Jesus' Supposed Sacrifice

Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Jesus' Supposed Sacrifice

This is actually from the www.infidelguy.com message boards. Another atheist and I were having a conversation, but I felt the contradictions therein are something that should be considered and discussed.

todangst wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Interestingly enough I was questioning a theist in a conversation about a similar subject. How can the death of Jesus' flesh, even if Jesus was supposedly God, save us from sin? Sacrifices, although a gesture of great purportions, do not affect anything. If I sacrifice a lamb to make it rain, and it rains...is it because I sacrificed the lamb? Similarly, religionists in general like to somehow basterdize the word "sacrifice" to mean something it doesn't.

And how was it a sacrifice, anyway? Is jesus dead? Is it preferable to be in human form, or in spiritual form in heaven?

Exactly. Jesus killed himself...to be resurrected later. I mean...that isn't a sacrifice that's 3 days of tanning. He's GOD supposedly, so how can he really die to begin with? Further he ended up in Heaven, supposedly, and that isn't really torment.

Quote:
What does paul say about the nature of flesh?

"For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20).

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50)

Which of course contradicts Luke 3:6, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." See also: 2 Kings 2:11, Heb. 11:5, and Gen. 5:24 directly, as well as Jesus going to Heaven in the flesh.

And as well, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine...." (Rom. 14:21) Which puts a damper on the whole "flesh and blood of Christ" thing the Catholics like to tote around.

Quote:
Where's the sacrifice?

There is none. And lest we forget that in order to be free from sin, we have to do something to get it. Well...that sort of defeats the purpose of Jesus having abolished our sins, if we still have sin that wasn't abolished.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would have to agree with

I would have to agree with you on the picture. She is kinda cute. Too bad she is so irrational.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Too bad

MattShizzle wrote:
Too bad she is so irrational.

... and married. Sticking out tongue

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That's even worse! I do

That's even worse! Laughing out loud I do hope the woman I love isn't irrational.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:I don't think

Sara wrote:
I don't think that you or the dictionary are qualified to define what sacrifice means in the context of the New Testament.

That's just ridiculous. If you are going to redefine the word 'sacrifice', then what's the point of using the term?

Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back.

Quote:

Biblical hermeneutics is based on...

...the need for christians to dodge reality through reintepreting and redefining problems away.

Quote:
the idea that scripture interprets itself.

Sorry, but the last century of critical examination of objectivity and bias debunks that nonsense. As objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... as much as you might try to get a grasp at what the author's intent is, your bias is part of the process.

As are your motivations.

Quote:

If Jesus' soul was an offering for sin, then the definition of offering should be a biblical definition and not just one pulled from a non-related source such as you suggest.

If you are going to use the word 'sacrifice' and then redefine it to the point that it has no relation to the word 'sacrifice' as commonly used, then what point is there in referring to it as a sacrifice?

Your rationalization is cutting out the legs of your entire argument!

Quote:

don't believe that any textual critic would look to a dictionary to find definitions of terms used in an ancient document, the very thought is ridiculous.

Well, ironically, it's usually me making this point to others.... so this makes me smile... I agree with you.

I agree that the dictionary is not the source for rigorous philosophical or theological definitions. But is the word 'sacrifice' really now a special theological term? Or is your attempt to redefine the word 'sacrifice' as a term with special 'theological import' just a desparate special plead used to avoid the clear problems that any already known definition of the word 'sacrifice' contains?

So, while I agree with your claim concerning the context error of relying on dictionaries as a source for rigorous examinations of theological terms, can you really apply this rule to a word like 'sacrifice'? Or is the very attempt just a ploy, a dodge, of the fact that you can't rationally hold the sacrifice to be a sacrifice at all?

The key to uncovering whether this is the case is simple: we must watch to see if you refe to the word 'sacrifice' without any further theological explanation of what you mean.. which can only mean that you are using it as per the dictionary definition....

Quote:

With that said, the authors of the text clearly understood that Jesus death and resurrection were not a contradiction in terms.

So, with that said, you're gonna just go ahead and use the dictionary meaning for 'sacrifice'?

Then what was the point of your post so far?

Oh, and I like how you just assert your claim... saves you from all the fuss and muss of actually backing it up...

You've tried to argue that the dictionary definition is not appropriate. Well, then, give us the grounds for your more 'appropriate' theological definition, and make sure to give a coherent one.... make sure to avoid any special plead fallacies.....

Quote:

They saw that Jesus was able to sacrifice Himself on the cross

Ok, now what does 'sacrifice' mean here then, if it doesn't possess the meaning listed in a dictionary?

You still have not clarified..... You've made the claim that 'sacrifice' has some special theological defintion not included in any bible. Well, what is it?

Quote:

for sins and that the resurrection was the proof that this sacrifice was acceptable to God.

Again, you use the word 'sacrifice'... what do you mean by it, if not the dictionary definition?

Quote:

You don't get to decide whether or not it was a sacrifice, God already did.

So, that's your answer?

First, you beg the question that god exists

and then special plead a new meaning for 'sacrifice' that makes the word utterly meaningless?

So, I'm the pot, and god's the potter... telling me to shut up about such questions? I don't get to even understand why it's a sacrifice... it just is coz 'god' says so...

Oh, and could you cite chapter and verse for this - where god says "its a sacrifice, but not in anyway you'd understand, and just shut up about it?"

Quote:

So please, don't try to make it seem as though you or any other Atheist on here can make that determination.

Well then, how could you? If I can't even potentially examine what the term means, then what's the point of the term?

Seems to me that perhaps, just perhaps, this is an expression of your own frustrations - your own inability to answer.

Quote:

Furthermore, I was not the first person to recognize that Isaiah was speaking of Jesus,

Sorry, but you're just begging the question that this was a prophecy... you've not demonstrated it.

The most parsimonious explanation is that Isaiah was writing for his own time, and that the gospel writers used his works as a midrash, to justify their own god claims. They made prophecies of Isaiah's writings, made them apply to their 'jesus' of their own creation....

Quote:
every Gospel writer understood this

Again, it's more parsimonious to say that the writers used it in a 'midrash' - a reformulation of OT stories.

Here, take some time and learn about this:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.html

Quote:

was so and hence the reason why they quoted verses from this very chapter of Isaiah and applied it to Christ.

No, you're just begging the question that that's the case.

Circular logic. You can't just assume what you seek to prove.

Quote:

Your blindness to your own sin is obvious if you think you are innocent.

Your blindness to your own logical fallacies is obvious.

Quote:

Furthermore, you have no idea what Christ experienced on the Cross

Neither do you. And yet, I've given you reasons why 1) it's not rational to hold that this godman suffered and 2) that real humans suffer more every day...

Quote:

so your paragraph on how some humans have suffered more is a blatant case of ignorance.

An ignorance you must share, seeing as you only assert it...

Quote:

However Jesus did recognize that His sacrifice, though horrific, was the only means by which man could be saved.

Here again you use the word 'sacrifice' without telling me what it means!

If it no longer means what any dictionary defintion means, then in what sense are you using the word?

Quote:

Hebrews 12:2 states "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." So I believe this answers your question.

It does nothing to demonstrate how this 'jesus' suffered or sacrificed.

Quote:

I find your contempt of the ordeal that He experienced to provide you with salvation to be tragic.

I find your contempt for reason and logic tragic. Your post is a string of logical fallacies, capped off by your ridiculous embarrassing attempt to redefine the word 'sacrifice' while continuing to use it as per the dictionary definition all along!

Quote:

As for your scenario about me going to the cross to save billions, I am not capable of doing this.

Sigh. Just as I predicted! It's a hypothetical! Answer it and stop dodging!

Again, here's how I ended the last post:

"When you answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical."

Quote:

Jesus experienced the wrath of the Father by becoming our sin on the cross. Being a finite being, I would not be able to endure it, nor can I imagine what it would have been like. So there is no way for me to answer this question.

Again, even as I warned you against making this dodge, you make it anyway.

And why?

Not becasue you 'can't do it...' after all, it's a hypothetical...

So why did you dodge it, even as I predicted you would ? Because the truth is that you MUST DODGE this question, because the alternative requires you to accept that there was no sacrifice at all.

So let's go through it again, and please stop dodging.

Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.

Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.

If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?

When you and again answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
gdon wrote:The_Prize

gdon wrote:
The_Prize wrote:
If Jesus KNEW AHEAD that after a BRIEF and MOMENTARY "punishment" from God that he will be raised again, will sit at the right hand of God's throne himself, will be exalted, praised, and worshipped as the King of kings and Lord of lords, and will reign forever and ever then that is hardly a genuine sacrifice at all. Like the father in my scenario who knew that his brief and momentary punishment will result in greater returns so too is Jesus' BRIEF and MOMENTARY punishment will result in VASTLY greater returns. So Sara, what kind of a sacrifice is that? That flies in the face of the very notion of what a sacrifice is.

It wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of the amount of pain he underwent, TP. It was a sacrifice in the sense that a perfect man without mark was offered up to God --

As the perfect man, he would not suffer nor lose anything... and he had full knowledge of his divinity, that he was saving souls, and that he would be in heavenly blisss.

so in what bizzaro world sense of the word 'sacrifice' are you using?

Again, notice how these theists butcher the meaning of a word, rather than concede to their illogic.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Again, I find it

Sara wrote:
Again, I find it inconceivable that you or anyone else can question the validity of Christ's sacrifice.

Can you stop this special plead fallacy?

When I read comments like, they speak more to your own frustrations than anything else....

Quote:

You do not know what Jesus suffered on the cross or what it is like to experience God the Father's wrath

Well then, how could you?

And if you can't, then you're just begging the question here, ain't ya?

Quote:

as He did when He became our sin. Jesus is an infinite being

Infinite being is an oxymoron. It's an absurdity. To be infinite is to be without limits. To be a being is to exist as something, to have limits.

Your assertion is illogical

Quote:

who tasted death for every man. Do you know what that would feel like?

Again with your special pleads... by your own logic, you yourself can't know, so you're just arguing from ignorance then, right?

Unless of course, there is a way for you to know. And if there is, then you can tell me.

**************************

Jesus, a could not have sacrificed anything, theists need to stop misusing the word. In fact, all your argument amounts to is a pathetic attempt to run away from the meaning of the word sacrifice, while at the same time, continuing to imply the dictionary definition anyway!

A child with leukemia suffers more, everyday, without any reason.

I issue my challenge for any theist:

It makes no sense to state that something is a sacrifice when 1) there was no loss, and 2) the gain for the behavior was infinite.

Jesus could not suffer even as much as a normal person:

Here is why:

1) He knows he's not really going to die in the first place

Here's a purported prophecy of the crucifixion.....
Quote:

Mark 8:34 (New International Version)

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

(By the way, this passage is self refuting... Jesus didn't 'take up the cross" until after this "event". So what meaning could his reference have for the audience he was speaking to?!)

2) He knows that he will be loved and adored for his act
3) He knows he will save billions of souls with his act.
4) He knows his reward is infinitity in bliss.
5) He knows he will not lose anything, ergo, no sacrifice.

This is not a 'sacrifice' therefore, at all. In fact, its the biggest, best deal in the world, and I challenge a theist to respond as to whether they would go on the cross. I've never seen a theist dare respond at all.

So why do theists call this a 'sacrifice'? Because they don't bother to think it through. It takes compartmentalization. You have to forget that millions die every day in doubt, for no reason. That's the real pain in the world. A child dies of starvation, with no reason, no reward, nothing.

A cancer patient watches his body whither away, in pain. He's not getting any reward, any recognition, no assurance that he will go to some heaven. He just faces death without any comfort.

How many people in the world have sacrificed real blood for others? A mother or a father dies to save their own child - no reward, no assurances. They just do it.

Every day, every person suffers more pain than this supposed savior could ever have suffered "for us". We all live in doubt, we all suffer pains. We do it because we must. Some of us even give more - we sacrifice our time, our blood, even our lives, for others.

No rewards. No guarentees.

