around the culture.  I think the seeds of Gnosticism is in the language employed by Philo, Paul's wisdom motif's and good old Johnny. You may be right about John's language being apologetically effected by his response to Gnosticism.  I've always held out on that one because I don't think we can tell whether Gnosticism evolved from a particular reading of Paul and John and even Philo (who is not Neo-Platonic but has the right language) or from a separate movement that was attracted to Christianity. I haven't seen anything Gnostic that was not in some sense Christian based though. Have you?   I know the theory that there was a Jewish Gnosticism but...    AS I said in closing I think a lot of the Hellenistic ideas developed into Gnosticism and in turn that same trend of diachronic change or expansion of meaning was occurring within Christianity as can be seen in the manuscripts.  Interesting the Gnostic idea of emanation seems more Aristotelian than Platonic. If you look at Philo and you look at Paul and you look at John you see a moderate influence of more mystical ideas for want of a better word than in Judaism itself (if ya can even speak of a normative Judaism). I think they may have been deliberate on the part of paul but they seem to flow as if he believes them s more proper than his Jewish background.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Heavens no I

TGBaker wrote:

Heavens no I don't think Paul shows Gnosticism. I think there are ideas that had not been systematised into Gnosticism floating around the culture.  I think the seeds of Gnosticism is in the language employed by Philo, Paul's wisdom motif's and good old Johnny. You may be right about John's language being apologetically effected by his response to Gnosticism.  I've always held out on that one because I don't think we can tell whether Gnosticism evolved from a particular reading of Paul and John and even Philo (who is not Neo-Platonic but has the right language) or from a separate movement that was attracted to Christianity. I haven't seen anything Gnostic that was not in some sense Christian based though. Have you?   I know the theory that there was a Jewish Gnosticism but...    AS I said in closing I think a lot of the Hellenistic ideas developed into Gnosticism and in turn that same trend of diachronic change or expansion of meaning was occurring within Christianity as can be seen in the manuscripts.  Interesting the Gnostic idea of emanation seems more Aristotelian than Platonic. If you look at Philo and you look at Paul and you look at John you see a moderate influence of more mystical ideas for want of a better word than in Judaism itself (if ya can even speak of a normative Judaism). I think they may have been deliberate on the part of paul but they seem to flow as if he believes them s more proper than his Jewish background.

Have I seen something that was gnostic, well the pattern I think has emerged in just about every major religion in one form or fashion, but as a rule what is traditionally associated with gnosticism, no. I've already asserted my opinion concerning Paul, in that I think that he was using familiar concepts to teach unfamiliar ones. I think this may be true about John too when he invokes the Logos. The seeds of gnosticism are there, and may be why gnostics so latched on to Christianity: there's the eikon and demiurge personified in Christ, the gnosis from the Holy Spirit, the dualism of spiritual things verses fleshly things, among other aspects that are very compatible with gnosticism. I don't really see it as an expansion of meaning as much as I see it an application of meaning particularly in defense against things that run contrary to what they taught in early Christianity. As Paul move throughout the Roman world, particularly Greece, religion was a-la-carte, and most certainly he had to scope out Christianity in these contexts.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Note: sorry for not responding earlier - I have been busy.

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Are you kidding?? A mortal being can harm an infinite omnipotent being???

Even if you are thinking in terms of 'offense' rather than physical harm, it betrays a being with all too human sensibilities.

I have not problem accepting that moral beings can harm God. They did a pretty good job of harming him by toturing him and hanging him on a cross...

That is not what I meant, and you know it. Jesus on the cross was not at that point a god. You dodged ky question.

If a masochistic super-being wants to manifest as a mortal being to let his playthings vent their frustration on him, that's his problem.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ideals do lead to the formation of concepts, which is all God is. Obviously, the God of the Jews and Christians has mutated from the original concept, but still retains many primitive aspects.

Have they? How so?

They are different from the gods of earlier tribes, although the basic stories around them show clear common threads.

And at some point the Jews wrote the goddess Asherah out of the OT story.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You continue to misread me.

I said in that post that you can't measure Justice, because of its subjectivity. You can possibly get a rough scale by recording the opinions and reactions of a cross-section of society. But that's about as much as you can do.

Sorry if I "misread" you, but I don't see where you say justice can't be measured... only that it can't be measured qualitatively...

"Measured qualitatively" is almost an oxymoron. I said:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Balancing the books' is not a necessity, it implies that 'justice' can be quantitatively measured, which is nonsense.

To which you responded:

Quote:

So how do you suppose justice is measured? Quantitatively?

Did you mean to suggest 'qualitatively'?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I realize that it is your subjective opinion that Justice is not so subjective..

The content of my "opinion" and the what defines justice are not the same thing. In other words, what I think about justice does not define justice. A subjective justice seems rather dubious, and really begs the question as to if it can be called "justice" at all...

I know that what you think about it does not define it, but what you think is the definition of Justice, and your conviction that there must be an objective standard, are still your personal assessments.

How do you find an objective standard for something like that, which cannot even be measured?

What makes a supposed God's idea of Justice any better, or necessarily relevant to us? And how do confirm that we have any idea what his standards are, apart from observation of what he has allegedly created?

Is wiping out all life on Earth apart from one sinful family an example of 'Justice"?? For a being who had the power to selectively 'judge' and punish everyone, which is supposed to be going to do anyway at some time??

Are you seriously still trying to extract some coherent message out of that load of inconsistent BS?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Let S =  1 + r

1

+ r

2

+ r

3

+ ... + r

n

  ................(1)

then r X S =  r1 + r2 + r3 + ... + rn + rn+1 ....(2)

subtracting (2) from (1):

S - r X S = 1 - rn+1

 ie (1 - r ) X S = 1 - rn+1

so S = (1 - rn+1)/(1 - r )

if 0 < r < 1, then rn+1 -> 0 as n -> infinity,

so S -> 1/(1 - r) if 0< r < 1 as n -> infinity.

No iteration necessary.

-> = "approaches", that is, it implies iteration (as N approaches infinity by each successive iteration)... Just because you estimate the sum, does not mean that you aren't iterating...

The sum is NOT 'estimated', it is rigorously calculated. There is no actual iteration involved.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the idea of 'approaching some limit', which admittedly was not around in the times your Book was written. Neither was the idea of rigorously handling the concept of infinite sums, or infinity in general. You are back with Zeno.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It can't be known, but my point is that an infinite regress does not necessitate any actual quantitative infinities.

Who's pressing for actual quantitative infinities? I don't believe that I've ever defined God as an actual quantitative infinities.

The 'problem' of infinite regress has been used to argue for the necessity of a 'first cause'.

You said at one point:

Quote:

I think in any case you end up with a Munchausen Trilemma: infinite regress, axioms, or question begging. Pick your poison.

In any case, I am not ascribing any infinities to God.

An 'infinite regress' is NOT a problem unless it implies any infinity of time or other quantity. And a chain of diminishing causes, in duration and energy, is perfectly possible within a finite context. So that objection you raise there is not compelling.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It acts against certainty once God is assumed. We can't disprove some kind of super being, but until we find some positive evidence for something occurring in our universe, in any form, which can only be 'explained' by such an entity, it is an unjustified assumption.

Why is that so? There's not reason to think that unless you're pitching them as two mutually exclusive explanations. Are you?

BobSpence1 wrote:
'God-of-the-Gaps' is not a version of God, it describes one form of argument for God, based on our inability to come up with a natural explanation for some phenomenon or event. Which applies to all the miracles of the Bible, even if they could be verified to have taken place.

God-of-the-gaps is invoked to fill gaps in explanations where natural explanations should exist. Ascribing something as a "miracle" is when a particular event defies what is perceived to be common experience.

Which is simply a matter of limited, informal perception. "Common experience", even now, would see many things that are fully encompassed by science as "defying" explanation.

Just because we currently do not have a scientific, empirically justified explanation for some phenomenon, does not justify making the enormous leap of 'logic' to positing it as evidence for a supreme being.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not saying that the "association of blood with life and death" is an ancient idea, I was saying that "the idea of blood sacrifice" is primitive, based on the natural association of blood with life and death.

I see. So why bring it up?

Because I see it at the heart of the crucifixion scenario, of someone 'dying' for us. Which I see as a primitive idea, 'dressed-up' a bit to make it more palatable.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Heavens no I don't think Paul shows Gnosticism. I think there are ideas that had not been systematised into Gnosticism floating around the culture.  I think the seeds of Gnosticism is in the language employed by Philo, Paul's wisdom motif's and good old Johnny. You may be right about John's language being apologetically effected by his response to Gnosticism.  I've always held out on that one because I don't think we can tell whether Gnosticism evolved from a particular reading of Paul and John and even Philo (who is not Neo-Platonic but has the right language) or from a separate movement that was attracted to Christianity. I haven't seen anything Gnostic that was not in some sense Christian based though. Have you?   I know the theory that there was a Jewish Gnosticism but...    AS I said in closing I think a lot of the Hellenistic ideas developed into Gnosticism and in turn that same trend of diachronic change or expansion of meaning was occurring within Christianity as can be seen in the manuscripts.  Interesting the Gnostic idea of emanation seems more Aristotelian than Platonic. If you look at Philo and you look at Paul and you look at John you see a moderate influence of more mystical ideas for want of a better word than in Judaism itself (if ya can even speak of a normative Judaism). I think they may have been deliberate on the part of paul but they seem to flow as if he believes them s more proper than his Jewish background.

Have I seen something that was gnostic, well the pattern I think has emerged in just about every major religion in one form or fashion, but as a rule what is traditionally associated with gnosticism, no. I've already asserted my opinion concerning Paul, in that I think that he was using familiar concepts to teach unfamiliar ones. I think this may be true about John too when he invokes the Logos. The seeds of gnosticism are there, and may be why gnostics so latched on to Christianity: there's the eikon and demiurge personified in Christ, the gnosis from the Holy Spirit, the dualism of spiritual things verses fleshly things, among other aspects that are very compatible with gnosticism. I don't really see it as an expansion of meaning as much as I see it an application of meaning particularly in defense against things that run contrary to what they taught in early Christianity. As Paul move throughout the Roman world, particularly Greece, religion was a-la-carte, and most certainly he had to scope out Christianity in these contexts.

So you view Paul in his apologetics employing the respondent's message. This is similar to Thomas Aquinas who in some sense kick started Western Civilization when his apologetics to the Islamic scholars took on their Atristotelian language as subtly Thomas's theology. I would agree in that sense. But I think the ideas were already there with Paul before he even became Christian perhaps in his Pharisaic theological studies. Obviously I believe these influences changed the Ebionite-like early following of Jesus ( Jerusalem) into a Hellenistic mystery type religion or cult through Paul.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The sum is

BobSpence1 wrote:

The sum is NOT 'estimated', it is rigorously calculated. There is no actual iteration involved.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the idea of 'approaching some limit', which admittedly was not around in the times your Book was written. Neither was the idea of rigorously handling the concept of infinite sums, or infinity in general. You are back with Zeno.

The very fact that you've derived the Limit from an iterative pattern shows it is an iteration. Sigma notation implies iteration.... Limits (as N approaches infinity) implies iteration... Why do I need an index N if it is not iterative? I'm not sure where you learned math, but you seem to be denying the very thing you used to derive your limit. Just because you're not actually performing an infinite number of iterations does not mean that you cannot know the final outcome if you did, but without actually performing the calculation, you're estimating it... Unless you integrate it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It can't be known, but my point is that an infinite regress does not necessitate any actual quantitative infinities.

But you haven't solved your problem based on basic mistake from mathematics, and you don't have  a pattern to ascertain if the explanatory chain has a terminus...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which is simply a matter of limited, informal perception. "Common experience", even now, would see many things that are fully encompassed by science as "defying" explanation.

Just because we currently do not have a scientific, empirically justified explanation for some phenomenon, does not justify making the enormous leap of 'logic' to positing it as evidence for a supreme being.

I should have qualified that with normal natural experience.

But in any case, the "enormous leap" is lessened by mitigating probable natural explanations such that the inference to some sort of non-natural cause (it does not have to be a supreme being) is not so hard to make... But if you preclude that is as a possibility, then it is not a matter of evidence at all, but assumptions about possibilities.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Because I see it at the heart of the crucifixion scenario, of someone 'dying' for us. Which I see as a primitive idea, 'dressed-up' a bit to make it more palatable.

So you perceive the notion of another dying for else as a primitive idea that is  "dressed up"... But what does that have to do with anything?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:So you view

TGBaker wrote:
So you view Paul in his apologetics employing the respondent's message. This is similar to Thomas Aquinas who in some sense kick started Western Civilization when his apologetics to the Islamic scholars took on their Atristotelian language as subtly Thomas's theology. I would agree in that sense. But I think the ideas were already there with Paul before he even became Christian perhaps in his Pharisaic theological studies. Obviously I believe these influences changed the Ebionite-like early following of Jesus ( Jerusalem) into a Hellenistic mystery type religion or cult through Paul.

Paul had a very distinct advantage, being from Tarsus and being raised in a pharisaic upbringing -- he had the best of both worlds from a Hellenistic and Judaic perspective. I see him adapting familiar ideas from the culture to explain Christianity, so yes, it was apologetic.

But what I don't see is Paul changing it into another mystery religion. I don't perceive Paul claiming any sort of esoteric knowledge, although he does punt to mystery on occasion in the light of lack of full knowledge. We do see Paul being very Jewish when he is in Jerusalem and very Greek when he is in Greece, but I think Paul was convinced that the Christian religion in practice transcended any particular cultural norm and he fought tooth and nail to keep various churches from becoming Jewish as t (i.e. the churches in Galatia) or becoming a Greek mystery religion/cult (i.e. the church at Corinth). Obviously, the proto-Ebionite tradiiton in Jerusalem was already taking root while Peter was in Jerusalem. Paul called Peter out for being too Jewish.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
So you view Paul in his apologetics employing the respondent's message. This is similar to Thomas Aquinas who in some sense kick started Western Civilization when his apologetics to the Islamic scholars took on their Atristotelian language as subtly Thomas's theology. I would agree in that sense. But I think the ideas were already there with Paul before he even became Christian perhaps in his Pharisaic theological studies. Obviously I believe these influences changed the Ebionite-like early following of Jesus ( Jerusalem) into a Hellenistic mystery type religion or cult through Paul.

Paul had a very distinct advantage, being from Tarsus and being raised in a pharisaic upbringing -- he had the best of both worlds from a Hellenistic and Judaic perspective. I see him adapting familiar ideas from the culture to explain Christianity, so yes, it was apologetic.

But what I don't see is Paul changing it into another mystery religion. I don't perceive Paul claiming any sort of esoteric knowledge, although he does punt to mystery on occasion in the light of lack of full knowledge. We do see Paul being very Jewish when he is in Jerusalem and very Greek when he is in Greece, but I think Paul was convinced that the Christian religion in practice transcended any particular cultural norm and he fought tooth and nail to keep various churches from becoming Jewish as t (i.e. the churches in Galatia) or becoming a Greek mystery religion/cult (i.e. the church at Corinth). Obviously, the proto-Ebionite tradiiton in Jerusalem was already taking root while Peter was in Jerusalem. Paul called Peter out for being too Jewish.

 

I believe that Paul thought that Christianity transcended any cultural norm. But it looks to me that you have an orginating movement including James and John which view Historical Jesus as Pro-Ebionite and Paul as a Christ explained in Hellenistic divine terms.  Yes I know the hymnal precede Paul that he uses. And that points I think to development of the different Christianity that was a catalyst for Paul's Damascus experience of Jesus. The Polemic of Paul againt the Pillar's of Jerusalem shows to types of Christianity: the original from the original followers of an earthly Jesus and a revisionist Hellenistic model that presents a divine Christ.  Poor Peter just was stuck in the middle.  OBvious the an apologetic to my presentation depends on the accuracy of Acts and the datings of Deutro-Pauline literature.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I believe that

TGBaker wrote:
I believe that Paul thought that Christianity transcended any cultural norm. But it looks to me that you have an orginating movement including James and John which view Historical Jesus as Pro-Ebionite and Paul as a Christ explained in Hellenistic divine terms.  Yes I know the hymnal precede Paul that he uses. And that points I think to development of the different Christianity that was a catalyst for Paul's Damascus experience of Jesus. The Polemic of Paul againt the Pillar's of Jerusalem shows to types of Christianity: the original from the original followers of an earthly Jesus and a revisionist Hellenistic model that presents a divine Christ.  Poor Peter just was stuck in the middle.  OBvious the an apologetic to my presentation depends on the accuracy of Acts and the datings of Deutro-Pauline literature.

I do think they agreed on doctrine but the two forms of which you speak are certainly there. The elders in Jerusalem affirmed Paul's doctrinal teachings. The differences are issues I think are largely related to the manifestation of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. For the Jewish converts, was it okay for them to continue temple worship? Paul certainly thought so. But at the same time was it right for the Jews to require the gentiles to be circumcised? Paul certainly thought this was not right. And for the Greeks, were they allowed to live immorally as if the law didn't exist? Paul certainly was against this.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I believe that Paul thought that Christianity transcended any cultural norm. But it looks to me that you have an orginating movement including James and John which view Historical Jesus as Pro-Ebionite and Paul as a Christ explained in Hellenistic divine terms.  Yes I know the hymnal precede Paul that he uses. And that points I think to development of the different Christianity that was a catalyst for Paul's Damascus experience of Jesus. The Polemic of Paul againt the Pillar's of Jerusalem shows to types of Christianity: the original from the original followers of an earthly Jesus and a revisionist Hellenistic model that presents a divine Christ.  Poor Peter just was stuck in the middle.  OBvious the an apologetic to my presentation depends on the accuracy of Acts and the datings of Deutro-Pauline literature.

I do think they agreed on doctrine but the two forms of which you speak are certainly there. The elders in Jerusalem affirmed Paul's doctrinal teachings. The differences are issues I think are largely related to the manifestation of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. For the Jewish converts, was it okay for them to continue temple worship? Paul certainly thought so. But at the same time was it right for the Jews to require the gentiles to be circumcised? Paul certainly thought this was not right. And for the Greeks, were they allowed to live immorally as if the law didn't exist? Paul certainly was against this.

And of course I'm of the school that thinks that the split was final with the Jerusalem church developing into the Ebionites, with the lore, teachings and oral tradition developing from them in Galilee, N. Palestine and S. Syria. By late 40's the kerygma that effected Paul developed in N. Syria with Paul spreading his revision through Asia Minor and Greece. 20 or so years latter these influences came together in S Syria with Mark with Q unaffected in Galilee around the same time. Matthew is written later then John and finally Luke.  Acts is therefore late and reflects a harmonizing of the Apostolic Counsel and Paul's meetings with the Pillars that are redacted as much as the gospels. But that is all conjecture like everything else concerning the reconstructing of the history.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:And of course

TGBaker wrote:
And of course I'm of the school that thinks that the split was final with the Jerusalem church developing into the Ebionites, with the lore, teachings and oral tradition developing from them in Galilee, N. Palestine and S. Syria. By late 40's the kerygma that effected Paul developed in N. Syria with Paul spreading his revision through Asia Minor and Greece. 20 or so years latter these influences came together in S Syria with Mark with Q unaffected in Galilee around the same time. Matthew is written later then John and finally Luke.  Acts is therefore late and reflects a harmonizing of the Apostolic Counsel and Paul's meetings with the Pillars that are redacted as much as the gospels. But that is all conjecture like everything else concerning the reconstructing of the history.

No doubt, redaction is going on. Whatever existed before Mark is unknown in terms of writings. My hunch is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, as it has the strongest Jewish flavor and even some of the style and vocabulary is very Hebraic. Luke/Acts was an apologetic work written to show the progression of Christianity from a particular Jewish sect to a new "way" with its own unique identity. This of course is because Luke was Paul's companion who was the champion of Christianity for the Gentiles. Obviously, the synoptic gospels all share a common source. John is latest, and as I said, I think it was written to Hellenistic Jews or Jewish proselytes that had converted to Christianity. While I think each gospel is unique in character and purpose, I think they all agree on doctrine, which is consistent with Paul's teachings too.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
And of course I'm of the school that thinks that the split was final with the Jerusalem church developing into the Ebionites, with the lore, teachings and oral tradition developing from them in Galilee, N. Palestine and S. Syria. By late 40's the kerygma that effected Paul developed in N. Syria with Paul spreading his revision through Asia Minor and Greece. 20 or so years latter these influences came together in S Syria with Mark with Q unaffected in Galilee around the same time. Matthew is written later then John and finally Luke.  Acts is therefore late and reflects a harmonizing of the Apostolic Counsel and Paul's meetings with the Pillars that are redacted as much as the gospels. But that is all conjecture like everything else concerning the reconstructing of the history.

No doubt, redaction is going on. Whatever existed before Mark is unknown in terms of writings. My hunch is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, as it has the strongest Jewish flavor and even some of the style and vocabulary is very Hebraic. Luke/Acts was an apologetic work written to show the progression of Christianity from a particular Jewish sect to a new "way" with its own unique identity. This of course is because Luke was Paul's companion who was the champion of Christianity for the Gentiles. Obviously, the synoptic gospels all share a common source. John is latest, and as I said, I think it was written to Hellenistic Jews or Jewish proselytes that had converted to Christianity. While I think each gospel is unique in character and purpose, I think they all agree on doctrine, which is consistent with Paul's teachings too.

I guess it boils down to what conclusions a priori to other conclusions ...to other conclusions I see marl as dependent on mark. I obviously went with Marcan priority.

 

Matthew in areas of redaction reworks mark in such a way that I can not see him as an eyewitness.  In studying the tradition of the Aramaic matthew  which might have been called the Gospel of the Ebionites I concluded that it is lost. I do not see it as Q.  It may have been destroyed by what later became orthodoxy givien it would not have been along the lines of Paul or the existing Gospel of Matthew. I see Matthew originating in Northern Palestine after Q spread from Galilee as Q2 and Q3 and after Mark was  written in Syria.  I see Luke as reflecting some common tradition in John. I think that Luke was written after the earliest parts of John with dependency on Mark and Q. I think John was written in N. Syria being Hellenistic and Luke later in Asia Minor or Greece and not by the historical Luke. Obviously I think that they do not  always agree on doctrine.

Regarding the two early movements. I believe the pre-Ebionites are reflected in the Ebionite norms of the late and early first centuries.  They did not believe in a  virgin birth ( because that was a later addition to the story and not consistent with their historical grounding.  They did not think Jesus divine . They say him as the Jewish Messiah cut off but returning in the general resurrection as ruling the New Kingdom.  I see the addition of the virgin births as apologetics to get Jesus born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth.  Thus their purpose is the same but their history is not. The same I feel developed with the hymnal backgrounds. The idea that the name of the Messiah pre-existed creation in some Pharasaic teaching certainly give way to the rapid elevating of Jesus to a divine state. And then there's Paul who effected by this and well versed in Hellenistic thought. To me the creation of the Christ of Faith is his. Jesus lies on the other side of the process.  Of course I know the argument that the historical person's significance is the causative factor of the generation of the myth and therefore its ground of truth. I am too empirically and factually based to confess such a neo-orthodox faith.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The sum is NOT 'estimated', it is rigorously calculated. There is no actual iteration involved.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the idea of 'approaching some limit', which admittedly was not around in the times your Book was written. Neither was the idea of rigorously handling the concept of infinite sums, or infinity in general. You are back with Zeno.

The very fact that you've derived the Limit from an iterative pattern shows it is an iteration. Sigma notation implies iteration.... Limits (as N approaches infinity) implies iteration... Why do I need an index N if it is not iterative? I'm not sure where you learned math, but you seem to be denying the very thing you used to derive your limit. Just because you're not actually performing an infinite number of iterations does not mean that you cannot know the final outcome if you did, but without actually performing the calculation, you're estimating it... Unless you integrate it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It can't be known, but my point is that an infinite regress does not necessitate any actual quantitative infinities.

But you haven't solved your problem based on basic mistake from mathematics, and you don't have  a pattern to ascertain if the explanatory chain has a terminus...

So you deny the validity of calculus, which includes 'integration', and is based on pushing the same idea further??

I have done Math at University level as part of an Engineering Degree - what is your qualification?

There is no 'mistake' there. That proof only requires that, if 0 < r < 1, then rn+1 -> 0 as n -> infinity.

IOW, that if you multiply something by a positive number less than unity, it gets smaller.

Do you not accept that??

Also, there is no 'iteration' here, actual or implied.

New Oxford American Dictionary wrote:

repetition of a mathematical or computational procedure applied to the result of a previous application, typically as a means of obtaining successively closer approximations to the solution of a problem.

The sigma term does not imply iteration, it represents a summation of n terms

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which is simply a matter of limited, informal perception. "Common experience", even now, would see many things that are fully encompassed by science as "defying" explanation.

Just because we currently do not have a scientific, empirically justified explanation for some phenomenon, does not justify making the enormous leap of 'logic' to positing it as evidence for a supreme being.

I should have qualified that with normal natural experience.

But in any case, the "enormous leap" is lessened by mitigating probable natural explanations such that the inference to some sort of non-natural cause (it does not have to be a supreme being) is not so hard to make... But if you preclude that is as a possibility, then it is not a matter of evidence at all, but assumptions about possibilities.

A mild 'leap' to an unknown cause which doesn't involve something too far beyond what we know to exist, does turn into an enormous leap when you throw in something totally unobserved and implausible as a supreme being.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Because I see it at the heart of the crucifixion scenario, of someone 'dying' for us. Which I see as a primitive idea, 'dressed-up' a bit to make it more palatable.

So you perceive the notion of another dying for else as a primitive idea that is  "dressed up"... But what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, especially when there is absolutely no demonstrable benefit to us. If it persuaded an oncoming army to retreat, for example, OK. If several other people suddenly came back to life at the moment of his death, that might count, but only to those people.

If someone is prepared to die to donate their organs to save the lives of others, that is a sacrifice to marvel at. To throw oneself onto a grenade to save the rest of the troop, yes. But to let oneself be arrested and crucified for some notional and unnecessary idea of 'forgiveness', WTF? Not in the same ball-park.

At least one of the writers may have realized this scenario needed something more, with the account of the hundreds of tombs opening, which is pretty generally accepted to be a gratuitous addition.

Interesting how you fail to see connections which seem fairly obvious to me, then try to justify your point of view by assuming connections between disparate things when it suits you.

You remarked to someone else that "But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?", regarding historical reporting. Are you kidding?? It doesn't prove whether their account is accurate or not, but to assert that it is irrelevant????

As I said before, you provide me a fascinating window on an aspect of human psychology under the influence of a powerful 'meme'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Interesting

BobSpence1 wrote:

Interesting how you fail to see connections which seem fairly obvious to me, then try to justify your point of view by assuming connections between disparate things when it suits you.

You remarked to someone else that "But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?", regarding historical reporting. Are you kidding?? It doesn't prove whether their account is accurate or not, but to assert that it is irrelevant????

As I said before, you provide me a fascinating window on an aspect of human psychology under the influence of a powerful 'meme'.

 

You may have noticed I tried to point this out to him as well in different words.  He doesn't seem to be getting it.  Maybe he will gain a little more understanding from your post.  I wouldn't hold my breath.

And it is obvious he still hasn't read Mistakes were made but not by me.  Or else he has, but still can't see the log in his own eye.  That sucker must be larger than a 2x4.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey OP

Hi OP,

To say that religion is good for kids begs the question. You assume religion as worship? The term religion is no longer a word that exists. It's like the word exist no longer exists.

Anyway, so thus far your OP is a waste of time.

2nd, worship of any kind is good for kids? Even if the worship is false?

I would disagree with you and your ambiguity is wanting. Religion is not good for kids, whatever that means.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So you deny

BobSpence1 wrote:

So you deny the validity of calculus, which includes 'integration', and is based on pushing the same idea further??

I have done Math at University level as part of an Engineering Degree - what is your qualification?

I studied computer science in my undergraduate work, I took math as electives in addition to the required math component for CS.

I'm not denying the validity of calculus... I'm a affirming it -- that is the fundamental theorem of calculus that talks about the sum of changes in area between two points in a given function...

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is no 'mistake' there. That proof only requires that, if 0 < r < 1, then rn+1 -> 0 as n -> infinity.

IOW, that if you multiply something by a positive number less than unity, it gets smaller.

Do you not accept that??

Also, there is no 'iteration' here, actual or implied.

Then why do you need an index (n)?

New Oxford American Dictionary wrote:

repetition of a mathematical or computational procedure applied to the result of a previous application, typically as a means of obtaining successively closer approximations to the solution of a problem.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The sigma term does not imply iteration, it represents a summation of n terms

For some reason, you can't see it... sucessively... aproximations.... computational procedures... How else would you take the sum of a series?

BobSpence1 wrote:
A mild 'leap' to an unknown cause which doesn't involve something too far beyond what we know to exist, does turn into an enormous leap when you throw in something totally unobserved and implausible as a supreme being.

But the problem is that you're assuming it is "implausible" and "unobserved". It's not a problem if you don't make those assumptions. It seems to me that you're admitting a bias against it, which is otherwise irrelevant.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes, especially when there is absolutely no demonstrable benefit to us.

So you're looking for some way to pragmatically justify it then?

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it persuaded an oncoming army to retreat, for example, OK. If several other people suddenly came back to life at the moment of his death, that might count, but only to those people.

If someone is prepared to die to donate their organs to save the lives of others, that is a sacrifice to marvel at. To throw oneself onto a grenade to save the rest of the troop, yes. But to let oneself be arrested and crucified for some notional and unnecessary idea of 'forgiveness', WTF? Not in the same ball-park.

At least one of the writers may have realized this scenario needed something more, with the account of the hundreds of tombs opening, which is pretty generally accepted to be a gratuitous addition.

If the truth claims of Christianity is true, then even more so than the one who donates organs to save lives. Its not a matter of forgiveness only... it is a matter of life and death.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Interesting how you fail to see connections which seem fairly obvious to me, then try to justify your point of view by assuming connections between disparate things when it suits you.

Huh? All you're essentially doing is saying I'm wrong because you told me I was wrong. Just because you reject my connections does not mean that they are unduly made, and just because something may seem fairly obvious to you does not make it obvious to another nor does make corroborate the soundness of something either...

BobSpence1 wrote:

You remarked to someone else that "But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?", regarding historical reporting. Are you kidding?? It doesn't prove whether their account is accurate or not, but to assert that it is irrelevant????

As I said before, you provide me a fascinating window on an aspect of human psychology under the influence of a powerful 'meme'.

I'm not talking about historical reporting either... I'm talking about credibility. I'm asking the question. I want the person to make an argument rather than citing a fact.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi OP,To

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi OP,

To say that religion is good for kids begs the question. You assume religion as worship? The term religion is no longer a word that exists. It's like the word exist no longer exists.

Anyway, so thus far your OP is a waste of time.

2nd, worship of any kind is good for kids? Even if the worship is false?

I would disagree with you and your ambiguity is wanting. Religion is not good for kids, whatever that means.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean... this makes no sense at all...