A solidier gives up his life for his country. What reward does he get? A ribbon nailed to a wall somewhere, his name recorded in an unseen history book.

Think about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours. In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)

Would you refuse? Would ANYONE refuse? Seriously. There can be no greater gift in the world than to be offered the opportunity.

Again, I challenge a theist to answer the question: Would you go on the cross?

Watch as they continually dodge the question by stating that they 'can't do it!' But this is a hypothetical! If I ask you if you would fly if you could, saying "but I can't fly' isn't a rational response!

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:First, God was

Sara wrote:
First, God was the source of Light before the Sun was formed.

Then why create the sun? Why would an omnipotent being take recourse to a contrivance?

Quote:

Futhermore, what does it matter if plants were created one day before the sun?

You're a six day, young earth creationist?

Wow....

Quote:

As for my use of the bible being some sort of taboo in your atheist forum, I must say this is somewhat hypocritical of you.

It's not a taboo. It's a circular logic fallacy to cite the bible in defense of the bible. The bible is also notorious for it's internal and external contradictions...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote: Secondly, I'm

Sara wrote:

Secondly, I'm not sure that you fully understand or are applying the "circular reasoning" argument correctly to this situation. Circular reasoning involves making an assumption in an argument part of the proof. For example, you might say something like "all religions are made up by human beings. Christianity is a religion, so it must have been made up by human beings."

HOWEVER, not all circular reasoning is necessarily a logical fallacy.

I see this ignorant response from theists so often that I actually have a stock reply for it, available on my logic site.

Some people like to note that circular arguments are trivially valid. They are right: - circular arguments are valid - after all, since nothing new is generated in the concluson of a deductive arument, all deductive arguments are 'circular' - in that the conclusion is made up entirely from the premises. However, while it is true that nothing "new" is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument, this would not make deductive arguments 'circular' in the sense of a circular logic fallacy. Here is why:

Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of equivalencies - we can even reformulate such arguments as tautologies. Therefore, the point of such arguments is to demonstrate some equivalency (or lack thereof) between two categories. So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!

So the fact that you cite that 'circular logic' is valid just demonstrates your basic ignorance of logic and the circular logic fallacy. It's clear that you, like other theists, only bother to learn enough about circular logic to keep your flawed arguments going... you don't bother to go any further, to critically examine the components of your arguments, to actually learn whether the fact that an argument is 'valid' is enough to hold that it actually works to support your conclusion.

Now I want to stop here and have you take note of the fact that on an issue for which we can reach a firm conclusion, you are demonstratably wrong. Demonstratably wrong. And, you're not only wrong, you rely on this flaw in thinking to support your argument. And you not only rely on flawed thinking in your argument, you don't even bother to do learn enough about logic to uncover just why you might be wrong... instead, you 'learn' just enough about circular logic in order to justify what you already cling to..... but not enough so as to find out what the truth is...

I'm sure you'll treat this all as a trivial detail.... "hey, it was just one mistake'.... but this error is direct evidence of your irrationalism. This is direct evidence of you clinging to flawed thinking, no matter what. That'll you 'learn' just enough to cling to your belief, and avoid the real picture.

Quote:

If the premise is of the argument is found to be true, (i.e. all religions are made up) then the circular reasoning would be valid.

Yes, but only trivially valid, seeing as a circular argument just holds that a claim is equivalent to itself! Again, nothing is proven by the argument! So THIS is the problem.

You would have learned that, if you continued to read on and actualy learn about circular logic fallacies. But it's clear that that was never your intent. Your intent was to look for something, anything, that appeared to justify your continued use of a logical fallacy. And oddly enough, you used the same inept, basic misunderstanding of informal fallacies that I've seen from apologists.... just a coincidence, right?

I hope you can see the error now. And I hope you can see that that is conclusive proof of the irrationality of your position.
You'll warp the meanings of words like 'sacrifice', you'll warp logic, to fit your beliefs.

Quote:

We are BOTH using the bible to prove our case. I don't see why you are allowed to do this while I am not.

Another basic error in logic. The situation is asymmetrical.

We use the bible to show that the bible either contradicts itself internally, or externally.

You use it as both the source for your claims, and the defense of the very same claims. That's circular logic.

I hope you can see these errors now and address them. I hope you can see how you've acted irrationally here, only bothering to 'learn enough' to continue on with your argument, and not enough to know the truth.

Take care.

PS The bible could have been written as a set of proof, like a book of Euclidean geometry... this would have eliminated the problem as the arguments could have stood on their own..... wonder why it wasn't written that way.... god wasn't up to it?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's just

Quote:
That's just ridiculous. If you are going to redefine the word 'sacrifice', then what's the point of using the term?

Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back.

So basically we agree on the definition as does the OT. However your analysis following it which asserts that the loss must be permanent is incorrect. The idea of sacrifice in the OT involves the loss of a possession WITH THE PROMISE that God would provide the person offering the sacrifice with either an equivalent amount or more of the original offering. I am going to use the bible to prove the bible here, so don't freak out. I know that this really bothers you and YOU think it's circular, but like I said, the bible can testify on it's own behalf when being attacked falsely.

An example of a sacrifice is given in Leviticus 25:20 where God commands the Israelites not to sow or farm their lands in the seventh year. This, by all accounts, was quite a large sacrifice to God since they would be loosing a whole years worth of crops. But what does God say He will do in response to their offering? "And if you shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years." So you see that God is giving back even more than the original sacrifice. The same is true with animal offerings, grain offerings, and the like. God promises to bless the person even more when they trust God enough to sacrifice what He gave to them. Thus when Jesus offered His life to God, He was resurrected and given honor in every realm individually (instead of as a part of the Godhead as a whole) and saved sinners from damnation. So His life was a sacrifice that produced more in return just as the biblical definition allows. (And just so you don't get any ideas about God being a cosmic genie, these promises are for those who truly trust and believe in Him and not all of the blessings are provided in this life.)

Also there is no prohibition in this definition that would militate against Jesus receiving His original sacrificed life back with manifold blessings attached. That is an arbitrary assumption you are making to prove your case.

For more on this see www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html

Quote:

Sorry, but the last century of critical examination of objectivity and bias debunks that nonsense. As objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... as much as you might try to get a grasp at what the author's intent is, your bias is part of the process.

As are your motivations.

Matthew 7:5 says it best- "Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."

Also, have you told the above to Rook? He really needs to hear that.

Quote:

If you are going to use the word 'sacrifice' and then redefine it to the point that it has no relation to the word 'sacrifice' as commonly used, then what point is there in referring to it as a sacrifice?

Your rationalization is cutting out the legs of your entire argument!]

No, I don't define it, the bible defines it. Here is the definition of sacrifice:

a) (Qal)
1) to slaughter for sacrifice
2) to slaughter for eating
3) to slaughter in divine judgment

And here is the definition of offering:
1) gift, tribute, offering, present, oblation, sacrifice, meat offering
a) gift, present
b) tribute
c) offering (to God)
d) grain offering

No where does it say that if you give something to God, it cannot be returned to you (and as I pointed out, it was specifically promised to be returned). You are the one making up definitions here and building straw men.

Quote:
Well, ironically, it's usually me making this point to others.... so this makes me smile... I agree with you.

I agree that the dictionary is not the source for rigorous philosophical or theological definitions. But is the word 'sacrifice' really now a special theological term? Or is your attempt to redefine the word 'sacrifice' as a term with special 'theological import' just a desparate special plead used to avoid the clear problems that any already known definition of the word 'sacrifice' contains?

So, while I agree with your claim concerning the context error of relying on dictionaries as a source for rigorous examinations of theological terms, can you really apply this rule to a word like 'sacrifice'? Or is the very attempt just a ploy, a dodge, of the fact that you can't rationally hold the sacrifice to be a sacrifice at all?

The key to uncovering whether this is the case is simple: we must watch to see if you refe to the word 'sacrifice' without any further theological explanation of what you mean.. which can only mean that you are using it as per the dictionary definition....

Boy the straw men are just all over the place in this post. Yes, the definition is a special theological one, why does that trouble you? Because it disagrees with YOUR definition?

Quote:
So, that's your answer?

First, you beg the question that god exists

Well, if I can't assume God exists, then it really is a waste of time arguing about it huh? The fact that YOU, the supposed Atheist, argue about the existence of God is more telling though. It implies that you believe, on some level, in probable likelihood of His existence otherwise you wouldn't make such impassioned arguments against it.

Quote:
Sorry, but you're just begging the question that this was a prophecy... you've not demonstrated it.

I guess the writers of the New Testament were guilty of question begging since they are the ones who understood that Isaiah was referring to Christ.

But just to end the "question begging" accusations that seem to be occurring ad infinitum, there is a very strong case that can be made for ALL arguments being circular. You would be hard pressed to come up with an example where the premise (or presupposition) is not included in either the proof or the conclusion. You commit the same fallacy when you presuppose that the bible is false and then attempt to show in your proof and conclusion that it is. Even if you could prove your case using such reasoning, your conclusion will only be "superficially" valid. So please, enough with the "you're committing a logical fallacy" business.

If worse comes to worse, I really couldn't care less if you think that I'm irrational or that I commit logical fallacies. We are all biased and begin with certain presuppositions, you are just less honest than I am and won't admit it. So I will stand by my original argument: if I'm guilty of circular reasoning, then so are you.

Quote:
The most parsimonious explanation is that Isaiah was writing for his own time, and that the gospel writers used his works as a midrash, to justify their own god claims. They made prophecies of Isaiah's writings, made them apply to their 'jesus' of their own creation....Again, it's more parsimonious to say that the writers used it in a 'midrash' - a reformulation of OT stories.

Gosh, I guess I could be like you and accuse you of question begging, but I really don't care. Just an aside, though, do you have any "solid" evidence to back up those claims?

Quote:
Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.

What utter nonsense. Jesus was God in the flesh Who knew NO SINS. He emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives and power and died physically and spiritually for sins. This was a sacrifice and a huge one at that. Until you know what it's like to be sinless, die spiritually for those sins, be beaten, flogged and crucified, I don't think you can make light of Jesus' experience or compare them to our physical suffering.

Furthermore, He didn't gain anything more except for being specifically honored as God the Son in every realm and He will live in eternity with redeemed sinners. He was from eternity past a part of the Godhead, so I don't think that what He "gained" was much more of a reward than His original position afforded Him. The fact that He would go through what He did speaks more of His loving character than that He was somehow "seeking a reward". He made the effort to do something that He wasn't required or had need of doing. He did it for us.

Quote:
Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.

If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?

When you and again answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical.

Look, if you want the blunt answer, No, I don't think I would want do it at all. But if God wanted me to, then I guess I would.

What does this question prove anyway? That any person would die for sinners because it wasn't really a sacrifice? Again, the definition of sacrifice is a slaughter or offering of a life. Just because Jesus sacrifice was returned and rewarded with some blessings does not negate the sacrifice or the experience. It only does by your flawed reasoning.

You are trying to lessen the severity of Jesus ordeal by focusing on the result when you have no understanding of what He experienced. It's like telling a war veteran that because he's now taken care of by the VA and has all his expenses paid for by the government, that his experience in the war and his sacrifice to our country wasn't really a sacrifice. Maybe you should try that and see if they agree with your logic.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote:That's just

Sara wrote:
Quote:
That's just ridiculous. If you are going to redefine the word 'sacrifice', then what's the point of using the term?

Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back.

So basically we agree on the definition as does the OT.


If you agree with that definition after all, then what was the point of your entire post?

Quote:
However your analysis following it which asserts that the loss must be permanent is incorrect.

Why?

What I said follows from the definition.. If you retrieve something after losing it, you've no longer lost it, right? It was lost, but now you have it back.

To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.

Quote:

The idea of sacrifice in the OT involves the loss of a possession
WITH THE PROMISE that God would provide the person offering the sacrifice with either an equivalent amount or more of the original offering.

Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.

To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....

One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.

I know this is a complex topic, but you have to realize that getting what you've 'lost' right back can't be a sacrifice, especially when you know you're gonna get it back all along.