"It's like the word exist no longer exists." is a vacuous statement if you apply a word that has no meaning to itself...

and Then asserting "Religion is not good for kids, whatever that means." and questioning its meaning vacuous too...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Matthew in

TGBaker wrote:

 Matthew in areas of redaction reworks mark in such a way that I can not see him as an eyewitness.  In studying the tradition of the Aramaic matthew  which might have been called the Gospel of the Ebionites I concluded that it is lost. I do not see it as Q.  It may have been destroyed by what later became orthodoxy givien it would not have been along the lines of Paul or the existing Gospel of Matthew. I see Matthew originating in Northern Palestine after Q spread from Galilee as Q2 and Q3 and after Mark was  written in Syria.  I see Luke as reflecting some common tradition in John. I think that Luke was written after the earliest parts of John with dependency on Mark and Q. I think John was written in N. Syria being Hellenistic and Luke later in Asia Minor or Greece and not by the historical Luke. Obviously I think that they do not  always agree on doctrine.

I think the Aramaic tradition of Matthew the very Jewish flavor of the book is the apologetic purpose of the book. Mark, where ever it came form seems to be the least culturally oriented... It certainly shares content with Mark, but whether or not it came from Mark or Q is unknown. I think Matthew contains some eyewitness material too.  Luke and John are certainly Greek oriented, but John seems to have been written by a person whose primary language was not Greek.

TGBaker wrote:
Regarding the two early movements. I believe the pre-Ebionites are reflected in the Ebionite norms of the late and early first centuries.  They did not believe in a  virgin birth ( because that was a later addition to the story and not consistent with their historical grounding.  They did not think Jesus divine . They say him as the Jewish Messiah cut off but returning in the general resurrection as ruling the New Kingdom.  I see the addition of the virgin births as apologetics to get Jesus born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth.  Thus their purpose is the same but their history is not. The same I feel developed with the hymnal backgrounds. The idea that the name of the Messiah pre-existed creation in some Pharasaic teaching certainly give way to the rapid elevating of Jesus to a divine state. And then there's Paul who effected by this and well versed in Hellenistic thought. To me the creation of the Christ of Faith is his. Jesus lies on the other side of the process.  Of course I know the argument that the historical person's significance is the causative factor of the generation of the myth and therefore its ground of truth. I am too empirically and factually based to confess such a neo-orthodox faith.

Paul seemed to take the divinity of Jesus for granted, but John was very adamant in expressing this, as he was writing to those who thought that perhaps Jesus was semi-divine or something like that. The virgin birth...well, I've already talked about that. But ehat's the connection between Bethelhem and virgin birth? I don't remember reading anything about that anywhere. The messiah issue is another one altogether. I'm convinced that the Jews were looking for a political messiah, of which there were many rabble-rousing would be messiahs who rose to fame in that time for resisting the Romans, and I think the crowds wanting to make Jesus king are indicative of this. Prexistent though I think is more connected with the divinity of Jesus than it is with his messiahship.

I think the time factor, the early Kerygma, the hymn tradition, Luke trying to place things in a historical framework, and perhaps even the eyewitness of John in the New Testament are mitigating factors when considering of Jesus became myth. Tolkien and Lewis are obvious reads on this matter concerning mythology.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 Matthew in areas of redaction reworks mark in such a way that I can not see him as an eyewitness.  In studying the tradition of the Aramaic matthew  which might have been called the Gospel of the Ebionites I concluded that it is lost. I do not see it as Q.  It may have been destroyed by what later became orthodoxy givien it would not have been along the lines of Paul or the existing Gospel of Matthew. I see Matthew originating in Northern Palestine after Q spread from Galilee as Q2 and Q3 and after Mark was  written in Syria.  I see Luke as reflecting some common tradition in John. I think that Luke was written after the earliest parts of John with dependency on Mark and Q. I think John was written in N. Syria being Hellenistic and Luke later in Asia Minor or Greece and not by the historical Luke. Obviously I think that they do not  always agree on doctrine.

I think the Aramaic tradition of Matthew the very Jewish flavor of the book is the apologetic purpose of the book. Mark, where ever it came form seems to be the least culturally oriented... It certainly shares content with Mark, but whether or not it came from Mark or Q is unknown. I think Matthew contains some eyewitness material too.  Luke and John are certainly Greek oriented, but John seems to have been written by a person whose primary language was not Greek.

TGBaker wrote:
Regarding the two early movements. I believe the pre-Ebionites are reflected in the Ebionite norms of the late and early first centuries.  They did not believe in a  virgin birth ( because that was a later addition to the story and not consistent with their historical grounding.  They did not think Jesus divine . They say him as the Jewish Messiah cut off but returning in the general resurrection as ruling the New Kingdom.  I see the addition of the virgin births as apologetics to get Jesus born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth.  Thus their purpose is the same but their history is not. The same I feel developed with the hymnal backgrounds. The idea that the name of the Messiah pre-existed creation in some Pharasaic teaching certainly give way to the rapid elevating of Jesus to a divine state. And then there's Paul who effected by this and well versed in Hellenistic thought. To me the creation of the Christ of Faith is his. Jesus lies on the other side of the process.  Of course I know the argument that the historical person's significance is the causative factor of the generation of the myth and therefore its ground of truth. I am too empirically and factually based to confess such a neo-orthodox faith.

Paul seemed to take the divinity of Jesus for granted, but John was very adamant in expressing this, as he was writing to those who thought that perhaps Jesus was semi-divine or something like that. The virgin birth...well, I've already talked about that. But ehat's the connection between Bethelhem and virgin birth? I don't remember reading anything about that anywhere. The messiah issue is another one altogether. I'm convinced that the Jews were looking for a political messiah, of which there were many rabble-rousing would be messiahs who rose to fame in that time for resisting the Romans, and I think the crowds wanting to make Jesus king are indicative of this. Prexistent though I think is more connected with the divinity of Jesus than it is with his messiahship.

I think the time factor, the early Kerygma, the hymn tradition, Luke trying to place things in a historical framework, and perhaps even the eyewitness of John in the New Testament are mitigating factors when considering of Jesus became myth. Tolkien and Lewis are obvious reads on this matter concerning mythology.

I tell you waht if you would like to come and look a a three foot long chart where i laid out the the pericopes of Mark with Matthew and Luke on either side you can not help but see that there is an actual editorial dependency.  And what displacement you have a parallels in Matthew and Luke inserted differently in the Marcan structure  by Matthew or Luke with the needed context fabricated into the Marcan body.   Comparing the original wording to the variation can be done with color coding which I did . The varations indicate that the changes were from mark to Matthew or Luke. I do not know if you have ever set down word by word and verse by verse and pericope by pericope but I have and i can not see any other explanation other than as most scholars that Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark. Take the Would-be Follwers pericope and see how mark originally read and how Matthew changes the story to insert it. Also look at where Luke puts it in ( a different location and time ) and how the story is effected by the redaction.  We simply are not dealing with history when it comes to matthew and Luke. We are dealinf with editing of previous writings into one. Ther are some tell-tale Aramaic meanings in Matthew but not such that it originated in Aramaic. There is little left after Mark and Q.  What is is Greek. If you have not actually done the study I would encourage you to sit and do it. If you have and can explain to me how it can be other than much of scholarship understands it and me as well I would love to know.

As to Bethlehem it was a tradition of that period that the Messiah would come from the house of David and is reflected in the gospels elsewhere beside the infancy narratives. There is nothing in Jewish writings about Bethlehem before the 4 C.E.  Given the internal debate within the gospels it would seem to be a temporary belief. Matthew gets Jesus to Bethlehem  by way of his parents living there. Luke does so with a census.  They seem to be an apologetic of why Jesus was thought to be from Nazareth ( which I believe he was given the apologetic). John argues in a different way about the two towns.  How can David be the lord of the Messiah when David calls the Messiah lord  and so forth. It was an interpretation of Micah.

The idea of Messiah just prior to Jesus is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls where they expected a Royal messiah and a Priestly Messiah at the same time. Some were looking for a political or militant Messiah ( Zealots) and others were apparently not.  A newer find is:

Messianic Apocalypse" (4Q521)

[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will

stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor . . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)

 

This basically oral condition I think also influenced the presentation of who Jesus was.  I think the pre-existent element has to do with Jewish ideas of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name, wisdom, Hellenistic Logos philosophy, apocalyptic apocrypha. I think Joseph Campbell is a better read on myth than Lewis and Tolkien.   The Hymns reflect what one would expect as a Jewish story left Palestine into Southern Syria and finally to Northern Syria ( where the kerygma developed ) and where Paul may have encountered it. You've got divine worship in Judaism in the closet throughout and openly on the island of Elephantine in the 5th century and later. Its suppression as seen in Philo was not its destruction. The move of spirit from a neuter to a masculine concept is a hint of how Wisdom can become neutered from its femininity and applied to Jesus. it is done so as the mother of Jesus in the gospels. The move to Logos and pneuma is consistent with the Hellenism and Jewish ideology effected by it.  John is late but I do not think as late as Luke/Acts. It looks to me that mark written in S,. Syria made its way to N. Palestine where the author of Matthew used it and reworked its non-Jewish elements along with Q. Luke does not have Matthew and John but he is effected by oral reverberations of there teachings. I do not see John as possibly an eyewitness nor any of the writers for that matter.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So you deny the validity of calculus, which includes 'integration', and is based on pushing the same idea further??

I have done Math at University level as part of an Engineering Degree - what is your qualification?

I studied computer science in my undergraduate work, I took math as electives in addition to the required math component for CS.

I'm not denying the validity of calculus... I'm a affirming it -- that is the fundamental theorem of calculus that talks about the sum of changes in area between two points in a given function...

OK.

But you are only referring to integral calculus there. Differential calculus does not involve "area" between two points in a function.

The key concept in calculus is the idea of the limit of an expression as some term approaches zero, where we cannot actually evaluate it at zero.

In differential calculus, the basic idea is to evaluate the 'slope' of a curve (plotted in x-y coordinates). We express the slope of y = f(x) as (f(x2) - f(x1)) / (x2 - x1). That is an average slope. To get the slope at a point, calculus expresses it as (f(x + dx) - f(x)) / (x + dx) as dx ->0.

Integral calculus calculates the area under a curve y = f(x) between two values of x. This can be approximated by calculating the area of the trapezium defined by the four points - (x1, 0), (x2, 0), (x2, f(x2)), (x1, f(x1)). A closer approximation is achieved by subdividing the area into many smaller trapezoids, of width dx.

Then the limit comes in when we express the area under the curve as the value of the sum of the areas of these trapezoids as the width dx -> 0.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is no 'mistake' there. That proof only requires that, if 0 < r < 1, then rn+1 -> 0 as n -> infinity.

IOW, that if you multiply something by a positive number less than unity, it gets smaller.

Do you not accept that??

Also, there is no 'iteration' here, actual or implied.

Then why do you need an index (n)?

To index through the list of quantities being summed - that is not iteration, that is indexing an array.

Quote:

New Oxford American Dictionary wrote:

repetition of a mathematical or computational procedure applied to the result of a previous application, typically as a means of obtaining successively closer approximations to the solution of a problem.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The sigma term does not imply iteration, it represents a summation of n terms

For some reason, you can't see it... successively... aproximations.... computational procedures... How else would you take the sum of a series?

In the case of a summing a geometric series, there is no "successive approximation". 

We use math (algebra - not 'iteration') to get the expression for the sum of n terms in a geometric series. It is not an approximation. It applies precisely for any value of n.

We then apply the limit concept as used in calculus to evaluate the value of that expression as n approaches infinity, to avoid the use of an actual infinity in the calculation.

That is how...

The limit concept bypasses the need for actually calculating the value. In this case, it is based on the mathematical fact that xr+1 < xr, where 0 > r > 1, not on any explicit iterative calculation. It does not correspond to the programmatic idea of calculating successive approximations in an iterative loop, which I am very familiar with.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
A mild 'leap' to an unknown cause which doesn't involve something too far beyond what we know to exist, does turn into an enormous leap when you throw in something totally unobserved and implausible as a supreme being.

But the problem is that you're assuming it is "implausible" and "unobserved". It's not a problem if you don't make those assumptions. It seems to me that you're admitting a bias against it, which is otherwise irrelevant.

God has NOT been demonstrably observed. You cannot really observe anything to be infinite, or all-powerful, or all-knowing. At best you observe things which you cannot explain in terms of your own knowledge or understanding. To go from what you actually observe to the hypothesis that those observations can only be explained by a 'God' is not logically justified. I am not making an assumption. The assumption is yours, that only a God can explain the observations.

As for implausible, I base that on the FACT that the assumed attributes of a God are beyond anything we actually have observed or can be extrapolated from reasonably well-established data and theories. Such as completely non-material intelligence. It requires far more assumption to accept teh plausibility of the God hypothesis.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes, especially when there is absolutely no demonstrable benefit to us.

So you're looking for some way to pragmatically justify it then?

No, I would not say 'pragmatic'. If all JC is allegedly offering is something which is purely an unprovable claim, I am not impressed.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it persuaded an oncoming army to retreat, for example, OK. If several other people suddenly came back to life at the moment of his death, that might count, but only to those people.

If someone is prepared to die to donate their organs to save the lives of others, that is a sacrifice to marvel at. To throw oneself onto a grenade to save the rest of the troop, yes. But to let oneself be arrested and crucified for some notional and unnecessary idea of 'forgiveness', WTF? Not in the same ball-park.

At least one of the writers may have realized this scenario needed something more, with the account of the hundreds of tombs opening, which is pretty generally accepted to be a gratuitous addition.

If the truth claims of Christianity is true, then even more so than the one who donates organs to save lives. Its not a matter of forgiveness only... it is a matter of life and death.

But that is just an assumption. If this god thing really 'loved' us, it would not have left us to survive in this mess of disease and danger.

And if the claims are true, then he suffered only a temporary inconvenience, ie not a true sacrifice.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Interesting how you fail to see connections which seem fairly obvious to me, then try to justify your point of view by assuming connections between disparate things when it suits you.

Huh? All you're essentially doing is saying I'm wrong because you told me I was wrong. Just because you reject my connections does not mean that they are unduly made, and just because something may seem fairly obvious to you does not make it obvious to another nor does make corroborate the soundness of something either...

No, I am commenting on our very different perspectives on these things. And only in the case of these more tenuous arguments, based more on subjective perceptions than solid argument.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You remarked to someone else that "But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?", regarding historical reporting. Are you kidding?? It doesn't prove whether their account is accurate or not, but to assert that it is irrelevant????

As I said before, you provide me a fascinating window on an aspect of human psychology under the influence of a powerful 'meme'.

I'm not talking about historical reporting either... I'm talking about credibility. I'm asking the question. I want the person to make an argument rather than citing a fact.

You miss the point again. A contemporary is far more likely to have access to accurate information than someone relying on second- or third-hand accounts. All arguments about reality are ultimately matters of balancing the weight of evidence and the confidence we can justifiably assign to our sources.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:OK.But you

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK.

But you are only referring to integral calculus there. Differential calculus does not involve "area" between two points in a function.

The key concept in calculus is the idea of the limit of an expression as some term approaches zero, where we cannot actually evaluate it at zero.

Right...

BobSpence1 wrote:

In differential calculus, the basic idea is to evaluate the 'slope' of a curve (plotted in x-y coordinates). We express the slope of y = f(x) as (f(x2) - f(x1)) / (x2 - x1). That is an average slope. To get the slope at a point, calculus expresses it as (f(x + dx) - f(x)) / (x + dx) as dx ->0.

But your original series was the sum of an infinite series... one would use integral calculus to find the exact value of the sum... That was my point.

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the case of a summing a geometric series, there is no "successive approximation". 

We use math (algebra - not 'iteration') to get the expression for the sum of n terms in a geometric series. It is not an approximation. It applies precisely for any value of n.

Using algebra can give you a form, but when it comes down to actually performing the calculation, how are you going to do it? Or calculating the area under a curve, how are you going to do that? This is the iteration that I'm talking about...

BobSpence1 wrote:

We then apply the limit concept as used in calculus to evaluate the value of that expression as n approaches infinity, to avoid the use of an actual infinity in the calculation.

An integral would be the representation as if you actually did use an actual infinity without the need for it. Integrals do no require iterations either to calculate the sum...

BobSpence1 wrote:

God has NOT been demonstrably observed. You cannot really observe anything to be infinite, or all-powerful, or all-knowing. At best you observe things which you cannot explain in terms of your own knowledge or understanding. To go from what you actually observe to the hypothesis that those observations can only be explained by a 'God' is not logically justified. I am not making an assumption. The assumption is yours, that only a God can explain the observations.

As for implausible, I base that on the FACT that the assumed attributes of a God are beyond anything we actually have observed or can be extrapolated from reasonably well-established data and theories. Such as completely non-material intelligence. It requires far more assumption to accept teh plausibility of the God hypothesis.

I'm not saying it is logical justification for a god. I'm saying it is an inference to non-natural agency. And I did not say it can "only be explained". If I would say "best explained" or something like that. But as far as your assumptions were concerned, you made and assumption about the implausibility of God based on something you assumed is assumed.... An assumption from even more assumptions.

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, I would not say 'pragmatic'. If all JC is allegedly offering is something which is purely an unprovable claim, I am not impressed.

"Purely unprovable" in what sense?

BobSpence1 wrote:

But that is just an assumption. If this god thing really 'loved' us, it would not have left us to survive in this mess of disease and danger.

What about God's love obligates him to remove us from disease or disease from us?

BobSpence1 wrote:

And if the claims are true, then he suffered only a temporary inconvenience, ie not a true sacrifice.

Only a 'temporary' inconvenience? Hardly. He endured the punishment due every person on the cross, simultaneously...

BobSpence1 wrote:

You miss the point again. A contemporary is far more likely to have access to accurate information than someone relying on second- or third-hand accounts. All arguments about reality are ultimately matters of balancing the weight of evidence and the confidence we can justifiably assign to our sources.

Yes... But that's not what I asked though... I asked about the credibility of the author.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I tell you

TGBaker wrote:
I tell you waht if you would like to come and look a a three foot long chart where i laid out the the pericopes of Mark with Matthew and Luke on either side you can not help but see that there is an actual editorial dependency.  And what displacement you have a parallels in Matthew and Luke inserted differently in the Marcan structure  by Matthew or Luke with the needed context fabricated into the Marcan body.   Comparing the original wording to the variation can be done with color coding which I did . The varations indicate that the changes were from mark to Matthew or Luke. I do not know if you have ever set down word by word and verse by verse and pericope by pericope but I have and i can not see any other explanation other than as most scholars that Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark. Take the Would-be Follwers pericope and see how mark originally read and how Matthew changes the story to insert it. Also look at where Luke puts it in ( a different location and time ) and how the story is effected by the redaction.  We simply are not dealing with history when it comes to matthew and Luke. We are dealinf with editing of previous writings into one. Ther are some tell-tale Aramaic meanings in Matthew but not such that it originated in Aramaic. There is little left after Mark and Q.  What is is Greek. If you have not actually done the study I would encourage you to sit and do it. If you have and can explain to me how it can be other than much of scholarship understands it and me as well I would love to know.

I've look d at various charts over the years...

To me, there is a connondrum that is painted by many more skeptical critics like Ehrman. Erhman sees the writings of John as fabricated because they were not included in the synoptics, yet he has a huge problem with the synoptics because they don't agree on every jot and tiddle. I suspect that if one only had something like Mark and John, that would not be enough to convince some one like Ehrman that there is enough to convince him that they were historical. One cannot make an affirmative statement concerning the issues in redaction criticism related to source materials because we don't have them. All we can do is compare what we do have. And yes, it is full of discrepancies, but also full of agreement too.

You take a Marcan priority... I'm less firm, but I believe they do share a common source whether that source be Mark itself or something else. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Smiling Some hold that all the original gospels were written in Aramaic. I don't buy this view wholesale, but many scholars even think that Q was written in Aramaic too. This would mean that Matthew didn't use Mark, rather than Q. And Mark would use Q too... I think Matthew may have later been translated into Greek, but kept its hebraisms. Luke then comes along some time and deals with Q and adds some other sources to his work -- perhaps accounts from eyewitnesses -- and attempted to construct a more historical account while he was writing Luke/Acts.

TGBaker wrote:
As to Bethlehem it was a tradition of that period that the Messiah would come from the house of David and is reflected in the gospels elsewhere beside the infancy narratives. There is nothing in Jewish writings about Bethlehem before the 4 C.E.  Given the internal debate within the gospels it would seem to be a temporary belief. Matthew gets Jesus to Bethlehem  by way of his parents living there. Luke does so with a census.  They seem to be an apologetic of why Jesus was thought to be from Nazareth ( which I believe he was given the apologetic). John argues in a different way about the two towns.  How can David be the lord of the Messiah when David calls the Messiah lord  and so forth. It was an interpretation of Micah.

A census...parents living there... this doesn't seem like a debate to me as they do not seem to be mutually exclusive accounts. On the other hand, I think Nazareth was more of a shanty town set up outside a Roman garrison... the workers there worked for the Romans and Jesus' parents were migrant workers... Joseph returns home to register... then returns to work. Whatever one does it with though, I don't think they are necessarily contradictory.

TGBaker wrote:
The idea of Messiah just prior to Jesus is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls where they expected a Royal messiah and a Priestly Messiah at the same time. Some were looking for a political or militant Messiah ( Zealots) and others were apparently not. 
Thanks.

TGBaker wrote:

This basically oral condition I think also influenced the presentation of who Jesus was.  I think the pre-existent element has to do with Jewish ideas of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name, wisdom, Hellenistic Logos philosophy, apocalyptic apocrypha. I think Joseph Campbell is a better read on myth than Lewis and Tolkien.   The Hymns reflect what one would expect as a Jewish story left Palestine into Southern Syria and finally to Northern Syria ( where the kerygma developed ) and where Paul may have encountered it. You've got divine worship in Judaism in the closet throughout and openly on the island of Elephantine in the 5th century and later. Its suppression as seen in Philo was not its destruction. The move of spirit from a neuter to a masculine concept is a hint of how Wisdom can become neutered from its femininity and applied to Jesus. it is done so as the mother of Jesus in the gospels. The move to Logos and pneuma is consistent with the Hellenism and Jewish ideology effected by it.  John is late but I do not think as late as Luke/Acts. It looks to me that mark written in S,. Syria made its way to N. Palestine where the author of Matthew used it and reworked its non-Jewish elements along with Q. Luke does not have Matthew and John but he is effected by oral reverberations of there teachings. I do not see John as possibly an eyewitness nor any of the writers for that matter.

I'v seen some people who labeled parts of 1 Corinthians 15 as a hymn expressing a kerygma. Whether or nor someone buys this is really not a factor to me though. The early Christian teachings in an oral tradition were probably expressed in hymns and creeds as seen expressed in some even early NT writings. Memorization of such things was common, especial for laity, as they would memorize OT scriptures. Rabbis would sometime memorize the entire law. The early accounts I think were these sorts of things. The witness of John and Luke to me are not as strong because the internal evidence is not as strong. But I do think that Luke really thought he was writing history. John, not so much...but I do not think that John himself thought he was writing a fictitious account either. Of all the gospels, he's the one that claims to know the truth most of all Smiling

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I tell you waht if you would like to come and look a a three foot long chart where i laid out the the pericopes of Mark with Matthew and Luke on either side you can not help but see that there is an actual editorial dependency.  And what displacement you have a parallels in Matthew and Luke inserted differently in the Marcan structure  by Matthew or Luke with the needed context fabricated into the Marcan body.   Comparing the original wording to the variation can be done with color coding which I did . The varations indicate that the changes were from mark to Matthew or Luke. I do not know if you have ever set down word by word and verse by verse and pericope by pericope but I have and i can not see any other explanation other than as most scholars that Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark. Take the Would-be Follwers pericope and see how mark originally read and how Matthew changes the story to insert it. Also look at where Luke puts it in ( a different location and time ) and how the story is effected by the redaction.  We simply are not dealing with history when it comes to matthew and Luke. We are dealinf with editing of previous writings into one. Ther are some tell-tale Aramaic meanings in Matthew but not such that it originated in Aramaic. There is little left after Mark and Q.  What is is Greek. If you have not actually done the study I would encourage you to sit and do it. If you have and can explain to me how it can be other than much of scholarship understands it and me as well I would love to know.

I've look d at various charts over the years...

To me, there is a connondrum that is painted by many more skeptical critics like Ehrman. Erhman sees the writings of John as fabricated because they were not included in the synoptics, yet he has a huge problem with the synoptics because they don't agree on every jot and tiddle. I suspect that if one only had something like Mark and John, that would not be enough to convince some one like Ehrman that there is enough to convince him that they were historical. One cannot make an affirmative statement concerning the issues in redaction criticism related to source materials because we don't have them. All we can do is compare what we do have. And yes, it is full of discrepancies, but also full of agreement too.

You take a Marcan priority... I'm less firm, but I believe they do share a common source whether that source be Mark itself or something else. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Smiling Some hold that all the original gospels were written in Aramaic. I don't buy this view wholesale, but many scholars even think that Q was written in Aramaic too. This would mean that Matthew didn't use Mark, rather than Q. And Mark would use Q too... I think Matthew may have later been translated into Greek, but kept its hebraisms. Luke then comes along some time and deals with Q and adds some other sources to his work -- perhaps accounts from eyewitnesses -- and attempted to construct a more historical account while he was writing Luke/Acts.

TGBaker wrote:
As to Bethlehem it was a tradition of that period that the Messiah would come from the house of David and is reflected in the gospels elsewhere beside the infancy narratives. There is nothing in Jewish writings about Bethlehem before the 4 C.E.  Given the internal debate within the gospels it would seem to be a temporary belief. Matthew gets Jesus to Bethlehem  by way of his parents living there. Luke does so with a census.  They seem to be an apologetic of why Jesus was thought to be from Nazareth ( which I believe he was given the apologetic). John argues in a different way about the two towns.  How can David be the lord of the Messiah when David calls the Messiah lord  and so forth. It was an interpretation of Micah.

A census...parents living there... this doesn't seem like a debate to me as they do not seem to be mutually exclusive accounts. On the other hand, I think Nazareth was more of a shanty town set up outside a Roman garrison... the workers there worked for the Romans and Jesus' parents were migrant workers... Joseph returns home to register... then returns to work. Whatever one does it with though, I don't think they are necessarily contradictory.

TGBaker wrote:
The idea of Messiah just prior to Jesus is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls where they expected a Royal messiah and a Priestly Messiah at the same time. Some were looking for a political or militant Messiah ( Zealots) and others were apparently not. 
Thanks.

TGBaker wrote:

This basically oral condition I think also influenced the presentation of who Jesus was.  I think the pre-existent element has to do with Jewish ideas of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name, wisdom, Hellenistic Logos philosophy, apocalyptic apocrypha. I think Joseph Campbell is a better read on myth than Lewis and Tolkien.   The Hymns reflect what one would expect as a Jewish story left Palestine into Southern Syria and finally to Northern Syria ( where the kerygma developed ) and where Paul may have encountered it. You've got divine worship in Judaism in the closet throughout and openly on the island of Elephantine in the 5th century and later. Its suppression as seen in Philo was not its destruction. The move of spirit from a neuter to a masculine concept is a hint of how Wisdom can become neutered from its femininity and applied to Jesus. it is done so as the mother of Jesus in the gospels. The move to Logos and pneuma is consistent with the Hellenism and Jewish ideology effected by it.  John is late but I do not think as late as Luke/Acts. It looks to me that mark written in S,. Syria made its way to N. Palestine where the author of Matthew used it and reworked its non-Jewish elements along with Q. Luke does not have Matthew and John but he is effected by oral reverberations of there teachings. I do not see John as possibly an eyewitness nor any of the writers for that matter.

I'v seen some people who labeled parts of 1 Corinthians 15 as a hymn expressing a kerygma. Whether or nor someone buys this is really not a factor to me though. The early Christian teachings in an oral tradition were probably expressed in hymns and creeds as seen expressed in some even early NT writings. Memorization of such things was common, especial for laity, as they would memorize OT scriptures. Rabbis would sometime memorize the entire law. The early accounts I think were these sorts of things. The witness of John and Luke to me are not as strong because the internal evidence is not as strong. But I do think that Luke really thought he was writing history. John, not so much...but I do not think that John himself thought he was writing a fictitious account either. Of all the gospels, he's the one that claims to know the truth most of all Smiling

I like Erhman for his over all presentation but I do not think his exegetical studies are as thorough as many even conservatives I disagree with.  It is not so much a problem that the gospels disagree it is in the actual comparision of them how they disagree. As I sid I have gone through them creating my own chart and correctting several other charts to the point that it is overwelming obvious to me that Mark was in Greek when used by Matthew and Luke. What vocab variation occurs is for linguistic improvement or more importantly doctrinal changes.  I can not agree with Matthew Farmer that the gospels were written in Aramaic.  Q has such a multistage development that it is likely to have been Aramaic. There may have been some Aramaic sources for Mark. But Mark writes in such a way that he is not a translation but a creation.


 

The account are mutually exclusive in the since that for Matthew the parent lived in Bethlehem for Luke they lived in Nazareth.  Matthew resolves the idea of Jesus of Nazareth by having him move there after Herod's death. Luke creates a story in which the parents live in Nazareth go to a census so that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then go back to continue living in Nazareth. You can harmonize most anything but at some point you do violence to the intent of the author for the sake of one's own supposed legitimate doctrine. John is my favorite gospel because I like Gnosticism and it get close to it.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I like Erhman

TGBaker wrote:
I like Erhman for his over all presentation but I do not think his exegetical studies are as thorough as many even conservatives I disagree with.  It is not so much a problem that the gospels disagree it is in the actual comparision of them how they disagree. As I sid I have gone through them creating my own chart and correctting several other charts to the point that it is overwelming obvious to me that Mark was in Greek when used by Matthew and Luke. What vocab variation occurs is for linguistic improvement or more importantly doctrinal changes.  I can not agree with Matthew Farmer that the gospels were written in Aramaic.  Q has such a multistage development that it is likely to have been Aramaic. There may have been some Aramaic sources for Mark. But Mark writes in such a way that he is not a translation but a creation.

I'm not doubting that Mark was in Greek... I just don't think that Matthew was originally written in Greek. If Q existed, I don't think it would have been Greek either. Mark and John read like they were written by someone who did not have a command of the Greek language unlike Luke, and Matthew reads like a translation.

TGBaker wrote:

The account are mutually exclusive in the since that for Matthew the parent lived in Bethlehem for Luke they lived in Nazareth.  Matthew resolves the idea of Jesus of Nazareth by having him move there after Herod's death. Luke creates a story in which the parents live in Nazareth go to a census so that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then go back to continue living in Nazareth. You can harmonize most anything but at some point you do violence to the intent of the author for the sake of one's own supposed legitimate doctrine. John is my favorite gospel because I like Gnosticism and it get close to it.