Quote:

I am going to use the bible to prove the bible here, so don't freak out.

I've already explained why this is circular logic, and why it is not circular logic for me to show where the bible contradicts itself, so I would appreciate if you read over that first.

Quote:

I know that this really bothers you and YOU think it's circular,

It doesn't 'bother me', it's just that it is irrational, so your claim is not justified. So there's no point in it. To say "X, therefore X!" proves nothing.... you are just reasserting.

And I've already explained to you why circular logic is a fallacy: because circular arguments simply assume their own conclusions, they don't support them. So again, please read this over. Saying X, therefore, X! proves nothing.

Saying X is like Y, Y is like Z, therefore X is like Z is proving something... that X is equivalent to Z. I'll go into more details below.

Quote:

Sorry, but the last century of critical examination of objectivity and bias debunks that nonsense. As objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... as much as you might try to get a grasp at what the author's intent is, your bias is part of the process.

As are your motivations.

Quote:

Matthew 7:5 says it best- "Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."

Well, one might say that irrationalism is quite a log in your eye....

Again, as objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... I don't see anything here that counters this.

Quote:

If you are going to use the word 'sacrifice' and then redefine it to the point that it has no relation to the word 'sacrifice' as commonly used, then what point is there in referring to it as a sacrifice?

Your rationalization is cutting out the legs of your entire argument!]


Quote:

No, I don't define it, the bible defines it.

And you pick and choose which parts to cite for your definition, and which parts not to cite, just as you pick and choose which version of the bible you use and not to use, and so on.... so the 'bible's definition' is actually your verson of the bible's definition....

See the problem with just assuming that 'the bible says it" now?

See how your own interpretation is necessarily involved? See why we need critical thinking to deal with this?

Because another christian will use the 'same' bible to say something different. You already know that... in fact, you christians have a saying "even the devil can cite scripture on his own behalf...."

Quote:

Here is the definition of sacrifice:

a) (Qal)
1) to slaughter for sacrifice


Well, this is only a circular definition - it uses the term. It only refers to killing.
Quote:

2) to slaughter for eating

Well, this is refering to a method of food acquisition..... !

Quote:

3) to slaughter in divine judgment

This again only refers to killing.... this time, in the sake of 'divine judgement'
Quote:

And here is the definition of offering:
1) gift, tribute, offering, present, oblation, sacrifice, meat offering
a) gift, present
b) tribute
c) offering (to God)
d) grain offering

Ah, a gift or present.

Here's a definition of the word 'gift':

Something given voluntarily without payment in return.

Can you say 'checkmate'?

No payment in return. A loss. You don't get a gift back! Do you give gifts expecting your gift back?

Quote:

No where does it say that if you give something to God, it cannot be returned to you

The part where it says 'gift' -offering....

Thanks for checkmating yourself, makes it easier on me.

Again, when we sacrifice X, and get back Y, we properly sacrifice. But if we sacrifice X and get back X times infinity, then we have sacrificed nothing. We've simply been prudent!

Quote:
Well, ironically, it's usually me making this point to others.... so this makes me smile... I agree with you.

I agree that the dictionary is not the source for rigorous philosophical or theological definitions. But is the word 'sacrifice' really now a special theological term? Or is your attempt to redefine the word 'sacrifice' as a term with special 'theological import' just a desparate special plead used to avoid the clear problems that any already known definition of the word 'sacrifice' contains?

So, while I agree with your claim concerning the context error of relying on dictionaries as a source for rigorous examinations of theological terms, can you really apply this rule to a word like 'sacrifice'? Or is the very attempt just a ploy, a dodge, of the fact that you can't rationally hold the sacrifice to be a sacrifice at all?

The key to uncovering whether this is the case is simple: we must watch to see if you refe to the word 'sacrifice' without any further theological explanation of what you mean.. which can only mean that you are using it as per the dictionary definition....

Quote:

Boy the straw men are just all over the place in this post.

Gee, and here I was thinking that we were getting along... agreeing on something for once... thought we were becoming pals...

Seriously, if you want to cry 'strawman' then you might try to point one out next time, rather than just assert it.

Quote:

Yes, the definition is a special theological one,

Actually, you just proved it wasn't! You came up with the definition of a gift! I guess you could say it was a 'holy gift' or something, but the word 'gift' is pretty clear...

unless now there's a special theological definiton for gift too?

Quote:

why does that trouble you?

Quite an imagination. I think you'll need to ask yourself that now.

Quote:
So, that's your answer?

First, you beg the question that god exists


Quote:

Well, if I can't assume God exists, then it really is a waste of time arguing about it huh?

No, not at all. When people set out to support a claim rationally, they don't start out just assuming it is true! The actively seek supports for their claim.

Quote:
Sorry, but you're just begging the question that this was a prophecy... you've not demonstrated it.

Quote:

I guess the writers of the New Testament were guilty of question begging since they are the ones who understood that Isaiah was referring to Christ.

You're just begging the question that they were the ones 'who understood that Isaiah was referring to christ!"

Why? Well, ask yourself: How do you actually know this? How could you prove it?

You can only assume it! But you're assuming your conclusion when you assume it!

Circular logic.

Do you see it?

Consider that the more parsimonious explanation was that they used books like Isaiah to create their story. That they turned his writing into 'prophecies' - even when a more sober reading tells us that they were not prophecies at all

Such as :

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy.

So this again demonstrates a more parsimonious explanation of the 'gospels': that the gospel writers created a midrash.... they cobbled together a story using the OT, turning parts of the OT into 'prophecies' that they 'fulfilled' with their stories.

Quote:

But just to end the "question begging" accusations that seem to be occurring ad infinitum,

I don't just accuse, I back up my claim. Try it sometime.

Quote:

there is a very strong case that can be made for ALL arguments being circular.

Again with this strawman version of logic. This is incorrect. Let me explain again. While deductive arguments are tautologies, inductive arguments are not circular. And, furthermore as I pointed out to you previously, the problem with a circular logic fallacy is not that it is a 'circle' but that it assumes it's own conclusion as a premise in a circular fashion! So the problem with a circular logic fallacy isn't just that it is circular, per se. It is that it just holds that something is equivalent to itself, when the very point of a deductive argument is to hold that TWO things are equivalent to each other.

Here, let me explain this again:

Some people like to note that circular arguments are trivially valid. They are right: - circular arguments are valid - after all, since nothing new is generated in the concluson of a deductive arument, all deductive arguments are 'circular' - in that the conclusion is made up entirely from the premises. However, while it is true that nothing "new" is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument, this would not make deductive arguments 'circular' in the sense of a circular logic fallacy. Here is why:

Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of equivalencies - we can even reformulate such arguments as tautologies. Therefore, the point of such arguments is to demonstrate some equivalency (or lack thereof) between two categories. So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!

Quote:

You would be hard pressed to come up with an example where the premise (or presupposition) is not included in either the proof or the conclusion.

No kidding. Every component of the conclusion is found in the premises, that is precisely why a deduction works. But the point is that one does not use the conclusion itself as a premise!

Here, this again is from my site on logic:

Once an argument has been delineated by ascertaining that it contains a series of statements that make a commitment to the truth, a set of premises and a conclusion, it should be presented in proper argument form, wherein each premise is listed in some logical order, followed by the conclusion. Here is an example of an argument; I will present it in proper argument form:

(P1 = premise 1, C = conclusion):

"Hey, is that a gun in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?"

P1 Either that's a gun in your pocket, or you're happy to see me
P2 You don't have a gun in your pocket(This is implied - implied premises are called "enthymemes")
C: You must be happy to see me

Notice how this argument makes a transition from the premises to the conclusion. A connection from each premise to conclusion is brought about when each proposition possesses at least one element in common with at least one other proposition. In this example, each proposition (gun in a pocket, happy to see me, ) appears twice. This is why we can say that valid arguments help us preserve truth, as long as the premises are true, a valid argument form will preserve this truth and 'carry the truth safely" to the conclusion. This is why we 'preserve truth" or carry along the truth from the premises so carefully: because if we carry the truth along without making a mistake, then the conclusion MUST true.

This argument is a valid deductive argument (these terms will be explained in the next two sections), and as we will also see later, it is called a disjunctive syllogism.

We should also notice that in deductive arguments, nothing necessarily "new" is being discovered, for all the elements of the conclusion can be found in the premises. Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of categories or definitions that are equivalent to each other. So, we can best think of most deductive logical arguments as a coherent way to present our thoughts - a point the philosopher Wittgenstein famously made at the turn of the last century. Now, that's one great reason to learn logic, isn't it?

So again, the point here is that one cannot simply use the conclusion as a premise. That's a circular logic fallacy. If an argument is to demonstrate anything, it must make a series of logical, valid connections from the premises to the conclusion.

Quote:
You commit the same fallacy when you presuppose that the bible is false and then attempt to show in your proof and conclusion that it is.

I started out life as a christian. I read the bible from the presumption it was true, and realized that it could not be true becuase it was contradictory.

But the stronger point is this: I can assume the bible is true, and still come to the conclusion that it is false, by way of recognizing contradictions.

So you're claim is false. There is no symmetry here. There's no white bird here, Bigwig. It doesn't matter which presumption, if any, you start out with. Contradictions are necessarily false.

Quote:

If worse comes to worse, I really couldn't care less if you think that I'm irrational or that I commit logical fallacies.

AH If worse comes to worse... in other words, even if my argument is true!

In other words, even if I prove you are being irrational, you'll respond to this by being more irrational - you'll stick to your gut feeling, no matter what.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this refreshing bit of honesty and directness.

No matter what I say, right or wrong, you'll hold to your beliefs in a dogmatic fashion.

I really should just stop here, shouldn't I?

Smiling

Quote:

We are all biased and begin with certain presuppositions,

So then, it's best to be as rational as we can be, it's best to be open to learning new things about ourselves. It's best not to insist that even if we are proven wrong, we'll still cling to our beliefs anway.

Right?

Smiling

The fact that everyone is biased doesn't give you the right to wallow in your own bias, Sara. The fact that everyone is biased ought to compel all of us to try and combat bias, not wallow in it, coz 'you're biased too'

That's a tuo quoque fallacy.

Quote:

You are just less honest than I am and won't admit it.

Well, let's see... you just said that even if I demonstrate that you are irrational, you'll just not care. Is that 'honesty"? Well we can say that you are honest about your dishonesty....

So, I'm not so sure that I'm less honest than you. But you can be honest, and so can I, so let's just leave it at that, why not?

Quote:

So I will stand by my original argument: if I'm guilty of circular reasoning, then so are you.

I think I've demonstrated otherwise. And again, tuo quoque is not a rational defense... "you're wrong, so I can be wrong too' isn't a rational means of holding to beliefs....

Quote:
The most parsimonious explanation is that Isaiah was writing for his own time, and that the gospel writers used his works as a midrash, to justify their own god claims. They made prophecies of Isaiah's writings, made them apply to their 'jesus' of their own creation....Again, it's more parsimonious to say that the writers used it in a 'midrash' - a reformulation of OT stories.

Quote:

Gosh, I guess I could be like you and accuse you of question begging, but I really don't care.

There's no question begging there, and please remember, when I hold that you are begging the question, I actually have the courtesty to demonstrate why, so you can at least examine my thinking and respond.

Just like in math class, I 'show my work' so you can show me where I went 'wrong'

So you might consider doing likewise.

Now, I want to also say that I think you might not know what 'parsimonious' means. My apologies if you do. Anyway, my explanation is more parsimonious, even if your theory is true... because my theory doesn't invoke any recourse to the supernatural.

Parsimonoius means 'stingy'.. it means that I take recourse to fewer "problematic' entities in my theory, than you do in yours.

For example:

If I flick the light switch, a fairy flies to the bulb and turns the electricity on.

If I flick the light switch, electricity courses through the wires and turns the bulb on.

No matter whether there are faires or not, the second theory is more parsimonious, because it involves less problematic entities.

Quote:

Just an aside, though, do you have any "solid" evidence to back up those claims?

That the OT is midrash? I already cited it to you.