Matthew's narative doesn't seem to be a birth narrative as the events happen some time after the birth of Jesus... It just says he was born there. Now as to the story of the Magi... Returning to Bethlehem after living in Nazareth for a time doesn't seem to make it mutually exclusive. I don't think there is any disharmony in this particular matter...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I like Erhman for his over all presentation but I do not think his exegetical studies are as thorough as many even conservatives I disagree with.  It is not so much a problem that the gospels disagree it is in the actual comparision of them how they disagree. As I sid I have gone through them creating my own chart and correctting several other charts to the point that it is overwelming obvious to me that Mark was in Greek when used by Matthew and Luke. What vocab variation occurs is for linguistic improvement or more importantly doctrinal changes.  I can not agree with Matthew Farmer that the gospels were written in Aramaic.  Q has such a multistage development that it is likely to have been Aramaic. There may have been some Aramaic sources for Mark. But Mark writes in such a way that he is not a translation but a creation.

I'm not doubting that Mark was in Greek... I just don't think that Matthew was originally written in Greek. If Q existed, I don't think it would have been Greek either. Mark and John read like they were written by someone who did not have a command of the Greek language unlike Luke, and Matthew reads like a translation.

TGBaker wrote:

The account are mutually exclusive in the since that for Matthew the parent lived in Bethlehem for Luke they lived in Nazareth.  Matthew resolves the idea of Jesus of Nazareth by having him move there after Herod's death. Luke creates a story in which the parents live in Nazareth go to a census so that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then go back to continue living in Nazareth. You can harmonize most anything but at some point you do violence to the intent of the author for the sake of one's own supposed legitimate doctrine. John is my favorite gospel because I like Gnosticism and it get close to it.

Matthew's narative doesn't seem to be a birth narrative as the events happen some time after the birth of Jesus... It just says he was born there. Now as to the story of the Magi... Returning to Bethlehem after living in Nazareth for a time doesn't seem to make it mutually exclusive. I don't think there is any disharmony in this particular matter...

Yes but you add in the fact that Quirinius was not governor until 6 C.E. and Herod died in 4 BCE, that Matthew seems to be a Midrash on Moses and using those themes rather than reporting history. To harmonize them for the presupposition of a view of inspiration seems pointless. Also Matthew says more than Jesus was born there that the parents lived there. So to harmonize the account You have to have the parents living in Nazareth per Luke. They go to Bethlehem for a non-existent census and return and live in Nazareth. They move sometime to Bethlehem. Then to Egypt then back to Nazareth. All of that is unwarranted apart from an attempt to make two different stories harmonize for some apparent reason. The stories should speak for themselves I should think.  Certainly the magi see "a star" in the sky of  the Messiah's birth (or king) and travel fro a while maybe as much as 2 years if you were to take the slaughter of the innocents as historical ( one of the few things Herod did that is not reported by Jospehus) Apart from a presupposition of belief I do not see how one could see them as anything but constructed non-historical stories especially adding in the LXX version of Is. 7:14 and reinventing the meaning of its prophecy.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

EDIT: a couple of images are not showing up in preview or on the forum, even though they appear within the edit area... I hate this forum software!

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK.

But you are only referring to integral calculus there. Differential calculus does not involve "area" between two points in a function.

The key concept in calculus is the idea of the limit of an expression as some term approaches zero, where we cannot actually evaluate it at zero.

Right...

BobSpence1 wrote:

In differential calculus, the basic idea is to evaluate the 'slope' of a curve (plotted in x-y coordinates). We express the slope of y = f(x) as (f(x2) - f(x1)) / (x2 - x1). That is an average slope. To get the slope at a point, calculus expresses it as (f(x + dx) - f(x)) / (x + dx) as dx ->0.

But your original series was the sum of an infinite series... one would use integral calculus to find the exact value of the sum... That was my point.

Integral calculus is NOT involved in calculating the sum of a geometric series. Period.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the case of a summing a geometric series, there is no "successive approximation". 

We use math (algebra - not 'iteration') to get the expression for the sum of n terms in a geometric series. It is not an approximation. It applies precisely for any value of n.

Using algebra can give you a form, but when it comes down to actually performing the calculation, how are you going to do it? Or calculating the area under a curve, how are you going to do that? This is the iteration that I'm talking about...

You appear to not understand mathematics. To evaluate the expression

Sn = a0(1 - rn+1)/(1 - r ),

you substitute the values for the initial value a0, the ratio r between successive terms ai+1 and ai, and the number of terms in the summation n, then calculate it. No integration required. I showed you the math by which that expression was derived - no integration or iteration involved.

That works for n as large as you like.

The question is what is the result as n becomes infinite.

Actually calculating it for successively larger values of n, like 1 million , 1 billion, etc, will strongly suggest that the value will become successively very close to the finite value calculated by the limit expression a0/(1 - r).

Here is a way to visualize it, where r = 2/3: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Proof_of_convergence)

Clearly showing a finite figure, that will fit within a triangle.

The rigorous proof that rn -> 0 as n -> infinity for 0 < r < n involves mathematics, and does not use integration, which assumes such relationships, or iteration, which is a computational technique, not a mathematical theorem.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We then apply the limit concept as used in calculus to evaluate the value of that expression as n approaches infinity, to avoid the use of an actual infinity in the calculation.

An integral would be the representation as if you actually did use an actual infinity without the need for it. Integrals do no require iterations either to calculate the sum...

What expression would you be integrating, exactly?

Here is a 'curve' that you could integrate to get a sum of a geometric series, from that same Wiki page:

Each sub-divided area is related to the next by r2, which is still a constant less than 1, so the total area is still the sum of a geometric series. There is an error in that last expression, acknowledged in the article, but the shape of the figure is still correct - it is a straight line intersecting the x-axis. So you don't really need integration, it is the area of a triangle.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

God has NOT been demonstrably observed. You cannot really observe anything to be infinite, or all-powerful, or all-knowing. At best you observe things which you cannot explain in terms of your own knowledge or understanding. To go from what you actually observe to the hypothesis that those observations can only be explained by a 'God' is not logically justified. I am not making an assumption. The assumption is yours, that only a God can explain the observations.

As for implausible, I base that on the FACT that the assumed attributes of a God are beyond anything we actually have observed or can be extrapolated from reasonably well-established data and theories. Such as completely non-material intelligence. It requires far more assumption to accept teh plausibility of the God hypothesis.

I'm not saying it is logical justification for a god. I'm saying it is an inference to non-natural agency. And I did not say it can "only be explained". If I would say "best explained" or something like that. But as far as your assumptions were concerned, you made and assumption about the implausibility of God based on something you assumed is assumed.... An assumption from even more assumptions.

You have not responded to my point that God has not been, and cannot be, observed, which was in response to your response that

Quote:

But the problem is that you're assuming it is "implausible" and "unobserved".

As to "plausibility", I will concede that involves an element of subjective assessment, based on each person's knowledge and understanding. If you are not assuming an infinite, omni- God, then it does become more plausible.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, I would not say 'pragmatic'. If all JC is allegedly offering is something which is purely an unprovable claim, I am not impressed.

"Purely unprovable" in what sense?

I didn't mean "purely unprovable", I meant 'no more than an unprovable claim'.

IOW no positive evidence that can only be explained by assuming the existence of some version of God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But that is just an assumption. If this god thing really 'loved' us, it would not have left us to survive in this mess of disease and danger.

What about God's love obligates him to remove us from disease or disease from us?

No obligation, as such, but at least some explanation as to how it is for our ultimate benefit for so many of us to suffer and die early, including children.

Without that, it points to a god who, at most, doesn't care about us, not to one who 'loves' us.  What kind of love are you thinking of that would subject the objects of that love to suffering and death, without some very good reason? Does he not have the power to not have created such evils? Does he want to terrify us into worshipping him? Is he so frightful that he has to use such cruel methods to force us to worship him?

Why do you assume he is 'loving'? What is your evidence?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

And if the claims are true, then he suffered only a temporary inconvenience, ie not a true sacrifice.

Only a 'temporary' inconvenience? Hardly. He endured the punishment due every person on the cross, simultaneously...

You have no evidence for that, it is only an assumption on the part of the writers of the text, not something that was or could have been observed, and even so, it was still temporary. The punishment was not necessary. It was ordained by himself, he could have simply issued an official 'pardon'. Which still would not have addressed the real issue, which would have been reparations to the victims of the 'sins'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You miss the point again. A contemporary is far more likely to have access to accurate information than someone relying on second- or third-hand accounts. All arguments about reality are ultimately matters of balancing the weight of evidence and the confidence we can justifiably assign to our sources.

Yes... But that's not what I asked though... I asked about the credibility of the author.

I was addressing the credibility of the account overall, which is the important issue, which includes both the credibility of the author themselves, and the reliability and extent of the evidence they based their account on.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:EDIT: a

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: a couple of images are not showing up in preview or on the forum, even though they appear within the edit area... I hate this forum software!

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK.

But you are only referring to integral calculus there. Differential calculus does not involve "area" between two points in a function.

The key concept in calculus is the idea of the limit of an expression as some term approaches zero, where we cannot actually evaluate it at zero.

Right...

BobSpence1 wrote:

In differential calculus, the basic idea is to evaluate the 'slope' of a curve (plotted in x-y coordinates). We express the slope of y = f(x) as (f(x2) - f(x1)) / (x2 - x1). That is an average slope. To get the slope at a point, calculus expresses it as (f(x + dx) - f(x)) / (x + dx) as dx ->0.

But your original series was the sum of an infinite series... one would use integral calculus to find the exact value of the sum... That was my point.

Integral calculus is NOT involved in calculating the sum of a geometric series. Period.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the case of a summing a geometric series, there is no "successive approximation". 

We use math (algebra - not 'iteration') to get the expression for the sum of n terms in a geometric series. It is not an approximation. It applies precisely for any value of n.

Using algebra can give you a form, but when it comes down to actually performing the calculation, how are you going to do it? Or calculating the area under a curve, how are you going to do that? This is the iteration that I'm talking about...

You appear to not understand mathematics. To evaluate the expression

Sn = a0(1 - rn+1)/(1 - r ),

you substitute the values for the initial value a0, the ratio r between successive terms ai+1 and ai, and the number of terms in the summation n, then calculate it. No integration required. I showed you the math by which that expression was derived - no integration or iteration involved.

That works for n as large as you like.

The question is what is the result as n becomes infinite.

Actually calculating it for successively larger values of n, like 1 million , 1 billion, etc, will strongly suggest that the value will become successively very close to the finite value calculated by the limit expression a0/(1 - r).

Here is a way to visualize it, where r = 2/3: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Proof_of_convergence)

Clearly showing a finite figure, that will fit within a triangle.

The rigorous proof that rn -> 0 as n -> infinity for 0 < r < n involves mathematics, and does not use integration, which assumes such relationships, or iteration, which is a computational technique, not a mathematical theorem.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We then apply the limit concept as used in calculus to evaluate the value of that expression as n approaches infinity, to avoid the use of an actual infinity in the calculation.

An integral would be the representation as if you actually did use an actual infinity without the need for it. Integrals do no require iterations either to calculate the sum...

What expression would you be integrating, exactly?

Here is a 'curve' that you could integrate to get a sum of a geometric series, from that same Wiki page:

Each sub-divided area is related to the next by r2, which is still a constant less than 1, so the total area is still the sum of a geometric series. There is an error in that last expression, acknowledged in the article, but the shape of the figure is still correct - it is a straight line intersecting the x-axis. So you don't really need integration, it is the area of a triangle.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

God has NOT been demonstrably observed. You cannot really observe anything to be infinite, or all-powerful, or all-knowing. At best you observe things which you cannot explain in terms of your own knowledge or understanding. To go from what you actually observe to the hypothesis that those observations can only be explained by a 'God' is not logically justified. I am not making an assumption. The assumption is yours, that only a God can explain the observations.

As for implausible, I base that on the FACT that the assumed attributes of a God are beyond anything we actually have observed or can be extrapolated from reasonably well-established data and theories. Such as completely non-material intelligence. It requires far more assumption to accept teh plausibility of the God hypothesis.

I'm not saying it is logical justification for a god. I'm saying it is an inference to non-natural agency. And I did not say it can "only be explained". If I would say "best explained" or something like that. But as far as your assumptions were concerned, you made and assumption about the implausibility of God based on something you assumed is assumed.... An assumption from even more assumptions.

You have not responded to my point that God has not been, and cannot be, observed, which was in response to your response that

Quote:

But the problem is that you're assuming it is "implausible" and "unobserved".

As to "plausibility", I will concede that involves an element of subjective assessment, based on each person's knowledge and understanding. If you are not assuming an infinite, omni- God, then it does become more plausible.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, I would not say 'pragmatic'. If all JC is allegedly offering is something which is purely an unprovable claim, I am not impressed.

"Purely unprovable" in what sense?

I didn't mean "purely unprovable", I meant 'no more than an unprovable claim'.

IOW no positive evidence that can only be explained by assuming the existence of some version of God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But that is just an assumption. If this god thing really 'loved' us, it would not have left us to survive in this mess of disease and danger.

What about God's love obligates him to remove us from disease or disease from us?

No obligation, as such, but at least some explanation as to how it is for our ultimate benefit for so many of us to suffer and die early, including children.

Without that, it points to a god who, at most, doesn't care about us, not to one who 'loves' us.  What kind of love are you thinking of that would subject the objects of that love to suffering and death, without some very good reason? Does he not have the power to not have created such evils? Does he want to terrify us into worshipping him? Is he so frightful that he has to use such cruel methods to force us to worship him?

Why do you assume he is 'loving'? What is your evidence?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

And if the claims are true, then he suffered only a temporary inconvenience, ie not a true sacrifice.

Only a 'temporary' inconvenience? Hardly. He endured the punishment due every person on the cross, simultaneously...

You have no evidence for that, it is only an assumption on the part of the writers of the text, not something that was or could have been observed, and even so, it was still temporary. The punishment was not necessary. It was ordained by himself, he could have simply issued an official 'pardon'. Which still would not have addressed the real issue, which would have been reparations to the victims of the 'sins'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You miss the point again. A contemporary is far more likely to have access to accurate information than someone relying on second- or third-hand accounts. All arguments about reality are ultimately matters of balancing the weight of evidence and the confidence we can justifiably assign to our sources.

Yes... But that's not what I asked though... I asked about the credibility of the author.

I was addressing the credibility of the account overall, which is the important issue, which includes both the credibility of the author themselves, and the reliability and extent of the evidence they based their account on.

The graphs show up when you quote or edit your post!!! I hate this software as well.  I can't speak to the math which I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. But I found a WIKI thingy that should be helpful in the dead Jesus discussion:

The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Ark. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. The English dictionary definition of "propitiation" literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (that is, sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.

The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone&quotEye-wink is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93). This view was challenged by Leon Morris who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of hilasterion needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p 155).

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the Atonement dealing with God's wrath. Critics of penal substitutionary atonement state that seeing the Atonement as appeasing God is a pagan idea that makes God seem tyrannical ([[Stricken by God?, Eerdmans: 2007). In response to this theologians have traditionally stressed that propitiation should not be understood as appeasing or mollifying God in the sense of a bribe or of it making an angry God love us, because it is God who—both in the Old and New Testaments—provides the propitiation. "I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls" (Lev 17:11). God, out of his love and justice, renders God's self favorable by God's own action.

On this point proponents of penal substitution are virtually unanimous. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ, p 174). John Calvin, quoting Augustine from John's Gospel cx.6, writes, "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us" (Institutes, II:16:4).

However, as Barth (and later Moltmann) showed, propitiation and expiation are false categories when applied to the triune God: if God forgives us in and through Christ, then the cost has been borne by God in, as and through Christ. For God to propitiate himself is expiation; because expiation is always self-propitiation as it means the forgiver paying the debt (here, price of the sin) at his own expense. So Bonhoeffer: grace is free, but is not cheap. This is consonant with the use of hilasmos/hilasterion cognates in the NT: for example hilastheti in Luke 18:13, where there is no third party between the tax collector and God, and yet there is ‘propitiation’. (Interestingly, the tax collector “beats his own breast”, as an outward sign of his repentance and so, perhaps, he propitiates himself: bearing wrath (his own) and being made right (“dedikaiomenos&rdquoEye-wink by God.

I will say that it is only secondarily that this became an interpretation of Jesus. The followers first thought of it as simple fulfillment of prophecy. The Messiah had to die but would come back.  I was at Emory with Moltmann and have to agree with my mentor Hendrikus Boers that he is a fraud that needs to be exposed. Our point to dispense with a Triune god for a moment is that god could one forgive without payment. And secondly god could have created a perfect world of well being without suffering or "sin" with freewill agents since he seems good at making a heaven, a paradise and a Kingdom Come.  At any rate god is responsible for any evil of an actualized world knowing its constituents and actualizing it anyway. Choosing the least evil world in knowing every possible worlds futurity does not absolve actualizing the least evil world. And given the tradition's Heaven and Kingdom concepts of future well being then the cause of the writing and theological construct seems an attempt to maintain a theism in the face of a history that experiences the natural suffering and hardship in evolution.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:In

BobSpence1 wrote:
In differential calculus, the basic idea is to evaluate the 'slope' of a curve (plotted in x-y coordinates). We express the slope of y = f(x) as (f(x2) - f(x1)) / (x2 - x1). That is an average slope. To get the slope at a point, calculus expresses it as (f(x + dx) - f(x)) / (x + dx) as dx ->0.

Integral calculus is NOT involved in calculating the sum of a geometric series. Period.

Using algebra can give you a form, but when it comes down to actually performing the calculation, how are you going to do it? Or calculating the area under a curve, how are you going to do that? This is the iteration that I'm talking about...

The rigorous proof that rn -> 0 as n -> infinity for 0 < r < n involves mathematics, and does not use integration, which assumes such relationships, or iteration, which is a computational technique, not a mathematical theorem.

An integral would be the representation as if you actually did use an actual infinity without the need for it. Integrals do no require iterations either to calculate the sum...Each sub-divided area is related to the next by r2, which is still a constant less than 1, so the total area is still the sum of a geometric series. There is an error in that last expression, acknowledged in the article, but the shape of the figure is still correct - it is a straight line intersecting the x-axis. So you don't really need integration, it is the area of a triangle.

Quote:

If you did integrate it, you should come up with the formula for calculating the area of a trianlgle... And my assuming the relationship, you are effectively showing that you are estimating the outcome without actually performing the procedure to produce that outcome. Given the nature of the formation too, that is each progressive sucession being contingent upon another, you'd have to perform and interation over n series first before you could arrive at the sum to that particular point. Now apply this to an infinite series. You're refusing to admit it because you're one analog to avoiding infinite regress collapses if you do...

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

You have not responded to my point that God has not been, and cannot be, observed, which was in response to your response that

But the problem is that you're assuming it is "implausible" and "unobserved".

As to "plausibility", I will concede that involves an element of subjective assessment, based on each person's knowledge and understanding. If you are not assuming an infinite, omni- God, then it does become more plausible.

The reason I didn't respond to it was because you were assuming I was leaping to God, skipping some intermediate steps. You haven't addressed this at all....

BobSpence1 wrote:

I didn't mean "purely unprovable", I meant 'no more than an unprovable claim'.

IOW no positive evidence that can only be explained by assuming the existence of some version of God.

Insofar as that's concerned, no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise... But that's problem then isn't with evidence. But at the same time, I don't see that as a problem...

BobSpence1 wrote:

No obligation, as such, but at least some explanation as to how it is for our ultimate benefit for so many of us to suffer and die early, including children.

Without that, it points to a god who, at most, doesn't care about us, not to one who 'loves' us.  What kind of love are you thinking of that would subject the objects of that love to suffering and death, without some very good reason? Does he not have the power to not have created such evils? Does he want to terrify us into worshipping him? Is he so frightful that he has to use such cruel methods to force us to worship him?

But insofar as that's concerned then, all one needs is an explanation... it doesn't even have to be a true explanation, just possible. There are plenty of theodicies available... but you probably know them

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why do you assume he is 'loving'? What is your evidence?

Where's the evidence that you love anyone? It's demonstrated by one's actions towards that other person. In Jesus' case, he died on a cross for you.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You have no evidence for that, it is only an assumption on the part of the writers of the text, not something that was or could have been observed, and even so, it was still temporary. The punishment was

not

necessary. It was ordained by himself, he could have simply issued an official 'pardon'. Which still would not have addressed the real issue, which would have been reparations to the victims of the 'sins'.

You say I have no evidence and I am making a bunch of assumptions based on writers of the text. The writings are evidence so your claim to "no evidence"  is simply not true. Yet you don't seem to have a problem making assumptions....

On the other hand, I've got what Jesus said concerning his death. His death is consistent with what he said. The evidence for the claim is the resurrection of Jesus. But you don't even get that. IOW, the only one that seems to be making ungrounded assumption is you.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was addressing the credibility of the account overall, which is the important issue, which includes both the credibility of the author themselves, and the reliability and extent of the evidence they based their account on.

TGBaker and I have been discussing this matter...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The idea of

TGBaker wrote:

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (that is, sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.

The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone&quotEye-wink is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93). This view was challenged by Leon Morris who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of hilasterion needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p 155).

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the Atonement dealing with God's wrath. Critics of penal substitutionary atonement state that seeing the Atonement as appeasing God is a pagan idea that makes God seem tyrannical ([[Stricken by God?, Eerdmans: 2007). In response to this theologians have traditionally stressed that propitiation should not be understood as appeasing or mollifying God in the sense of a bribe or of it making an angry God love us, because it is God who—both in the Old and New Testaments—provides the propitiation. "I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls" (Lev 17:11). God, out of his love and justice, renders God's self favorable by God's own action.

On this point proponents of penal substitution are virtually unanimous. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ, p 174). John Calvin, quoting Augustine from John's Gospel cx.6, writes, "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us" (Institutes, II:16:4).

I have no problem accepting either translation, because I think that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is on behalf of one's sin, and at the same time remove the sin problem altogether. The word is a difficult word to translate, granted. The point of the scriptures I think was not as to whether Christ does one or the other... (I think he does both), rather that he fulfill the law according to the demand of the law. This does not make God "tyrannical" as some see... a vengeful God looking for the first opportunity to smite whoever he will, rather a just God who has the responsibility of upholding the law. (Theologically, I'm lean towards a penal substitution model, but I prefer biblical theology to systematic theology).

TGBaker wrote:

However, as Barth (and later Moltmann) showed, propitiation and expiation are false categories when applied to the triune God: if God forgives us in and through Christ, then the cost has been borne by God in, as and through Christ. For God to propitiate himself is expiation; because expiation is always self-propitiation as it means the forgiver paying the debt (here, price of the sin) at his own expense. So Bonhoeffer: grace is free, but is not cheap. This is consonant with the use of hilasmos/hilasterion cognates in the NT: for example hilastheti in Luke 18:13, where there is no third party between the tax collector and God, and yet there is ‘propitiation’. (Interestingly, the tax collector “beats his own breast”, as an outward sign of his repentance and so, perhaps, he propitiates himself: bearing wrath (his own) and being made right (“dedikaiomenos&rdquoEye-wink by God.

I think the tax collector beating his breast is a stark contrast to the Pharisee... It shows humility and begging for God's mercy. Hebrews uses the same word to describe Jesus' relationship to the high priest when Jesus was High Priest, much like the priests of did on the Day of Atonement. That is, pleading God's mercy on one's soul. Romans 5:9 communicates that wrath of God is removed. There are plenty of other verses that speak to this as well. Whether they duly or unduly reject the issues of propiation and expiation, In any case, the issue here is mercy.

TGBaker wrote:

I will say that it is only secondarily that this became an interpretation of Jesus. The followers first thought of it as simple fulfillment of prophecy. The Messiah had to die but would come back.  I was at Emory with Moltmann and have to agree with my mentor Hendrikus Boers that he is a fraud that needs to be exposed. Our point to dispense with a Triune god for a moment is that god could one forgive without payment. And secondly god could have created a perfect world of well being without suffering or "sin" with freewill agents since he seems good at making a heaven, a paradise and a Kingdom Come.  At any rate god is responsible for any evil of an actualized world knowing its constituents and actualizing it anyway. Choosing the least evil world in knowing every possible worlds futurity does not absolve actualizing the least evil world. And given the tradition's Heaven and Kingdom concepts of future well being then the cause of the writing and theological construct seems an attempt to maintain a theism in the face of a history that experiences the natural suffering and hardship in evolution. 

I do not think that the disciples retroactively applied this sort of teaching to Jesus in addition to the simple fulfillment of prophecy. The centrality of the issue of Jesus dying as a sacrifice for the sins of the world is at the very core of Christian theology in all major branches. Given this, plus the centrality of the resurrection to Christian theology makes the implications of the events quite clear, and not something I think the disciples made up, but later came to realize in their fullness after the resurrection occurred in the matter of an "ah-ha" moment. In many respects, this is practically admitted in the gospels.

I do not contend that there is a God that could forgive without payment. In any case, when there is a debt owed, the one who holds the debt can forgive it or the debtor can pay it, and this is the motif used to describe sin. In many cases, sin is seen such as this, such as the Lord's prayer and parable of the unmerciful servant. Being that the payment is death, God has to assume this in order to maintain justice. God's love and justice are reconciled in the cross. I do not think that is possible for God to be just and loving in any other way...

But because God can create perfect worlds does not mean that he is in any way obligated to make such as place or responsible for the sins committed by free agents. To maintain that, one would have to maintain that parents are irresponsible for having children knowing that the children will endure suffering as a result of their one action and the actions of others in the world into which they were born. IOW, one could blame his or her parents for his or he suffering because. Parents are no more responsible for the suffering of their children than God is the  suffering of the created beings.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The account

TGBaker wrote:
The account are mutually exclusive in the since that for Matthew the parent lived in Bethlehem for Luke they lived in Nazareth.  Matthew resolves the idea of Jesus of Nazareth by having him move there after Herod's death. Luke creates a story in which the parents live in Nazareth go to a census so that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then go back to continue living in Nazareth. You can harmonize most anything but at some point you do violence to the intent of the author for the sake of one's own supposed legitimate doctrine. John is my favorite gospel because I like Gnosticism and it get close to it.

Matthew's narative doesn't seem to be a birth narrative as the events happen some time after the birth of Jesus... It just says he was born there. Now as to the story of the Magi... Returning to Bethlehem after living in Nazareth for a time doesn't seem to make it mutually exclusive. I don't think there is any disharmony in this particular matter...

Yes but you add in the fact that Quirinius was not governor until 6 C.E. and Herod died in 4 BCE, that Matthew seems to be a Midrash on Moses and using those themes rather than reporting history. To harmonize them for the presupposition of a view of inspiration seems pointless. Also Matthew says more than Jesus was born there that the parents lived there. So to harmonize the account You have to have the parents living in Nazareth per Luke. They go to Bethlehem for a non-existent census and return and live in Nazareth. They move sometime to Bethlehem. Then to Egypt then back to Nazareth. All of that is unwarranted apart from an attempt to make two different stories harmonize for some apparent reason. The stories should speak for themselves I should think.  Certainly the magi see "a star" in the sky of  the Messiah's birth (or king) and travel fro a while maybe as much as 2 years if you were to take the slaughter of the innocents as historical ( one of the few things Herod did that is not reported by Jospehus) Apart from a presupposition of belief I do not see how one could see them as anything but constructed non-historical stories especially adding in the LXX version of Is. 7:14 and reinventing the meaning of its prophecy.

 

 

I problem with Luke is resolvable hermeneutically... Luke 2 talks about it being the "first census" the verb or "becoming the first" census in a matter of primacy. Knowing that it could be one or the other, I tend to think that it is the latter and so long as this is a possibility, it reconcilable.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (that is, sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.

The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone&quotEye-wink is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93). This view was challenged by Leon Morris who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of hilasterion needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p 155).

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the Atonement dealing with God's wrath. Critics of penal substitutionary atonement state that seeing the Atonement as appeasing God is a pagan idea that makes God seem tyrannical ([[Stricken by God?, Eerdmans: 2007). In response to this theologians have traditionally stressed that propitiation should not be understood as appeasing or mollifying God in the sense of a bribe or of it making an angry God love us, because it is God who—both in the Old and New Testaments—provides the propitiation. "I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls" (Lev 17:11). God, out of his love and justice, renders God's self favorable by God's own action.

On this point proponents of penal substitution are virtually unanimous. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ, p 174). John Calvin, quoting Augustine from John's Gospel cx.6, writes, "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us" (Institutes, II:16:4).

I have no problem accepting either translation, because I think that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is on behalf of one's sin, and at the same time remove the sin problem altogether. The word is a difficult word to translate, granted. The point of the scriptures I think was not as to whether Christ does one or the other... (I think he does both), rather that he fulfill the law according to the demand of the law. This does not make God "tyrannical" as some see... a vengeful God looking for the first opportunity to smite whoever he will, rather a just God who has the responsibility of upholding the law. (Theologically, I'm lean towards a penal substitution model, but I prefer biblical theology to systematic theology).

TGBaker wrote:

However, as Barth (and later Moltmann) showed, propitiation and expiation are false categories when applied to the triune God: if God forgives us in and through Christ, then the cost has been borne by God in, as and through Christ. For God to propitiate himself is expiation; because expiation is always self-propitiation as it means the forgiver paying the debt (here, price of the sin) at his own expense. So Bonhoeffer: grace is free, but is not cheap. This is consonant with the use of hilasmos/hilasterion cognates in the NT: for example hilastheti in Luke 18:13, where there is no third party between the tax collector and God, and yet there is ‘propitiation’. (Interestingly, the tax collector “beats his own breast”, as an outward sign of his repentance and so, perhaps, he propitiates himself: bearing wrath (his own) and being made right (“dedikaiomenos&rdquoEye-wink by God.

I think the tax collector beating his breast is a stark contrast to the Pharisee... It shows humility and begging for God's mercy. Hebrews uses the same word to describe Jesus' relationship to the high priest when Jesus was High Priest, much like the priests of did on the Day of Atonement. That is, pleading God's mercy on one's soul. Romans 5:9 communicates that wrath of God is removed. There are plenty of other verses that speak to this as well. Whether they duly or unduly reject the issues of propiation and expiation, In any case, the issue here is mercy.

TGBaker wrote:

I will say that it is only secondarily that this became an interpretation of Jesus. The followers first thought of it as simple fulfillment of prophecy. The Messiah had to die but would come back.  I was at Emory with Moltmann and have to agree with my mentor Hendrikus Boers that he is a fraud that needs to be exposed. Our point to dispense with a Triune god for a moment is that god could one forgive without payment. And secondly god could have created a perfect world of well being without suffering or "sin" with freewill agents since he seems good at making a heaven, a paradise and a Kingdom Come.  At any rate god is responsible for any evil of an actualized world knowing its constituents and actualizing it anyway. Choosing the least evil world in knowing every possible worlds futurity does not absolve actualizing the least evil world. And given the tradition's Heaven and Kingdom concepts of future well being then the cause of the writing and theological construct seems an attempt to maintain a theism in the face of a history that experiences the natural suffering and hardship in evolution. 