I'll try again:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.html

Seriously, take a look, you'll like it.

Thanks for asking again. And please just take a look, you don't even need to respond to me about it...

Quote:
Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.


Quote:

What utter nonsense.

Not just nonsense, but utter nonsense? Oh well... I thought it made sense...

Quote:
Jesus was God in the flesh Who knew NO SINS. He emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives and power and died physically

He didn't come back then?

I thought you christians didn't value the soma anyway - I thought you guys held it to be corrupt, sinful...

Quote:

and spiritually for sins.

Is he dead spiritually?

Quote:

This was a sacrifice and a huge one at that.

You keep asserting this, but you can't demonstrate it. You can't show what he lost, no can you prove what 'pain' he went through. And even if he did, you can't prove that it's more painful than a mother watching her child die from leukemia, without any reason for it, and without any guarentee that he'll 'go to heaven'

People die in pain every day, for no reason, for no reward, with no promises.

Quote:

Until you know what it's like to be sinless, die spiritually

Aren't I dead spiritualy, according to you?

Quote:

for those sins, be beaten, flogged and crucified,

children with leukemia go through far worse pain, for no reason, no reward and no promise of heaven.

Quote:
I don't think you can make light of Jesus' experience or compare them to our physical suffering.

And you don't know either. I don't think you really can prove that this 'jesus' could suffer anything. I don't think you could demonstrate that he suffered more than a starving child.

Quote:

Furthermore, He didn't gain anything more except for being specifically honored as God the Son in every realm and He will live in eternity with redeemed sinners.

Gee, that's all? He's god's son, in every realm, and he will live in enternal bliss with the billions who love him?

That's all?

No gamecube? No Intendo?

What a gyp!

I mean, really... That's all? Just eternal bliss as the son of god?

Quote:

He was from eternity past a part of the Godhead, so I don't think that what He "gained" was much more of a reward than His original position afforded Him.

He didn't gain the love of billions of those he saved? He didn't gain your love and eternal thanks?

And if he refused to go on the cross, wouldn't he have lost all of this?

Quote:

The fact that He would go through what He did speaks more of His loving character than that He was somehow "seeking a reward".

I didn't ever say he was seeking a reward, only that he knew he would be rewarded.

Quote:
Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.

If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?

When you and again answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical.

Quote:

Look, if you want the blunt answer, No, I don't think I would want do it at all.

What if it were to save your own child?

Quote:

But if God wanted me to, then I guess I would.

Ok then.... then it's possible you would do it...

Quote:

What does this question prove anyway? That any person would die for sinners because it wasn't really a sacrifice?

Right.

Anyone would go on the cross, because the cross is the most incredible gift imaginable for a human

1) You get to know, without any doubt, that this god does exist.

2) You get to save billions of people

3) You get to go to heavenly bliss, where you will be adored forever

No sane person would refuse to sacrifice himself for billions of people. When you add in that there is no actual sacrifice at all, then no one at all would refuse.

Quote:

Again, the definition of sacrifice is a slaughter or offering of a life.

Without getting it back.

Quote:

You are trying to lessen the severity of Jesus ordeal by focusing on the result when you have no understanding of what He experienced.

Neither do you

And it's inconsequential anyway, unless he is still suffering this pain.... can you cite chapter and verse backing that up?

Are you saying he's still in agony?

Or you denying that heaven is bliss? The ultimate satisfaction of all desire?

Are you denying that he chose to do it freely, with love?

Do you see the problem now?

Quote:

It's like telling a war veteran that because he's now taken care of by the VA and has all his expenses paid for by the government, that his experience in the war and his sacrifice to our country wasn't really a sacrifice.

No, it is not. because having your expenses paid ain't quite the same as being the Son of God in ALL REALMS LIVING IN ETERNAL BLISS BEING LOVED BY BILLIONS.

There's a slight difference between that, and having your medical bills paid off.

Quote:
Maybe you should try that and see if they agree with your logic.

But you see, that ain't my logic... it's your strawman.

Please take note that I actually demonstrated WHY your counter claim is a strawman. Up there, with the ALL CAPS responses... I pointed a few minor differences between your analogy and my argument.

Just a few, minor differences...

A pleasure talking to you... seriously... take care.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There's no white bird

Quote:
There's no white bird here, Bigwig.

Nice use of a "Watership Down" reference. Sticking out tongue


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Somebody obviously has no

Somebody obviously has no understanding of logic....


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
GodStoleMyFriends

GodStoleMyFriends wrote:
Quote:
There's no white bird here, Bigwig.

Nice use of a "Watership Down" reference. :P

I knew someone would catch it!

And Matt - yes, I obviously agree with you. In debating theists, I've noticed that they tend to learn just enough about logic to justify their informal fallacies and irrational arguments...... they rarely if ever bother to really investigate what logical argument is... because if they did, they'd realize that the majority of their arguments are irrationa. So they tend to make the same errors which I find very interesting. Particularly the fact that several theists have now tried to use the 'circular logic is valid' argument.... a complaint that demonstrates a basic ignorance of what an argument is!

Will I have to repeat this same correction again on this board? Yes. In this same thread? I wouldn't doubt it.

A quick review

Some of of the most common errors used by theists in argument are:

Shifting the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something positive, it is never on the fallback position. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.

Tu quoque - the attempt to justify your own irrational beliefs by saying "you are irrational sometimes too!"

TU QUOQUE or "You too" fallacies, concern arguments that are used to justify or defend one's wrong-doing by claiming that an opponent has committed a similar crime. This is more commonly known as "two wrongs don't make a right."

SPECIAL PLEAD

Special pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules to others while claiming special dispensation or exemption for themselves without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Naked Assertions

A "naked" assertion is simply an assertion of one's conclusion without any evidence, proof, or other support for it.

Strawman

In the straw man fallacy, an arguer oversimplifies, or purposely distorts an opponent's argument (sets up the straw man), in order that he may attack it more easily (knock it down), and then claims that the opponent's position has been refuted.

And so on.....

And here's another thing you might notice. When an atheist arguer points out the informal fallacy in a theist's argument, the theist typically will usually respond by tossing back the same fallacy.... whatever fallacies I bring up, and support in my arguments, you'll hear them back.

I tend to like this however... it shows the theist is struggling to learn what the fallacy means.... he or she still doesn't grasp it, and they usually still can't work out that you're supposed to demonstrate why the fallacy occurred... but at least it shows a general curiosity into logic.

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
My understanding of

My understanding of sacrifice was that this was something the Jews did as a means of atoinment for a sin (transgression of god(s) law). If I violated the law, my punishment was that I had sacrafice something dear or costly to me, e.g.- 10% of my crops or some of my best cattle, etc.

How is it a sacrifice to me if someone I don't know or even like is put to death? What did it cost me? Nothing. Then by defination, it's not a sacrafice.

Most xian's claim that Jesus's death was a sacrifice God made by allowing Jesus, "his only begotten son", to be killed for man's sins. Can God make a sacrifice to himself?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's just

Quote:
That's just ridiculous. If you are going to redefine the word 'sacrifice', then what's the point of using the term?

Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back. If you retrieve something after losing it, you've no longer lost it, right? It was lost, but now you have it back.

To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.

I meant that we agreed on the first part of the definition as far as a loss or relinquishment. Where your analysis false short is in the portion which states that it can never be returned. There is nothing in the biblical definition that prohibits God from giving the sacrifice back to the giver. I gave you a specific instance where it actually was reciprocated in Leviticus which you obviously ignored. So your entire position is a straw man. You have concocted your own definition where the sacrifice must only involve a permanent loss of life. The biblical definition does not require this.

Quote:
Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.

To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....

One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.

I know this is a complex topic, but you have to realize that getting what you've 'lost' right back can't be a sacrifice, especially when you know you're gonna get it back all along.

So, like I said, you are making up your own definition and then citing how the bible doesn't fit with it (straw man). I will repeat what I said: the idea of sacrifice in the OT involves the loss of a possession with the promise that God would provide the person offering the sacrifice with either an equivalent amount or more of the original offering.

When people gave God the first fruit of their harvest and livestock, He always gave them more in return.

I thought that we agreed earlier about using definitions that are derived from the text? Are you changing your mind since the biblical definition doesn't help your case?

Quote:
I've already explained why this is circular logic, and why it is not circular logic for me to show where the bible contradicts itself, so I would appreciate if you read over that first.

It doesn't 'bother me', it's just that it is irrational, so your claim is not justified. So there's no point in it. To say "X, therefore X!" proves nothing.... you are just reasserting.

And I've already explained to you why circular logic is a fallacy: because circular arguments simply assume their own conclusions, they don't support them. So again, please read this over. Saying X, therefore, X! proves nothing.

Saying X is like Y, Y is like Z, therefore X is like Z is proving something... that X is equivalent to Z. I'll go into more details below.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. To me, it seems as though we are starting out with the debate centered around a certain verse or theological concept that is "contradictory". We are not attempting to determine the validity of the bible as a whole per se, but only the portion we are addressing. When we examine the verse, it is necessary to look at every piece of evidence either in favor or against it. Just like when people on here try to state the the biblical authors thought the world was flat, they cited several verses from several different biblical authors to make their case. And I agree with their methods since if there are other verses that clarify the meaning of the concept or verse we are discussing, it should be admissible to the debate.

It's like we are looking at a piece of a puzzle and trying to determine if it actually fits in with the whole. When I attempt to fit the piece with other parts of the puzzle to allow us to see if it truly does mesh, you cry foul and instead want to continue to ponder the piece separately and attempt to make a determination about it out side of it's context. In essence you are switching your argument in mid-sentence from examining the specific verses to the questioning the validity of the book as a whole when this was not the original argument. In my opinion, you are committing the fallacy of composition by asserting that if one part of the bible is questionable, the entire bible is.

If you were truly an honest skeptic, you would allow as much information from the source as possible before making your determination and you wouldn't discount the information ahead of time. However, you don't want to do this because it will weaken your case. So instead, you try to prevent all the information from coming to light by obfuscating (don't you just love that word?) the issue with a bunch of tangents on how I am violation logical fallacies.

Like I said before, I don't really care if you think I'm irrational. Just because you and every other Atheist think you are reasonable and we Theists are not does not make it so.

Quote:

Sorry, but the last century of critical examination of objectivity and bias debunks that nonsense. As objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... as much as you might try to get a grasp at what the author's intent is, your bias is part of the process.

As are your motivations.

Well, one might say that irrationalism is quite a log in your eye....

Again, as objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... I don't see anything here that counters this.

I didn't counter it. I was merely pointing out that you too have biased interpretations and motives. My hope was that perhaps you would be able to see that you are falling victim to your own accusation.

Quote:
And you pick and choose which parts to cite for your definition, and which parts not to cite, just as you pick and choose which version of the bible you use and not to use, and so on.... so the 'bible's definition' is actually your verson of the bible's definition....

See the problem with just assuming that 'the bible says it" now?

See how your own interpretation is necessarily involved? See why we need critical thinking to deal with this?

Because another christian will use the 'same' bible to say something different. You already know that... in fact, you christians have a saying "even the devil can cite scripture on his own behalf...."

The definition I offered was from the Thayer's lexicon. If you have a different lexicon that you wish to cite be my guest. But don't offer your own manufactured definition as the only logical choice and then proceed to attempt to disprove the bible with it.

And what exactly does the latter half of your argument have to do with anything? I'm not discussing scripture with a Christian and you have offered no alternative biblical definition of sacrifice. So why the rant?

You seem to be implying that I am somehow "twisting" scripture to back up my claims. If this is the case, then I would appreciate if you would explain exactly how I did this and why it does not fit with scriptural hermeneutics.

Quote:
Quote:

Here is the definition of sacrifice:

a) (Qal)
1) to slaughter for sacrifice


Well, this is only a circular definition - it uses the term. It only refers to killing.
Quote:

2) to slaughter for eating

Well, this is refering to a method of food acquisition..... !

Quote:

3) to slaughter in divine judgment

This again only refers to killing.... this time, in the sake of 'divine judgement'
Quote:

And here is the definition of offering:
1) gift, tribute, offering, present, oblation, sacrifice, meat offering
a) gift, present
b) tribute
c) offering (to God)
d) grain offering

Ah, a gift or present.

Here's a definition of the word 'gift':

Something given voluntarily without payment in return.

Can you say 'checkmate'?

No payment in return. A loss. You don't get a gift back! Do you give gifts expecting your gift back?

Quote:

No where does it say that if you give something to God, it cannot be returned to you

The part where it says 'gift' -offering....

Thanks for checkmating yourself, makes it easier on me.

Again, when we sacrifice X, and get back Y, we properly sacrifice. But if we sacrifice X and get back X times infinity, then we have sacrificed nothing. We've simply been prudent!

Ok, so again, these definitions are from a biblical lexicon, so you can accuse Thayer of circular reasoning...better yet, why don't you just say that all dictionaries use circular reasoning since most of them use synonyms in their definitions.

Anyway, you are building your straw man back up again by stating that a gift cannot be given back when offered. That is your view, not the biblical one. The biblical definition of gift is usually accompanied by the promise of a greater gift or blessing in return. So you are not adhering to the biblical definition, but instead are making up your own and then using it to disprove something the bible does not even teach.

If Jesus offered His life to God, then God had every right to give it back if He chose to do so. I don't see why you are the one who gets to decide what God should have done with the gift Jesus gave Him. Did you even read the link I gave to you? Here it is again: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html. The author really does explain it very well. Please read it.

Quote:
Seriously, if you want to cry 'strawman' then you might try to point one out next time, rather than just assert it.

The straw man is that you are using your definition to disprove something that is not being asserted.

I told you that the definition of sacrifice is a theological in this context. Gift is not any different, but you are placing demands on the definition of gift that aren't necessary. Gifts can be returned without insult to the giver, the bible is full of such instances.

Furthermore, if Jesus offered His perfect life to God and paid the penalty that was required, why does He need to continue to suffer for all eternity just because YOU think He should? If someone offered you a gift of infinite worth and you only needed a fraction of it, would you really keep the rest even if it caused the giver to suffer needlessly? That would be sheer cruelty to the one who offered you the gift. Why would God do that?

Quote:
Quote:

Well, if I can't assume God exists, then it really is a waste of time arguing about it huh?

No, not at all. When people set out to support a claim rationally, they don't start out just assuming it is true! The actively seek supports for their claim.

Everyone has presuppositions, I'm no different. The problem is that you think you are. I hate to tell you, but you assume that God doesn't exist and then actively seek to support your claim. So how are you more rational?

Quote:
You're just begging the question that they were the ones 'who understood that Isaiah was referring to christ!"

Why? Well, ask yourself: How do you actually know this? How could you prove it?

You can only assume it! But you're assuming your conclusion when you assume it!

Circular logic.

Do you see it?

My basis for determining that the NT authors understood that Isaiah referred to Christ is that they quoted passages from Isaiah and applied them to Christ. How is that an assumption?

Furthermore, I don't think that I would ever be able to convince you "rationally" of anything biblical because you won't agree that any of my methods are rational. If the bible can't be used to clarify my position and I can't presuppose the existence of God, then I have no other means of communicating my position to you. So I resign myself to the fact that you will continue to assert that I am irrational and use circular logic. Not that I agree with you in any way or that I could ever prove otherwise since you reject any means by which I could convince you.

But one thing I want you to seriously consider is that if my position is correct (i.e. God is real, the bible is His word, and all of it is true) then you would be the irrational one. Just a thought.

Quote:
Consider that the more parsimonious explanation was that they used books like Isaiah to create their story. That they turned his writing into 'prophecies' - even when a more sober reading tells us that they were not prophecies at all

Such as :

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy.

So this again demonstrates a more parsimonious explanation of the 'gospels': that the gospel writers created a midrash.... they cobbled together a story using the OT, turning parts of the OT into 'prophecies' that they 'fulfilled' with their stories.

Well, that is a very interesting theory. Too bad it's equally as unprovable as you state mine is. At least when I take the bible at face value, I'm not accusing the writers of being total and complete liars. And I thought that all Americans stood by the motto "Innocent until proven guilty"...I guess not.

Anyway, it seems rather strange that these biblical authors would get all nit picky and write incessantly about not lying, being immoral and not sinning because it was evil when, according to you, they were nothing more than liars themselves.

It's more likely that these people witnessed the Life of a Person Whom they deemed to be God in the flesh by His miracles and words. And that they carefully recorded this event in History using passages from what they deemed to be God's word to back up His claims.

I'm sure Rook has a thread devoted to Isaiah somewhere around here, so I'll address your accusations there when I have time.

Quote:
Again with this strawman version of logic. This is incorrect. Let me explain again..... the very point of a deductive argument is to hold that TWO things are equivalent to each other.
So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!

So can you apply all of this to the issue at hand. I'm not making the connection here. I'm not asserting the bible is true because the bible says it's true. I am stating that verse A means this and verses B , C, and D back it up. Therefore I am proving something. If you want to determine that the premise I've proven is not true or not possible, that's a different argument altogether. See what I mean about switching your argument in mid sentence?

You've already determined that the whole of the bible is false and therefore inadmissible. There is no way for me to correct your interpretation by bringing more information to light because you've already decided I can't, so you've effectively ended the debate before it can begin.

Quote:
I started out life as a christian. I read the bible from the presumption it was true, and realized that it could not be true becuase it was contradictory.

But the stronger point is this: I can assume the bible is true, and still come to the conclusion that it is false, by way of recognizing contradictions.

Maybe you aren't interpreting it correctly and there are no contradictions. So you're spending your time debunking contradictions that are figments of your imagination. I'm sad about that.

Quote:
So you're claim is false. There is no symmetry here. There's no white bird here, Bigwig. It doesn't matter which presumption, if any, you start out with. Contradictions are necessarily false.

You're right, there is no symmetry because you aren't sticking to the original argument.

Quote:
AH If worse comes to worse... in other words, even if my argument is true!

In other words, even if I prove you are being irrational, you'll respond to this by being more irrational - you'll stick to your gut feeling, no matter what.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this refreshing bit of honesty and directness.

No matter what I say, right or wrong, you'll hold to your beliefs in a dogmatic fashion.

I really should just stop here, shouldn't I?

Smiling

No, if worse comes to worse means that even if you are wrong about me being irrational and you can't see it, I will still continue to assert what I know to be true. Even if you should accuse me all the day long of being logically fallacious, that doesn't make it so. Like I said, depending on who's right, you could just as easily be the irrational one in this situation.

Quote:
So then, it's best to be as rational as we can be, it's best to be open to learning new things about ourselves. It's best not to insist that even if we are proven wrong, we'll still cling to our beliefs anway.

Right?

Smiling

The fact that everyone is biased doesn't give you the right to wallow in your own bias, Sara. The fact that everyone is biased ought to compel all of us to try and combat bias, not wallow in it, coz 'you're biased too'

That's a tuo quoque fallacy.

You do like to make an incorrect conclusion and run with it don't you? I am merely pointing out that biases are inherent. You have them, I have them. I don't deny it and try to pretend that I am some neutral party here that is just looking for some good conversation. While I can put myself in your position and see your point of view, that doesn't mean I have to accept your interpretation as being more rational than mine.

Quote:
Well, let's see... you just said that even if I demonstrate that you are irrational, you'll just not care. Is that 'honesty"? Well we can say that you are honest about your dishonesty....

So, I'm not so sure that I'm less honest than you. But you can be honest, and so can I, so let's just leave it at that, why not?

Well, this very quotation proves my point. You put words in my mouth and then went on to form some lopsided conclusion. Nice, this gives me real insight into how you must interpret scripture.

Quote:

I think I've demonstrated otherwise. And again, tuo quoque is not a rational defense... "you're wrong, so I can be wrong too' isn't a rational means of holding to beliefs....

FYI, I'm not stating "you're wrong, so I can be wrong." I'm simply pointing out that you have biases and perhaps, just perhaps, they are causing you to misinterpret scripture. It's something to consider in light of YOUR statement that everyone has biases and interprets scripture through their warped lens.

Quote:
The most parsimonious explanation is that Isaiah was writing for his own time, and that the gospel writers used his works as a midrash, to justify their own god claims. They made prophecies of Isaiah's writings, made them apply to their 'jesus' of their own creation....Again, it's more parsimonious to say that the writers used it in a 'midrash' - a reformulation of OT stories.
There's no question begging there, and please remember, when I hold that you are begging the question, I actually have the courtesty to demonstrate why, so you can at least examine my thinking and respond.

You are assuming the Gospel writers were liars ahead of time and then going on to conclude that they manufactured a fake Jesus. This seems to be a blatant case of begging the question since you are making an assertion in your premise that hasn't been proven and then simply making a conclusion based on it. Satisfied?

Quote:

For example:

If I flick the light switch, a fairy flies to the bulb and turns the electricity on.

If I flick the light switch, electricity courses through the wires and turns the bulb on.

No matter whether there are faires or not, the second theory is more parsimonious, because it involves less problematic entities.

Since you were not a witness to Jesus life and miracles, we only have the Gospel accounts, history, and our reason to draw from. It seems that Jesus was able to convince a large number of pretty reluctant people that He was able to perform "supernatural" fetes and also that He was God in human form. So it seems as though your "fairy explanation" hardly applies. What is the rational and parsimonious explanation for a man who was born blind having received his sight and Lazarus who was dead being resurrected? I guess you would probably deny these events occurred.

Furthermore, I can find more problems with your "parsimonious" explanation than with simply accepting the account as factual. You have to first believe that the Gospel writers were liars and had some ulterior motive for creating a fictitious figure such as Jesus which by all accounts gave them no Earthly benefits. Then they went on to be ostracized from their communities and eventually die for their false beliefs. Yeah, that sounds way more rational.

Quote:
Jesus.. died physically

He didn't come back then?

I thought you christians didn't value the soma anyway - I thought you guys held it to be corrupt, sinful...

Christ was sinless and was as perfect a man as could be born of a woman. He didn't have a sinful or corrupt body. It was pretty close to the one Adam had before he sinned.

Also, Jesus was resurrected in His own body, but it was changed to that of a Heavenly one. Meaning it was physical, but capable of things our body is not.

Quote:

Is he dead spiritually?

No, but He did taste death for every man which means He experienced something akin to it, though on an exponential level.

Quote:
Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Since you are not God and you don't know what it's like to have never experienced any sin in all your existence and to then endure death, shame, hatred from your creation, beatings, crucifixion, and taking the penalty of their spiritual death upon yourself, it seems that you should not pretend as if you understand what He experienced.

Because you live in a fallen world that comes face to face with some of these horrors daily, you have become dull to them and cannot see how awful it must have been for a perfect loving and sinless being to go through what He did. So you cite the worst example you can think of , an innocent suffering a vile ordeal, without realizing that you are describing the very thing that Jesus DID experience, though His was on an infinitely higher scale.

Just because Jesus knew the outcome, does not make the act or the ordeal any less, it just made Him WILLING to endure it. He knew that we would be lost forever with no one to save us. We would endure eternity in Hell because of our own actions.

So He saved us because He loves us, not because He gained anything more than He already had. This is why when you give something to God, it is more a sign of our faith than of anything. How do you give something to Someone Who made everything? What does God need that He doesn't already possess? Nothing. So you see, Jesus already had everything to begin with.

Quote:
When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.
You keep asserting this, but you can't demonstrate it. You can't show what he lost, no can you prove what 'pain' he went through. And even if he did, you can't prove that it's more painful than a mother watching her child die from leukemia, without any reason for it, and without any guarentee that he'll 'go to heaven'

People die in pain every day, for no reason, for no reward, with no promises.

Yes, but the irony is that this doesn't need to be the case. People who are suffering and dying in this life COULD have the comfort of knowing they will enter eternal bliss for doing nothing more than truly believing in Christ!

While I believe that children are a special case since, up to a certain age, most are incapable of really knowing right from wrong in a spiritual sense. It very well may be that children who die do go to heaven, though I can only cite scripture references for this and you will probably discount them anyway.

Quote:
Aren't I dead spiritualy, according to you?

According to the bible, yes. Your carnal mind is at enmity with God and hence the reason why you deny His existence even though you know deep down that He is real. You may seek to vehemently fight against the truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Quote:

And you don't know either. I don't think you really can prove that this 'jesus' could suffer anything. I don't think you could demonstrate that he suffered more than a starving child.

Ah, so you admit that you don't know. That's brilliant. I guess that means your whole argument has toppled, huh?

As for my proving that Jesus suffered, you don't seem to be willing to accept the biblical verses that state He did and I can't seem to reason with you on it. Though I like the fact that you finally admit your ignorance of His ordeal. So why do you keep on with your argument?

Quote:

Gee, that's all? He's god's son, in every realm, and he will live in enternal bliss with the billions who love him?

That's all?

No gamecube? No Intendo?

What a gyp!

I mean, really... That's all? Just eternal bliss as the son of god?

He didn't gain the love of billions of those he saved? He didn't gain your love and eternal thanks?

And if he refused to go on the cross, wouldn't he have lost all of this?

Anyone would go on the cross, because the cross is the most incredible gift imaginable for a human

1) You get to know, without any doubt, that this god does exist.

2) You get to save billions of people

3) You get to go to heavenly bliss, where you will be adored forever

No sane person would refuse to sacrifice himself for billions of people. When you add in that there is no actual sacrifice at all, then no one at all would refuse.

Like I said, He was restored to His original position, you don't seem to be able to grasp that. He already possesses everything and has need of nothing. The more amazing fact is that He left His abode of bliss and endured what He did for ingrates like us. It's incredible.

I think you are missing a very important fact, though. You think that humans are the only beings who are capable of loving and praising God. There are multitudes of angels in Heaven that worship Him day and night. Do you really think that He "needs" our love? No, but He made the sacrifice for us anyway because He is love.

Quote:

And it's inconsequential anyway, unless he is still suffering this pain.... can you cite chapter and verse backing that up?

I thought I couldn't use the bible to prove the bible. But if you must know, He does still bear the scars of His ordeal John 20:25-29 and Revelation 5:6.

Quote:
Are you saying he's still in agony?

Or you denying that heaven is bliss? The ultimate satisfaction of all desire?

Are you denying that he chose to do it freely, with love?

Do you see the problem now?

No, no, no and no.

Quote:
No, it is not. because having your expenses paid ain't quite the same as being the Son of God in ALL REALMS LIVING IN ETERNAL BLISS BEING LOVED BY BILLIONS.

There's a slight difference between that, and having your medical bills paid off.

No, it isn't. You are again confusing the result with the experience. Why do you keep doing that? I was trying to get across to you that the result does not negate the what the person suffered. You may not like the analogy, but it is basically the same idea: Someone experiences a horrifying ordeal and receives something that isn't much more than they already had.

Quote:
A pleasure talking to you... seriously... take care.

Are you being nice, or is this just sarcasm? It's hard to tell.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote: To

Sara wrote:
Quote:
To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.

I meant that we agreed on the first part of the definition as far as a loss or relinquishment.

Which means that if you know you're going to get back what you've supposedly sacrificed, then there was no sacrifice, as there was no loss and not even an expectation of a loss!

To 'lose' something with the expectation of getting it right back is not a sacrifice!

It's just astonishing how you have to warp words to keep ahold of your dogma...

Quote:

Where your analysis false short is in the portion which states that it can never be returned.

Incorrect, I demonstrated otherwise in my last post.

Right here:

Quote:
Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.

To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....

One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.

I know this is a complex topic, but you have to realize that getting what you've 'lost' right back can't be a sacrifice, especially when you know you're gonna get it back all along.

Quote:

So, like I said, you are making up your own definition

No. Actually, you're wrong. I cited the dictionary here:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

Please pay more attention while reading.

This is a dictionary definition. And before you say "But we need a theological defintion" - your supposed theological analysis of the word determined that sacrifice involves an offering or gift. THOSE WORDS ALSO IMPLY A SURRENDER, A LOSS.

So your 'theological analysis' only came right back to the dictionary definition!

So pick your poison. You're either wrong, or your wrong.

Quote:

and then citing how the bible doesn't fit with it (straw man).

No, it's not a strawman, that's the proper definition. And, astonishingly enough, I have to point out that your own analysis of the word 'sacrifice' concluded that sacrifice was an offering or a "gift' - which involves a loss!

And this was the conclusion of YOUR OWN ANALYSIS!

So there's not strawman here. YOUR OWN DEFINITION IS BEING USED! A loss.

Here's a definition of the word 'gift':

Something given voluntarily without payment in return.

dictionary.com

Quote:

I thought that we agreed earlier about using definitions that are derived from the text?

We did and that's just what we did. What is wrong with you? We're discussing the conclusion of your own analysis - a gift, an offering.
According to definition that YOU yourself pulled from the bible, a sacrifice was a gift.

Which is a loss.

Seriously, spend more time reading over what you yourself write....

Quote:
Are you changing your mind since the biblical definition doesn't help your case?

Do you have some sort of serious reading comprehension problem?!

I'm not changing my mind, I'm showing you how your own definition defeats you! Because a gift or an offering is precisely what I've said that sacrifcie is all along - a loss.

YOUR OWN ANALYSIS determined that it meant gift/offering! This was your own analysis! So according to your OWN ANALYSIS, sacrifice is a gift. An offering

And a gift involves a loss. Do you go to parties and take your gift back at the end?

So I can't fathom why you are so confused. Is it because the biblical definition doesn't help your case?

.

Quote:
I've already explained why this is circular logic, and why it is not circular logic for me to show where the bible contradicts itself, so I would appreciate if you read over that first.

It doesn't 'bother me', it's just that it is irrational, so your claim is not justified. So there's no point in it. To say "X, therefore X!" proves nothing.... you are just reasserting.

And I've already explained to you why circular logic is a fallacy: because circular arguments simply assume their own conclusions, they don't support them. So again, please read this over. Saying X, therefore, X! proves nothing.

Saying X is like Y, Y is like Z, therefore X is like Z is proving something... that X is equivalent to Z. I'll go into more details below.

Quote:

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree.

Then you are being illogical. Circular logic is an informal fallacy, because it doesn't demonstrate anything... it merely assumes it's own conclusion. Saying "X, therefore, X" proves nothing.

Quote:

If you were truly an honest skeptic, you would allow as much information from the source as possible

And I do. But citing the bible to 'prove the bible' is a circular logic fallacy. I've already explained why this is so. Several times now.

But if you want to talk about bible claims, be my guest. Talk all you like. Just don't use your conclusions as a premise in your own arguments, and expect to get away with it.

See the difference yet?

Quote:

Like I said before, I don't really care if you think I'm irrational.

Again, I don't just think it, I've demonstrated it. You've tried to argue that circular logic is acceptable, because it's 'valid'. This demonstrates a flawed understanding of logic.

I showed that the only reason that it is valid is because it uses it's own conclusion as a premise! It says X, therefore X!

And the fact that you don't care that you are being irrational just says it all... it just tells us who is being the stubborn one here...

But then again, your refusal to accept what the words 'sacrifice' and 'gift' mean already tell us that.

Quote:

Well, one might say that irrationalism is quite a log in your eye....

Again, as objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... I don't see anything here that counters this.

Quote:

I didn't counter it. I was merely pointing out that you too have biased interpretations and motives.

No kidding. But your pointing this out is a tu quoque fallacy if you use this fact to justify your own irrationalism.

Look. All that matters is whether our arguments are justified. Whether our arguments are sound.

Quote:

And what exactly does the latter half of your argument have to do with anything? I'm not discussing scripture with a Christian and you have offered no alternative biblical definition of sacrifice.

I don't have to. The one you cited refuted yourself. You determined it meant gift or offering. You don't take back an offering and still
call it an offering. You don't take back gifts and still call it a gift.

You're own analysis refuted you. I'm using your own analysis.

Quote:

You seem to be implying that I am somehow "twisting" scripture to back up my claims.

You're confused again. I pointed out that your own definition refuted you. I'm not saying that you're twisting scripture... at least not in this case..... what I am saying is that according to your analysis, sacrifice involves an offering, a gift... this means a loss.

So you are actually contradicting yourself here.

The end result of your 'theological analysis' of the word 'sacrifice determined that it is a gift, an offering.... which is precisely the same as a loss, a surrender... we're right back to where I started... your own analysis refuted you.

I can't believe I have to keep pointing this out.

Quote:
Quote:

Here is the definition of sacrifice:

a) (Qal)
1) to slaughter for sacrifice


Well, this is only a circular definition - it uses the term. It only refers to killing.
Quote:

2) to slaughter for eating

Well, this is refering to a method of food acquisition..... !

Quote:

3) to slaughter in divine judgment

This again only refers to killing.... this time, in the sake of 'divine judgement'
Quote:

And here is the definition of offering:
1) gift, tribute, offering, present, oblation, sacrifice, meat offering
a) gift, present
b) tribute
c) offering (to God)
d) grain offering

Ah, a gift or present.

Here's a definition of the word 'gift':

Something given voluntarily without payment in return.

Can you say 'checkmate'?

No payment in return. A loss. You don't get a gift back! Do you give gifts expecting your gift back?

Quote:

No where does it say that if you give something to God, it cannot be returned to you

The part where it says 'gift' -offering....

Thanks for checkmating yourself, makes it easier on me.

Again, when we sacrifice X, and get back Y, we properly sacrifice. But if we sacrifice X and get back X times infinity, then we have sacrificed nothing. We've simply been prudent!

Quote:

Ok, so again, these definitions are from a biblical lexicon, so you can accuse Thayer of circular reasoning.

I didn't accuse you of circular reasoning here. Please slow down and read more carefully.

I just told you, that your own definiton, refutes your own argument.

If a sacrifice is an offering, a gift, then it involves a loss.

Obviously.

A drunk at the bar could see it.

And you're obviously smart...

So I can only interpret your reticence as dogmatic thinking.

Quote:
Anyway, you are building your straw man back up again by stating that a gift cannot be given back when offered.

Your own words here are a strawman. Unlike you, I'll actually demonstrate why.

I never said "a gift cannot be given back when offered!" That statement only exists in your confused imaginatin.

Yes, a person can give a gift back.. but the point of a gift is that people don't give gifts, fully expecting to get them right back! The intention of a gift is give up something. An offering is not supposed to be given with the anticipation that it will be returned.

But your "Jesus' knows he will not lose his life, and that he will go to bliss! He knows he cannot lose anything.

Yet a sacrifice is a loss - a person who 'makes a sacrifice' knowing he will lose nothing, cannot be sacrificing!

Quote:
Seriously, if you want to cry 'strawman' then you might try to point one out next time, rather than just assert it.

Quote:

The straw man is that you are using your definition to disprove something that is not being asserted.

First of all, all you are doing here is defining the term strawman'. You're not demonstrating where I created one.

Next, I have to point out for the 100th time that I used your own definition against you. So you're calling your own definiton a strawman. You said it was a gift, an offering... those involve loss.

Yes, of course you can give a gift right back, but if the person KNOWS ahead of time that they will get the gift back, if one EXPECTS that they will get their 'gift' back right from the start, then there is NO sacrifice!

Quote:

I told you that the definition of sacrifice is a theological in this context.

And the theological context that you gave was gift/offering.

Which makes 'sacrifice' the same as it reads in a dictionary.

Which means that 'sacrifice' means precisely what we all thought it meant, all along. Making your entire argument pointless.

Unless of course, you want to now redefine 'gift' in a 'theological context' Smiling

Perhaps eventually we'll redefine every word in the english language...

Quote:

If Jesus offered His life to God, then God had every right to give it back if He chose to do so.

Then what did jesus sacrifice?! You're just proving my point: nothing was lost and this jesus must know ahead of time that nothing would be lost. To sacrifice, even according to you and your 'theological definition', is to offer/gift.... if you know you're not losing anything, then you're not sacrificing...

So you've refuted yourself here.. I see no reason to continue this argument, as you've checkmated yourself.

I'm going to separate the other part as another post.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Continued, different

Continued, different subject(s)

Quote:

Everyone has presuppositions, I'm no different.

Even if this is true, no one is justified in holding to presuppositions that violate everything we know of nature. There's no rational justification for them.

Whereas other presuppositions don't contradict what we already know of the world.

There are rational justifications for them, such as Pragmatism.

So using the fact that everyone holds to presuppositions as a justification for your own is a tu quoque fallacy. What matters is whether or not your presuppositions are rational.

Of course, you're free to presuppose that irrationalism is the way to go....

Quote:

My basis for determining that the NT authors understood that Isaiah referred to Christ is that they quoted passages from Isaiah and applied them to Christ. How is that an assumption?

How do you know their understanding was rational? Or justified? How do you know their mindset?

How do you know that they didn't just build a story from Isaiah? How do you know that they didn't just use Isaiah to make up their jesus story in the first place?

Quote:

Furthermore, I don't think that I would ever be able to convince you "rationally" of anything

Sure you could. Argue rationally, and I'll be convinced. Don't just assume I'm irrational because I disagree with you. That's self serving, and irrational itself.

I don't just assume that about you.. I assume you are rational, otherwise, what's the point of discussion? And when I make a claim about your arguments being irrational, I demonstrate it.

At the same time, I don't presuppose that you yourself are irrational. Just dogmatic about your religion.

Quote:

But one thing I want you to seriously consider is that if my position is correct (i.e. God is real, the bible is His word, and all of it is true) then you would be the irrational one.

So, I should just seriously consider that I'm wrong? Ok. Thanks for the advice.

Quote:
Consider that the more parsimonious explanation was that they used books like Isaiah to create their story. That they turned his writing into 'prophecies' - even when a more sober reading tells us that they were not prophecies at all

Such as :

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy.

So this again demonstrates a more parsimonious explanation of the 'gospels': that the gospel writers created a midrash.... they cobbled together a story using the OT, turning parts of the OT into 'prophecies' that they 'fulfilled' with their stories.

Quote:

Well, that is a very interesting theory.

Thank you.

Quote:

Too bad it's equally as unprovable as you state mine is.


Is it?

My theory is more parsimonious. That's already one plus on my side.

And here's another reason to doubt:

Look at Matthew, chapter 21, verses four and five. In those chapters are irrefutible proof that the matthew writer merely took from the Markian source and from the Old testament to tell his story, and did not ever witness anything.

In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Based on his MISREADING of Zechariah 9:9

9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew misreads the original and has jesus riding TWO animals when the original writer only meant one!

This is proof that the matthew author took stories from the OT, and that he did NOT actually witness the events he wrote on!

Since the book of mark, the first gospel, is clearly a midrash of the OT - we can clearly see that most of the claims are simply stories taken from books of the old testament. So this refutes the idea that ANY of the gospels are eye witness accounts:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.html

Now: since we are discussing scripture, you're obviously free to use scripture to argue back...

Quote:

At least when I take the bible at face value, I'm not accusing the writers of being total and complete liars.

And neither am I, that's a strawman of my argument. Each writer might well have felt that there was an ultimate truth behind their stories... they didn't have to 'lie'... they could have really felt that there was an important truth to the 'story' they were telling.

Quote:

And I thought that all Americans stood by the motto "Innocent until proven guilty"...I guess not.

You're misapplying the concept of jurisprudence here, when the matter involves assertions.

This is about justified belief and proof or evidence. You can't just assume something is true without proof. That's the fallacy of naked assertion. Look it up.

Quote:

It's more likely that these people witnessed the Life of a Person Whom they deemed to be God in the flesh by His miracles and words.

No, it's not more likely. No supernatural claim is more parsimonious than a natural one.

These writers, except for John, all took from Mark... and Mark's work is midrash. There isn't any compelling reason to hold that these were aged eye witnesses, actually writing down distant memories...

As for "john', eveyone agrees that this 'gospel' came last... making the idea that it was an eyewitness account simply insane....

Quote:
Again with this strawman version of logic. This is incorrect. Let me explain again..... the very point of a deductive argument is to hold that TWO things are equivalent to each other.

So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!


Quote:

So can you apply all of this to the issue at hand. I'm not making the connection here.

Ok, thank you for asking so nicely. You stated that

1) all (deductive) arguments are tautologies anyway
2) that cirular logic was valid.

And I pointed out that the fact that they are valid in no way means that they demonstrate anything, ergo pointing out that circular logic is valid is demonstrative of a poor understanding of logic

Yes. Repetition is a valid form.

Does it demonstrate anything?

No. Because it merely repeats itself, it merely uses it's own conclusion as a premise.

Quote:

I'm not asserting the bible is true because the bible says it's true. I am stating that verse A means this and verses B , C, and D back it up. Therefore I am proving something.

First of all, you are ignoring that you attempted to defend circular logic, earlier on, by holding it was valid. That was wrongheaded. Because circular logic isn't a formal fallacy to begin with! (Validity refers to logical form)

So let's not just ignore that, OK?

Next, if you use a claim in the bible to prove the credibility of the bible, then you're just arguing in a circle.

However, if you say "the bible says X, and by that, it means Y" and then you cite passages Z, AA, BB, to demonstrate that, then you're not necessarily arguing in a circle - assuming that your interpretations of the passages themselves involve begging the question...

So yes, your example here is NOT necessarily a circular logic fallacy.

But this has nothing to do with:

1) your initial argument that justified circular logic because the form is valid

2) Any case where you do use the bible to justify the bible.

3) Any case where you simply beg the question that X, Y and Z, support W.

Quote:

You've already determined that the whole of the bible is false and therefore inadmissible.

No. What I am saying is that, ultimately, trying to use the bible to justify the bible is circular.

If I've determined that the bible's key claims are false, I've done so based on a logical analysis of it... not just a dogmatic rejection of it.

Quote:
There is no way for me to correct your interpretation by bringing more information to light

You can use scripture to 'correct my interpretation" if you like... but the truth is, you've already proven that no matter what the scripture says, you'll simply redefine the words until it fits your present need. So the real problem is that your argument style is to beg the question, to assume your conclusion and use that to interpret everything else.... if you get a round peg, the conclusion that it must fit into a square holes leads you to chisel the peg to conform.... that's the problem.

Theists typically rely on two tools - two complaints, really:

"Translation error!"

And

"Out of context"

The problem is that this method of arguing is often irrational, it often ends up circular... whatever the theist wants, is what it says....

And the reason is that it's entirely ad hoc... there's no consistent, rational, non arbitrary method behind it... the truth is: whatever the theist wants to prove, is what the passage will eventually say... once you're done redefinging everything. Need a square peg, and only have a round one? Well, it must really be square somehow....

So this ultimately is why it is so pointless. You know that 'even the devil can cite scripture on his own behalf' and the reason is that through 'translation error ' and 'out of context' you can make round pegs fit square holes as long as you're determined enough...

Quote:
I started out life as a christian. I read the bible from the presumption it was true, and realized that it could not be true becuase it was contradictory.

But the stronger point is this: I can assume the bible is true, and still come to the conclusion that it is false, by way of recognizing contradictions.

Quote:

Maybe you aren't interpreting it correctly and there are no contradictions.

And maybe you're dogmatic need to believe this helps you warp the meaning of words until contradictions disapear. Or until all the pegs are jammed into their 'proper' holes....

The idea that there are not internal or external contradictions in the bible is simply insanity masquerading as piety....

Quote:
So you're claim is false. There is no symmetry here. There's no white bird here, Bigwig. It doesn't matter which presumption, if any, you start out with. Contradictions are necessarily false.

Quote:

You're right, there is no symmetry because you aren't sticking to the original argument.

Sigh.

There's no symmetry here because it doesn't matter whether I start out thinking the bible is true or false... if i am rational, i will see the contradictions, even if I don't want to see them.

But if I take the next step into ad hocism, then I'm sunk... if you're commited enough, you can make anything appear to work.... and yet, that's exactly what theism asks of you... faith..belief no matter what....

And that's precisely why you're on the problematic side of the equation here...

Quote:
AH If worse comes to worse... in other words, even if my argument is true!

In other words, even if I prove you are being irrational, you'll respond to this by being more irrational - you'll stick to your gut feeling, no matter what.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this refreshing bit of honesty and directness.

No matter what I say, right or wrong, you'll hold to your beliefs in a dogmatic fashion.

I really should just stop here, shouldn't I?

Smiling

Quote:

No, if worse comes to worse means that even if you are wrong about me being irrational and you can't see it, I will still continue to assert what I know to be true.

I don't think you are irrational, only your arguments, and only the arguments you've given here. I bet you are rational elsewhere.

Quote:
So then, it's best to be as rational as we can be, it's best to be open to learning new things about ourselves. It's best not to insist that even if we are proven wrong, we'll still cling to our beliefs anway.

Right?

Smiling

The fact that everyone is biased doesn't give you the right to wallow in your own bias, Sara. The fact that everyone is biased ought to compel all of us to try and combat bias, not wallow in it, coz 'you're biased too'

That's a tuo quoque fallacy.

Quote:

You do like to make an incorrect conclusion and run with it don't you?

No, I try to stay out of your field of expertise.

Quote:

I am merely pointing out that biases are inherent.

Yet the reason we began this line of discussion was because you said that the 'scripture' guides the interpretation of scripture.. but now everyone has biases?

Ok, good. Glad we agree then. So you have to now concede that the claim that 'scripture interprets scripture' is bullshit... your interpretation guides what the bible says.

And you've proven this, by redefining words to fit your needs.

Thanks.

Quote:

You have them, I have them. I don't deny it and try to pretend that I am some neutral party here that is just looking for some good conversation.

This is rich!... again, the reason for this exchange was because you started out saying that scripture helps interpret scripture, and my point to you was that your own interpretation guides interpretation...

So apparently, you've taken ownership of this now... good.

Quote:
Well, let's see... you just said that even if I demonstrate that you are irrational, you'll just not care. Is that 'honesty"? Well we can say that you are honest about your dishonesty....

So, I'm not so sure that I'm less honest than you. But you can be honest, and so can I, so let's just leave it at that, why not?

Quote:

Well, this very quotation proves my point. You put words in my mouth and then went on to form some lopsided conclusion.

No, this follows and your attempt to deny it away is silly.

I've demonstrated where you've been irrational in your arguments, and you've responded by saying you don't care. I've shown that your misunderstanding of formal validity led you to defend circular logic when in fact it commits and informal fallacy - meaning that form was not an issue in the first place.... Yet you held to this position despite the fact that you clearly were not informed enough to hold to it.... you ran to it, because it bolstered up your beliefs... you ran to it, because you wanted something that made you feel right. This is irrationalism.

I've also shown that your line of discussion concerning tu quoque is also irrational.

Furthermore, you can't just assume that you are right, and that I am wrong, when I've demonstrated an error in your argument. You can't just stamp your feet and say "you're wrong, and I don't care".... that's just... well... irrational.

Quote:

I think I've demonstrated otherwise. And again, tuo quoque is not a rational defense... "you're wrong, so I can be wrong too' isn't a rational means of holding to beliefs....

Quote:

FYI, I'm not stating "you're wrong, so I can be wrong."

But it's implied in your argument. You've said similar things in this very post. I really don't even see why you'd attempt to justify anything by pointing out supposed flaws in your opponent... this entire line of thought is tu quoque....

Again, what matters is whether you justify your own claims.

Quote:
The most parsimonious explanation is that Isaiah was writing for his own time, and that the gospel writers used his works as a midrash, to justify their own god claims. They made prophecies of Isaiah's writings, made them apply to their 'jesus' of their own creation....Again, it's more parsimonious to say that the writers used it in a 'midrash' - a reformulation of OT stories.
There's no question begging there, and please remember, when I hold that you are begging the question, I actually have the courtesty to demonstrate why, so you can at least examine my thinking and respond.

Quote:

You are assuming the Gospel writers were liars ahead of time

No, I am not. Please stop commiting the errors you accuse me off... you're just wrong here, and I've already stated why. There's no need for lies or a conspiracy... they could have felt it was telling the truth all along.... after all, if jesus lived, he woulda done all those things, right?

So they could have been just like you.. no need lie, you're not a liar... you just believe, and then make everything fit your belief.

Quote:

Since you were not a witness to Jesus life and miracles, we only have the Gospel accounts, history, and our reason to draw from. It seems that Jesus was able to convince a large number of pretty reluctant people that He was able to perform "supernatural" fetes and also that He was God in human form.

And where do you get this claim from? That anyone at all witnesses this jesus?

The gospels

Circular logic. How do you know there were any witnesses at all. in the first place?

Here's a nice challenge for you.

Name ONE contemporary historical account of "jesus'

Just one. One fella or gal who was alive when Jesus supposedly lived, who wrote something down DURING that time... an actual eyewitness report written during the time....

(PS - contemporary means alive when jesus would have lived, and old enough to write and produce a work during that time.)

(PPS Please don't waste my time and cite josephus. Please.... he's not an eyewitness, wasn't even alive then.... and citing him is self refuting for reasons' I'd be glad to share...)

Quote:

Furthermore, I can find more problems with your "parsimonious" explanation than with simply accepting the account as factual. You have to first believe that the Gospel writers were liars and had some ulterior motive for creating a fictitious figure such as Jesus which by all accounts gave them no Earthly benefits.

No, I do not. Sorry. It doesn't require a lie. As for earthly benefits, who are you to say that they didn't benefit from what they wrote?

Quote:

Christ was sinless and was as perfect a man as could be born of a woman. He didn't have a sinful or corrupt body. It was pretty close to the one Adam had before he sinned.

So? Could he get a body back if he wanted?

Is he dead?

Quote:

Is he dead spiritually?

Quote:

No, but He did taste death for every man

Every person tastes death.

He supposedly 'tasted death' as a god god/man, knowing that he was saving billions.... obeying his lord.. going to heavenly bliss... and not really dying in the first place...

Quote:

which means He experienced something akin to it, though on an exponential level.

Your proof of that is? And if he experienced it at an 'experiential level' did he do it as a man, or as a god/godman? Doesn't that change things?

Remember, you stated earlier that you couldn't go on the cross, as you wouldn't be able to... but your 'jesus' could... so clearly, you yourself are saying he had some 'extra ability' to deal with it....

So, you seem to be conviently leaving this out....

And doesn't the fact that he goes to bliss sorta soften the blow?

Is he still in torment?

Quote:
Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

Quote:

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Since you are not God and you don't know what it's like to have never experienced any sin in all your existence

well then, then neither have you... right?

so how could you know either?

see the self refutation?

Quote:

and to then endure death, shame, hatred from your creation, beatings, crucifixion,

Do I even need to say that you're begging the question?

Quote:

Just because Jesus knew the outcome, does not make the act or the ordeal any less,

Just coz he knew he would go to heaven in eternal bliss, and save billions of greatful souls, it didn't make it better?

How do you know?

Do you just make up whatever helps you answer the question? Does it feel like lying to you?

Do you see how the gospel writers could have been just the same? Assuming it had to be true, finding whatever fit, and making everything else fit, no matter what...

Quote:
When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.

You keep asserting this, but you can't demonstrate it. You can't show what he lost, no can you prove what 'pain' he went through. And even if he did, you can't prove that it's more painful than a mother watching her child die from leukemia, without any reason for it, and without any guarentee that he'll 'go to heaven'

People die in pain every day, for no reason, for no reward, with no
promises.

Quote:

Yes, but the irony is that this doesn't need to be the case. People who are suffering and dying in this life COULD have the comfort of knowing they will enter eternal bliss for doing nothing more than truly believing in Christ!

But they don't have the certainty. Nor the rewards of being a christ. That's the point here.

Quote:

While I believe that children are a special case since, up to a certain age, most are incapable of really knowing right from wrong in a spiritual sense. It very well may be that children who die do go to heaven, though I can only cite scripture references for this and you will probably discount them anyway.

The point is that children die every day, in pain, without promises or rewards.

Quote:
Aren't I dead spiritualy, according to you?

Quote:

According to the bible, yes.

Well then, I seem to handle it OK. ... how come your god found it so hard? Coz it's like 'exponential when he feels it?"

wouldn't he also have expontentially better ways to deal with it too?

See how self serving your 'arguments' are?

Quote:

Your carnal mind is at enmity with God and hence the reason why you deny His existence even though you know deep down that He is real.

Well, I could say that I think that, deep down, you know there isn't a god....

But I see no reason to attack you and call you a liar... so why call me one?

Quote:

You may seek to vehemently fight against the truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.

This is where you christians go completely nutty.. why wouldnt I want to go to heaven in eternal bliss? All I have to say is 'jesus, may I?"

The reality is that there's no symmetry here either...

Quote:

And you don't know either. I don't think you really can prove that this 'jesus' could suffer anything. I don't think you could demonstrate that he suffered more than a starving child.

Quote:

Ah, so you admit that you don't know. That's brilliant.

Dearheart, try thinking straight. I said "and you don't know either"....
Which would imply neither of us could know. Which implies that if I don't know, then you don't know.

So neither of us would know.

Rendering your arguments moot.

And rendering your arguments moot is 'rather brilliant', ain't it?
Smiling

Quote:

I guess that means your whole argument has toppled, huh?

No, it means your entire argument is toppled, because by your own argument, a human couldn't know.

Do try to read more carefully. You tend to think you're refuting someone else when you refute yourself...

Quote:

As for my proving that Jesus suffered, you don't seem to be willing to accept the biblical verses that state He did

What does that prove, exactly? How isn't that circular?

Quote:

Gee, that's all? He's god's son, in every realm, and he will live in enternal bliss with the billions who love him?

That's all?

No gamecube? No Intendo?

What a gyp!

I mean, really... That's all? Just eternal bliss as the son of god?

He didn't gain the love of billions of those he saved? He didn't gain your love and eternal thanks?

And if he refused to go on the cross, wouldn't he have lost all of this?

Anyone would go on the cross, because the cross is the most incredible gift imaginable for a human

1) You get to know, without any doubt, that this god does exist.

2) You get to save billions of people

3) You get to go to heavenly bliss, where you will be adored forever

No sane person would refuse to sacrifice himself for billions of people. When you add in that there is no actual sacrifice at all, then no one at all would refuse.


Quote:

Like I said, He was restored to His original position, you don't seem to be able to grasp that.

My, oh my. Actually. that's been my argument... that he didn't lose anything. Nothing sacrificed. You don't seem able to grasp much of anything.

As for what I grasp, let's leave my sex life out of this...

Quote:

And it's inconsequential anyway, unless he is still suffering this pain.... can you cite chapter and verse backing that up?

Quote:

I thought I couldn't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't, but I'm not asking you to do that. Please read more carefuly. I asked you to prove that your own claim was biblical. This would mean that you would have to point me to scripture. This isn't arguing that the scripture is true, merely that it exists.

Please read more carefully.

Quote:

But if you must know, He does still bear the scars of His ordeal John 20:25-29 and Revelation 5:6.

Thank you for showing the references, I'll take a look.

Quote:
Are you saying he's still in agony?

Or you denying that heaven is bliss? The ultimate satisfaction of all desire?

Are you denying that he chose to do it freely, with love?

Do you see the problem now?

Quote:

No, no, no and no.

I didn't think you'd see the problem.
Sad

Quote:
No, it is not. because having your expenses paid ain't quite the same as being the Son of God in ALL REALMS LIVING IN ETERNAL BLISS BEING LOVED BY BILLIONS.

There's a slight difference between that, and having your medical bills paid off.


Quote:

No, it isn't.

Yes, there is. There's a slight difference between eternal bliss and financial solvency.

Quote:

You are again confusing the result with the experience.

Both the result and the experience are qualitatively different. Not just quantitatively different, so your analogy commits the fallacy of false analogy.

Quote:

I was trying to get across to you that the result does not negate the what the person suffered.

And you are wrong. Because the result you used was self serving... it was only finite, it was not equal to the loss.

But any INFINITE REWARD is necessarily INFINITELY MORE REWARDING than any finite loss.

See the problem now?

No, you don't, do you?

Why do you keep doing that?

Quote:

You may not like the analogy,

What is it with you with liking and not 'liking' arguments?

Is it possible that it's not that I dislike your argument, but that your argument is flawed?

Do you ever see me say "hey, I don't like your argument?"

Ever?

Do you instead see me give you reasons why your argument fails?

Quote:

but it is basically the same idea: Someone experiences a horrifying ordeal and receives something that isn't much more than they already had.

Incorrect. Any infinite reward is infinitely greater than a finite reward, or even a finite loss.

So your analogy fails, because it is based on an erroneous presumption on your part.

Quote:
A pleasure talking to you... seriously... take care.

Quote:

Are you being nice, or is this just sarcasm? It's hard to tell.

Nice. I don't think you are a bad person just because you act irrationally while clinging to your dogma.... If I really found talking to you an odious affair, I wouldn't respond in such detail...

By the way:

"Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin"

This is a classic projection. This quote describes religion to a "T"

Religion is all about little lies.. .like 'sacrifice doesn't require a loss'

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: To sacrifice is to

Quote:
To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.

Yes, but the ordeal itself was a sacrifice. It would be like if you allowed yourself to be slowly burned alive for 24 hours with the promise at the end you would be healed. Does this mean that you didn't suffer during the tortuous burning just because you were healed afterward? Does it make the experience of being burned any less painful?

Quote:

Which means that if you know you're going to get back what you've supposedly sacrificed, then there was no sacrifice, as there was no loss and not even an expectation of a loss!

To 'lose' something with the expectation of getting it right back is not a sacrifice!

It's just astonishing how you have to warp words to keep ahold of your dogma...


It's equally astonishing how you can equate Jesus sacrifice with something akin to giving God a penny and having Him give it right back. That is not what occurred.

Btw. if my dogma is obvious, rest assured, so is yours. Oh snap! Did I just commit that darn Tuo Quo Fallacy again? Smiling

Quote:
Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."
So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.

Jesus sacrificed His life which is infinitely greater than ours and gained salvation for us. I'm not sure you can make a theological case that God was getting the "good end of the bargain" here. More like He got the worse end, but for our benefit. Which is what makes it a sacrifice.

Quote:
To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.

Yes, but this is exactly what happened. Jesus took our punishment for us. He gave His life for His children and suffered our penalty so we would never have to.

And, in a way, He did loose something forever. He lost the opportunity to live His perfect, sinless, eternal life without ever having to experience pain, suffering, and shame. And He did it for us. If that's not a sacrifice, I don't know what is.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Part two coming soon

Part two coming soon Eye-wink


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Nothing could be more

Nothing could be more idiotic than the idea of a god coming to life, and then sacraficing himself to himself in order to forgive humans for rules he himself created. It is obvious to me an actual god could forgive unconditionally (we do it all the time.) The idea of no forgiveness without a blood sacrafice is more appropriate to a mob boss than an infinite omnibenevolent being.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Nothing

MattShizzle wrote:
Nothing could be more idiotic than the idea of a god coming to life, and then sacraficing himself to himself in order to forgive humans for rules he himself created. It is obvious to me an actual god could forgive unconditionally (we do it all the time.) The idea of no forgiveness without a blood sacrafice is more appropriate to a mob boss than an infinite omnibenevolent being.

Actually, basing one's life around guessing what pleases said god (despite varying views by believers on what actually DOES please him) is still more idiotic.

And hating other people because they hold beliefs or commit consentual acts in private that *your particular interpretation of* a 2,000 year old badly written book says is offensive to said god is the most idiotic thing yet.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Good point.

Good point.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote: To

Sara wrote:
Quote:
To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.

Yes