I do not think that the disciples retroactively applied this sort of teaching to Jesus in addition to the simple fulfillment of prophecy. The centrality of the issue of Jesus dying as a sacrifice for the sins of the world is at the very core of Christian theology in all major branches. Given this, plus the centrality of the resurrection to Christian theology makes the implications of the events quite clear, and not something I think the disciples made up, but later came to realize in their fullness after the resurrection occurred in the matter of an "ah-ha" moment. In many respects, this is practically admitted in the gospels.

I do not contend that there is a God that could forgive without payment. In any case, when there is a debt owed, the one who holds the debt can forgive it or the debtor can pay it, and this is the motif used to describe sin. In many cases, sin is seen such as this, such as the Lord's prayer and parable of the unmerciful servant. Being that the payment is death, God has to assume this in order to maintain justice. God's love and justice are reconciled in the cross. I do not think that is possible for God to be just and loving in any other way...

But because God can create perfect worlds does not mean that he is in any way obligated to make such as place or responsible for the sins committed by free agents. To maintain that, one would have to maintain that parents are irresponsible for having children knowing that the children will endure suffering as a result of their one action and the actions of others in the world into which they were born. IOW, one could blame his or her parents for his or he suffering because. Parents are no more responsible for the suffering of their children than God is the  suffering of the created beings.

 

I think as far as interpretation we can hang on most everything but the obligation of god to make a place of maximum well-being. That would be entailed by the attribute of all good or loving cum omnipotent.  The attribute of omniscience would entail him seeing all possible worlds and a la Plantinga choosing the world with the least suffering and evil.  My defeater back when Sennett and Palntinga were going around with this was a simple one. The omnsciience of a possible world makes all of its constituents known. So the the actualization of the first cause of the world entails the determinism of all contents of that world. Thus god is responsible for the results of all that world. The mythological view of Heaven, paradise and the Kingdom Cone at least posits the possible worlds of freewill and perfect well-being in the mix. So any world that has freewill beings that commit evil and which has suffering are god's responsibility morally.

I think there is a good possibility as you say where the original disciples  had an aha moment with the lord's supper and integrated the eschatology and expiation of the wine and bread. I think the hardest part of using this for a defeater of my position that there was no original propitiation is the historical residue of the Ebionites seeing the last supper as an eschatological promise. Obviously I continue that area of research.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
The account are mutually exclusive in the since that for Matthew the parent lived in Bethlehem for Luke they lived in Nazareth.  Matthew resolves the idea of Jesus of Nazareth by having him move there after Herod's death. Luke creates a story in which the parents live in Nazareth go to a census so that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then go back to continue living in Nazareth. You can harmonize most anything but at some point you do violence to the intent of the author for the sake of one's own supposed legitimate doctrine. John is my favorite gospel because I like Gnosticism and it get close to it.

Matthew's narative doesn't seem to be a birth narrative as the events happen some time after the birth of Jesus... It just says he was born there. Now as to the story of the Magi... Returning to Bethlehem after living in Nazareth for a time doesn't seem to make it mutually exclusive. I don't think there is any disharmony in this particular matter...

Yes but you add in the fact that Quirinius was not governor until 6 C.E. and Herod died in 4 BCE, that Matthew seems to be a Midrash on Moses and using those themes rather than reporting history. To harmonize them for the presupposition of a view of inspiration seems pointless. Also Matthew says more than Jesus was born there that the parents lived there. So to harmonize the account You have to have the parents living in Nazareth per Luke. They go to Bethlehem for a non-existent census and return and live in Nazareth. They move sometime to Bethlehem. Then to Egypt then back to Nazareth. All of that is unwarranted apart from an attempt to make two different stories harmonize for some apparent reason. The stories should speak for themselves I should think.  Certainly the magi see "a star" in the sky of  the Messiah's birth (or king) and travel fro a while maybe as much as 2 years if you were to take the slaughter of the innocents as historical ( one of the few things Herod did that is not reported by Jospehus) Apart from a presupposition of belief I do not see how one could see them as anything but constructed non-historical stories especially adding in the LXX version of Is. 7:14 and reinventing the meaning of its prophecy.

 

 

I problem with Luke is resolvable hermeneutically... Luke 2 talks about it being the "first census" the verb or "becoming the first" census in a matter of primacy. Knowing that it could be one or the other, I tend to think that it is the latter and so long as this is a possibility, it reconcilable.

Actually the census is not reconcilable.  Herod dies 4 BCE. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor from 9-6 BCE followed by P. Quintilius Varus from 6-4 until after Herod's death... Quirinius was not governor until 6CE-7 CE. It seems to be an attempt by Luke to give historical context to the story but in error. Jesus would have been 10 years old assuming he was born right before Herod's death. TO assume he was at least 2 by Herod's death makes him  12.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Actually the

TGBaker wrote:

Actually the census is not reconcilable.  Herod dies 4 BCE. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor from 9-6 BCE followed by P. Quintilius Varus from 6-4 until after Herod's death... Quirinius was not governor until 6CE-7 CE. It seems to be an attempt by Luke to give historical context to the story but in error. Jesus would have been 10 years old assuming he was born right before Herod's death. TO assume he was at least 2 by Herod's death makes him  12.

What I was offering was that the census was not taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria, bur rather before he was governor of Syria.... The census here "became first" in the sense of primacy as that is a possible translation of the text. Considering the facts at hand and the possibility of such a translation, I don't necessarily think it was an error on Luke's part, but perhaps ambiguous language.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Actually the census is not reconcilable.  Herod dies 4 BCE. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor from 9-6 BCE followed by P. Quintilius Varus from 6-4 until after Herod's death... Quirinius was not governor until 6CE-7 CE. It seems to be an attempt by Luke to give historical context to the story but in error. Jesus would have been 10 years old assuming he was born right before Herod's death. TO assume he was at least 2 by Herod's death makes him  12.

What I was offering was that the census was not taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria, bur rather before he was governor of Syria.... The census here "became first" in the sense of primacy as that is a possible translation of the text. Considering the facts at hand and the possibility of such a translation, I don't necessarily think it was an error on Luke's part, but perhaps ambiguous language.

I appreciate that but census is historically said to have been the first during Quirinus's reign by other sources. . Luke got that part right but not his timing re: the birth.

Quirinus's was supposed to be the first as governor to do so.  Also the idea of to one's own home was where your property was not where you originated.

 

Ain't you supposed to be in Church bro??

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I appreciate

TGBaker wrote:

I appreciate that but census is historically said to have been the first during Quirinus's reign by other sources. . Luke got that part right but not his timing re: the birth.

Quirinus's was supposed to be the first as governor to do so.  Also the idea of to one's own home was where your property was not where you originated.

I think Luke is referring to an earlier census Augustus decreed -- an inheritance tax, and thus the reason everyone had to register his or her family lineage  for the support of the military-- that was of little consequence, and was later revived during the reign of Quirinius in Syria. These are facts that I'm talking about.

TGBaker wrote:

Ain't you supposed to be in Church bro??

I travel a bit with my job...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I appreciate that but census is historically said to have been the first during Quirinus's reign by other sources. . Luke got that part right but not his timing re: the birth.

Quirinus's was supposed to be the first as governor to do so.  Also the idea of to one's own home was where your property was not where you originated.

I think Luke is referring to an earlier census Augustus decreed -- an inheritance tax, and thus the reason everyone had to register his or her family lineage  for the support of the military-- that was of little consequence, and was later revived during the reign of Quirinius in Syria. These are facts that I'm talking about.

TGBaker wrote:

Ain't you supposed to be in Church bro??

I travel a bit with my job...

Do you have any references on an inheritence tax, census etc.;  after 125 BCE and before 6CE?  Secondly v. 2:2 says this FIRST took place when Quirinius was governor and that was not before 6 CE. Sir William Ramsey's theory was a no go. Quirinius is fairly documented by Tacitus, Suetineus, Strabo and Josephus. He wasw first governor in 6CE never before. So either you are saying there is some new archeology???? or that there is something I've missed in a tax or census like thing and Luke is simply wrong in his dating. The language is such that he gives specificity to the time. The Romans took direct control of Judea only at that time (6CE). Prior to that it was a client kingdom By all accounts herod paid his dues to Rome. So there was no reason or history for Rome to impose until after herod's death and after jesus had been born... that is to say 6 CE as found in the documentation other than Luke.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Do you have

TGBaker wrote:
Do you have any references on an inheritence tax, census etc.;  after 125 BCE and before 6CE?  Secondly v. 2:2 says this FIRST took place when Quirinius was governor and that was not before 6 CE. Sir William Ramsey's theory was a no go. Quirinius is fairly documented by Tacitus, Suetineus, Strabo and Josephus. He wasw first governor in 6CE never before. So either you are saying there is some new archeology???? or that there is something I've missed in a tax or census like thing and Luke is simply wrong in his dating. The language is such that he gives specificity to the time. The Romans took direct control of Judea only at that time (6CE). Prior to that it was a client kingdom By all accounts herod paid his dues to Rome. So there was no reason or history for Rome to impose until after herod's death and after jesus had been born... that is to say 6 CE as found in the documentation other than Luke.

I've read about Ramsey's theory that Quirinius was gov twice...

Here's a site with the inheritance tax theory... I read this somewhere else, but don't recall where... I researched this some years ago, but here's a link with a summary of possible ways to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. The theory I'm talking about is the last one on the page.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/firstcensus.htm

The verb in the text is active indicative.... has a middle voice, and is second aorist tense... making it tough to translate into English as we have neither a middle voice (per se) or and aorist tense. This indicates the since of becoming rather than being taken, and being that it is aorist perhaps best translated in the past perfect tense... Also adjective translated "first" as it is a superlative. Rather than "first taken", I think "became first(est)" in the since of primacy is a better translation of the text, but of course there are those who don't buy this.Smiling

Knowing that there is a prior taxation, it does not firmly date the birth of Jesus, but I think it alleviates the possibility that Luke made and error in recording the history.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think as far

TGBaker wrote:

I think as far as interpretation we can hang on most everything but the obligation of god to make a place of maximum well-being. That would be entailed by the attribute of all good or loving cum omnipotent.  The attribute of omniscience would entail him seeing all possible worlds and a la Plantinga choosing the world with the least suffering and evil.  My defeater back when Sennett and Palntinga were going around with this was a simple one. The omnsciience of a possible world makes all of its constituents known. So the the actualization of the first cause of the world entails the determinism of all contents of that world. Thus god is responsible for the results of all that world. The mythological view of Heaven, paradise and the Kingdom Cone at least posits the possible worlds of freewill and perfect well-being in the mix. So any world that has freewill beings that commit evil and which has suffering are god's responsibility morally.

Plantinga and Craig suppose that God is omniscient and omnipotent and wholly and fleshes out free will in molinist terms concerning possible world scenarios etc. Your objection is essentially mine... the grounding objection to molinism on which Plantinga bases free will. While I don't buy molinism, I think that Plantinga's restatement of Augustines Free Will defense shows that there is no apparent contradiction choosing to create a world in which evil exists. One has to provide an additional premise in order to either (a) illustrate the contradiction or (b) rationalize it. So long as there is a possible reason for it, then there is no apparent contradiction.

TGBaker wrote:

I think there is a good possibility as you say where the original disciples  had an aha moment with the lord's supper and integrated the eschatology and expiation of the wine and bread. I think the hardest part of using this for a defeater of my position that there was no original propitiation is the historical residue of the Ebionites seeing the last supper as an eschatological promise. Obviously I continue that area of research.

My contention was they the expiation-propiation debate is not a biblical issue insomuch as it is a theological one. I think it is anachronistic to superimpose this debate to the source documents. The biblical issue is one concerning law and sin and it hints at both of these. I have no reason to think that it can't be both/and rather than either/or.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Do you have any references on an inheritence tax, census etc.;  after 125 BCE and before 6CE?  Secondly v. 2:2 says this FIRST took place when Quirinius was governor and that was not before 6 CE. Sir William Ramsey's theory was a no go. Quirinius is fairly documented by Tacitus, Suetineus, Strabo and Josephus. He wasw first governor in 6CE never before. So either you are saying there is some new archeology???? or that there is something I've missed in a tax or census like thing and Luke is simply wrong in his dating. The language is such that he gives specificity to the time. The Romans took direct control of Judea only at that time (6CE). Prior to that it was a client kingdom By all accounts herod paid his dues to Rome. So there was no reason or history for Rome to impose until after herod's death and after jesus had been born... that is to say 6 CE as found in the documentation other than Luke.

I've read about Ramsey's theory that Quirinius was gov twice...

Here's a site with the inheritance tax theory... I read this somewhere else, but don't recall where... I researched this some years ago, but here's a link with a summary of possible ways to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. The theory I'm talking about is the last one on the page.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/firstcensus.htm

The verb in the text is active indicative.... has a middle voice, and is second aorist tense... making it tough to translate into English as we have neither a middle voice (per se) or and aorist tense. This indicates the since of becoming rather than being taken, and being that it is aorist perhaps best translated in the past perfect tense... Also adjective translated "first" as it is a superlative. Rather than "first taken", I think "became first(est)" in the since of primacy is a better translation of the text, but of course there are those who don't buy this.Smiling

Knowing that there is a prior taxation, it does not firmly date the birth of Jesus, but I think it alleviates the possibility that Luke made and error in recording the history.

I think the Idea that it is rough to translate comes from the problem of doctrine rather than the understanding of the Greek. It is simple quite really as And this registration first came to pass with Quirinius being governor of Syria.  We create a middle tense with the coplative and passive, a particilple etc.;  combined in English all the time I was going. I was king is a simply noun that is discriptive and the  the use of a verbal is such that it can function as a noun would . At the time the governoring was first by Quirinius. . It is a simple construct. I found an example of which theology you would change by employing this type of apologetic and spreading it abnormally elsewhere:

GENETO does indeed serve several functions in Koine Greek, particularly in
the LXX and GNT where it functions to give a Greek equivalent of a
characteristic Hebrew phrase, WaYeHi, "and it was (that) ...", "and it came
to pass  (that)..."

It is also true that EGENETO functions as 3d sg. aorist for EIMI, which has
no aorist, so that EGENETO means "came into being" as well as "was born"
whereas HN simply denotes that someone/something "was in existence" at a
referenced point of time in the past.

So far as John 1:6 is concerned, I would say there's an implicit contrast
between 1:6 EGENETO ANQRWPOS APESTALMENOS PARA QEOU and 1:14 KAI hO LOGOS
SARX EGENETO; I think John means to set off John "the Baptist" from the
incarnate Word by (1) signaling his importance as a divinely-sent emissary
while at the same time (2) sharply distinguishing him from Jesus as Word
and Light. As the treatment of John "the Baptist" later in John shows,
there was evidently a sect attributing messianic status to John, and the
evangelist here is anticipating the denial of John's messianic status that
is stated later in chapter 1 by John himself.

I guess what I'm saying here is that I think EGENETO ANQRWPOS may well be
translated "there appeared a man ..." or "a man came into existence ..."
but that I think EGENETO sets up a deliberate comparison and contrast with
EGENETO in the phrase hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO coming very soon afterwards.
--

It is a simply construct as elsewhere "and it first came to pass during the governoring of  Syria by Quirinius. The situation I see it is the same as when an excellent scholar like A. T. Robertson because of strong theological or doctrinal beliefs causes the simple word "eis" which means "into" as because of to fit his denominational view of baptism.  There is simply no evidence and a lot of motivation with the party of implausibility.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
corroborating

TGBaker wrote:

It is a simply construct as elsewhere "and it first came to pass during the governoring of  Syria by Quirinius. The situation I see it is the same as when an excellent scholar like A. T. Robertson because of strong theological or doctrinal beliefs causes the simple word "eis" which means "into" as because of to fit his denominational view of baptism.  There is simply no evidence and a lot of motivation with the party of implausibility.

The middle deponent is reflexive "it became", while passive in English, translated can be as I proposed. Now, I'm corroborating this translation with known data from history. Given this, it is at least a possibility as I'm not saying it is the only possible translation, but perhaps the best one in light of what is known. The passage from John using the middle deponent is consistent with how I translated it... John caused himself to come... that's the indication of the middle voice in koine Greek.

When the verb us by itself with a conjuction is a sort of Greek idiom... it is translated "it came to pass" in the good ol' KJV

I think your excerpt illustrates the dubious nature of translations more than it mitigates my position, and I'm not forming my translation on prepositions... (I know better than to do that  )

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

It is a simply construct as elsewhere "and it first came to pass during the governoring of  Syria by Quirinius. The situation I see it is the same as when an excellent scholar like A. T. Robertson because of strong theological or doctrinal beliefs causes the simple word "eis" which means "into" as because of to fit his denominational view of baptism.  There is simply no evidence and a lot of motivation with the party of implausibility.

The middle deponent is reflexive "it became", while passive in English, translated can be as I proposed. Now, I'm corroborating this translation with known data from history. Given this, it is at least a possibility as I'm not saying it is the only possible translation, but perhaps the best one in light of what is known. The passage from John using the middle deponent is consistent with how I translated it... John caused himself to come... that's the indication of the middle voice in koine Greek.

When the verb us by itself with a conjuction is a sort of Greek idiom... it is translated "it came to pass" in the good ol' KJV

I think your excerpt illustrates the dubious nature of translations more than it mitigates my position, and I'm not forming my translation on prepositions... (I know better than to do that  )

 

 

I understand where you are coming from. I just did a google of egeneto in English and pasted what I assumed would be a consistent usage.  But from my position it makes perfect sense to translate the verse as it normally would be and has. Look at the usage in John 1:1fff.  Look also at Luke 2:6

6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them. The purpose of the aorist is to see something as a simple whole or event without emphasis on its process or progress as the imperfect tense.   It obvious Verse 2:1 is the same function "It happened" in those days.... What is the known data from history other than what I have presented. That was what I was curious about in the previous post? Perhaps I completely misunderstand what you are saying but the Greek seems simple and straight forward. The complication seems to be only from a perspective that the text must be right. Thus an old evangelical like Clarke notes:


Verse 2. This taxing was first made when Cyrenius,
difficulty in this text is found in this verse, which may be
translated, Now this first enrolment was made when Quirinus was
governor of Syria.

It is easily proved, and has been proved often, that Caius
Sulpicius Quirinus, the person mentioned in the text, was not
governor of Syria, till ten or twelve years after the birth of
our Lord.

St. Matthew says that our Lord was born in the reign of Herod,
Lu 2:1, at which time
Quintilius Varus was president of Syria, (Joseph. Ant. book
xvii. c. 5, sect. 2,) who was preceded in that office by Sentius
Saturninus. Cyrenius, or Quirinus, was not sent into Syria till
Archelaus was removed from the government of Judea; and
Archelaus had reigned there between nine and ten years after
the death of Herod; so that it is impossible that the census
mentioned by the evangelist could have been made in the presidency
of Quirinus.

Several learned men have produced solutions of this difficulty;
and, indeed, there are various ways of solving it, which may be
seen at length in Lardner, vol. i. p. 248-329. One or other of the
two following appears to me to be the true meaning of the text.

1. When Augustus published this decree, it is supposed that
Quirinus, who was a very active man, and a person in whom the
emperor confided, was sent into Syria and Judea with extraordinary
powers, to make the census here mentioned; though, at that time,
he was not governor of Syria, for Quintilius Varus was then
president; and that when he came, ten or twelve years after, into
the presidency of Syria, there was another census made, to both of
which St. Luke alludes, when he says, This was the first
assessment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria; for so Dr. Lardner
translates the words. The passage, thus translated, does not say
that this assessment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,
which would not have been the truth, but that this was the first
assessment which Cyrenius, who was (i.e. afterwards) governor of
Syria, made; for after he became governor, he made a second.
Lardner defends this opinion in a very satisfactory and masterly
manner. See vol. i. p. 317.

2. The second way of solving this difficulty is by translating
the words thus: This enrolment was made BEFORE Cyrenius was
governor of Syria; or, before that of Cyrenius. This sense the
word πρωτος appears to have, Joh 1:30: οτιπροτοςμουην,
for he was BEFORE me. Joh 15:18:
The world hated me BEFORE (προτο&nuEye-wink it hated you. See also
2Sa 19:43. Instead of
πρωτη, some critics read προτης, This enrolment was made
BEFORE THAT of Cyrenius. Michaelis; and some other eminent and
learned men, have been of this opinion: but their conjecture is
not supported by any MS. yet discovered; nor, indeed, is there any
occasion for it. As the words in the evangelist are very
ambiguous, the second solution appears to me to be the best.

Me thinks there is too much protesting from a apologetic stance to make the improbable probable. It is normally translated as it should be as far as I can tell.  I would translate it as: This first enrollment came at the governing of Quirinius.  This refers to Augustus decree and in fact is supported as I presented above by external history and the fact that the Romans would not have taxed the area since they were not in direct control.  They were by 6CE. So all of this together is more plausible than an attempted harmonization that does not suspend its need for a meaning. I understand your position and have been there. I think it was the cumlative needs to defend a passage or an uncommon exegesis to an absurd level and/or numbers that made me look at a posture similar to OTF am I trying to defend a believed truth ( a presupposition of inspiration or inerrancy) or obtain what is empirically before me.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Me thinks

TGBaker wrote:

Me thinks there is too much protesting from a apologetic stance to make the improbable probable. It is normally translated as it should be as far as I can tell.  I would translate it as: This first enrollment came at the governing of Quirinius.  This refers to Augustus decree and in fact is supported as I presented above by external history and the fact that the Romans would not have taxed the area since they were not in direct control.  They were by 6CE. So all of this together is more plausible than an attempted harmonization that does not suspend its need for a meaning. I understand your position and have been there. I think it was the cumlative needs to defend a passage or an uncommon exegesis to an absurd level and/or numbers that made me look at a posture similar to OTF am I trying to defend a believed truth ( a presupposition of inspiration or inerrancy) or obtain what is empirically before me.

I do not think that "protesting" is a reason to reject it as possible... Taking into account what is known (the latter census and an earlier one) and the possibility of one translation or another, I think it is at least possible. I'm not claiming that Luke did not record it correctly, but I do not think that the argument against Luke as being a poor historian carries as strong of a punch as some would like to think it does. To me, many jump at this "problem" and harp on it... this borderlines on being a straw man.

For some, the issue is inerrancy. For others it is historicity. It does not necessarily both. To me, inerrancy is a theological issue, and an "in house" discussion. I've always been one to think that even if one were to utterly destroy the doctrine of inerrancy, you would still have a long way to go before utterly destroying the Bible as being reliable or historical, and even more so with Christianity....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Me thinks there is too much protesting from a apologetic stance to make the improbable probable. It is normally translated as it should be as far as I can tell.  I would translate it as: This first enrollment came at the governing of Quirinius.  This refers to Augustus decree and in fact is supported as I presented above by external history and the fact that the Romans would not have taxed the area since they were not in direct control.  They were by 6CE. So all of this together is more plausible than an attempted harmonization that does not suspend its need for a meaning. I understand your position and have been there. I think

I do not think that "protesting" is a reason to reject it as possible... Taking into account what is known (the latter census and an earlier one) and the possibility of one translation or another, I think it is at least possible. I'm not claiming that Luke did not record it correctly, but I do not think that the argument against Luke as being a poor historian carries as strong of a punch as some would like to think it does. To me, many jump at this "problem" and harp on it... this borderlines on being a straw man.

For some, the issue is inerrancy. For others it is historicity. It does not necessarily both. To me, inerrancy is a theological issue, and an "in house" discussion. I've always been one to think that even if one were to utterly destroy the doctrine of inerrancy, you would still have a long way to go before utterly destroying the Bible as being reliable or historical, and even more so with Christianity....

I think that with inerrancy and 35 years of study I did conclude the unreliability of the Bible.  I don't think for some jumping on this problem is a strawman. It appears as one of many and with a pattern that shows redaction and composition.  I think it is a question of how the gospel was composed and this problem relates to other issues in the context. I certainly would not reject the harmonizing as possible but I would have to fall on the side of improbably and therefore conclude as I have. The question of inerrancy goes to realibility and historicity for me.


The lack of inerrancy opens the document to  standard  methodology. And as such  I would conclude as I have and apply it with the rest of an analysis to reliability and historicity. Again  it was the cumalative needs to defend a passage or an uncommon exegesis to an absurd level and/or numbers that made me look at a posture similar to OTF:   am I trying to defend a believed truth ( a presupposition of inspiration or inerrancy which presents improbable as fact) or obtain what is empirically before me a meets parsimony, plausibility and likelihood.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


f
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-05-07
User is offlineOffline
softwarehotsales

to get Office 2007 some experience playing Microsoft Office 2007 ring games before Office 2007 download you fly to Office 2007 Professional Vegas. Login to MS Office 2007 PokerStars and go Office 2007 Enterprise find a table Office 2007 Ultimate to practice on Office 2007 Key right now! But microsoft office 2007 download aside from having cheap microsoft office 2007 less fat and buy office 2007 calories, the Capello purchase microsoft office 2007 del Mago cheese Office Professional 2007 is also great Microsoft Office 2007 Professional for the lactose office 2007 product key intolerant. This microsoft office 2007 key is because fat microsoft office 2007 product key molecules in goat download Office 2007 cheese are shorter, and buy microsoft office 2007 are thus more Microsoft Office 2007 Ultimate digestible and light Microsoft Office 2007 Enterprise to the stomach. And office 2007 professional plus although the Capello office professional 2007 plus del Mago cheese Microsoft Windows 7 is low in both Microsoft Windows 7 calories and fat, it Buy Windows 7 has very high purchase windows 7 calcium content than Cheap Windows 7 regular cow's milk window 7 cheese. This might ms windows 7 come as a shocker.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think that

TGBaker wrote:
I think that with inerrancy and 35 years of study I did conclude the unreliability of the Bible.  I don't think for some jumping on this problem is a strawman. It appears as one of many and with a pattern that shows redaction and composition.  I think it is a question of how the gospel was composed and this problem relates to other issues in the context. I certainly would not reject the harmonizing as possible but I would have to fall on the side of improbably and therefore conclude as I have. The question of inerrancy goes to realibility and historicity for me.

I think inerrancy is a theological issue more so than historicity or reliability. Inerrancy is multifaceted and has to do with one's convictions about scripture. Inerrancy for some is tied to historicity and reliability and for others it is not. As a rule, I don't like to get bogged down discussing what is implied when I say the Bible is "inerrant", rather I like to focus on the questions, historicity and reliability without the baggage of inerrancy. The Luke 2 "problem" is brought up often and used as a defeater without addressing other texts or discounting the places were Luke was correct, and why I think it borderlines on being a straw man. And given that there is a possible out for the discrepancy that would mitigate one purported problem from possible translation corroborated by historical evidence I don't think it is a strong mitigating factor against Luke's historicity.

TGBaker wrote:

The lack of inerrancy opens the document to  standard  methodology. And as such  I would conclude as I have and apply it with the rest of an analysis to reliability and historicity. Again  it was the cumalative needs to defend a passage or an uncommon exegesis to an absurd level and/or numbers that made me look at a posture similar to OTF:   am I trying to defend a believed truth ( a presupposition of inspiration or inerrancy which presents improbable as fact) or obtain what is empirically before me a meets parsimony, plausibility and likelihood.

Defending a particular view does not have to entail a presupposition about inspiration or inerrancy, rather these could be the conclusions of the matter. And for argument's sake, one can set these aside and approach the issue with historical analysis and textual analysis, as many scholars do, similar to the OTF. Uncommon exegesis does not entail incorrect exegesis either. But I do not think it is necessarily uncommon as I think there are many people who have made the same observation concerning the middle deponent verb as I have, but they corroborated it with different historical evidence.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I think that with inerrancy and 35 years of study I did conclude the unreliability of the Bible.  I don't think for some jumping on this problem is a strawman. It appears as one of many and with a pattern that shows redaction and composition.  I think it is a question of how the gospel was composed and this problem relates to other issues in the context. I certainly would not reject the harmonizing as possible but I would have to fall on the side of improbably and therefore conclude as I have. The question of inerrancy goes to realibility and historicity for me.

I think inerrancy is a theological issue more so than historicity or reliability. Inerrancy is multifaceted and has to do with one's convictions about scripture. Inerrancy for some is tied to historicity and reliability and for others it is not. As a rule, I don't like to get bogged down discussing what is implied when I say the Bible is "inerrant", rather I like to focus on the questions, historicity and reliability without the baggage of inerrancy. The Luke 2 "problem" is brought up often and used as a defeater without addressing other texts or discounting the places were Luke was correct, and why I think it borderlines on being a straw man. And given that there is a possible out for the discrepancy that would mitigate one purported problem from possible translation corroborated by historical evidence I don't think it is a strong mitigating factor against Luke's historicity.

TGBaker wrote:

The lack of inerrancy opens the document to  standard  methodology. And as such  I would conclude as I have and apply it with the rest of an analysis to reliability and historicity. Again  it was the cumalative needs to defend a passage or an uncommon exegesis to an absurd level and/or numbers that made me look at a posture similar to OTF:   am I trying to defend a believed truth ( a presupposition of inspiration or inerrancy which presents improbable as fact) or obtain what is empirically before me a meets parsimony, plausibility and likelihood.

Defending a particular view does not have to entail a presupposition about inspiration or inerrancy, rather these could be the conclusions of the matter. And for argument's sake, one can set these aside and approach the issue with historical analysis and textual analysis, as many scholars do, similar to the OTF. Uncommon exegesis does not entail incorrect exegesis either. But I do not think it is necessarily uncommon as I think there are many people who have made the same observation concerning the middle deponent verb as I have, but they corroborated it with different historical evidence.

I think you may miss my point on inerrancy. If one begins with such a presupposition. It will effect ones historical approach. If one has not suspended the idea that the text is without errors one will not in a historical reseach see errors if they are there. It is an important precursory issue to resolve prior to any research or at least the ability to suspend it as a subjective belief in ones process of analysis. The same goes for the presupposition of inspiration. It taints the objectivity of historical research with a limiting factor that forbids a possible conclusion that the text is NOT inspired. That is what I typically see going on with such discussions as ours about the infancy narratives. The consideration of less plausible conclusions are arrived at ( Ramsey for example or A. T. Robertson on "eis&quotEye-wink because of a necessary property of the conclusion ( inspriation)....of Quirinius . It seems a simple This  first enrollment there came to be ( when [ genitive])   the governing of Syria is by Quirinius OR when Quirinius is governing Syria. The idea is that it is this enrollment that Mary and Joseph are traveling for by context. .  The corroboration  of those many people seem to fall in line with what I am saying about the presuppostion of inerrancy or inspiration again... the move to the straining of this gnat or strawman as you say to a swollowing of the camel of inspiration or infallibility. 

Again I have seen no historical evidence  that puts Quiriius or a census within 10 years of Jesus birth. Ramsey's attempt is a notice of the emperor's appreciation of Quirinus but he then speculates the reward of a govenorship. But there is not room in the attested list of governors.  Secondly the change from local ruler by designation of Rome to direct rule by Rome seems to be the reason for the census in the first place. Again is there any census prior to 6CE  after 125 BCE that would approximate the hypothetical harmonization of the text? That is my dilemma with seeing any plausibility of going with your translation. Not just the grammar and syntax itself but the context and the history and 2000 years of translating it rightly I think.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism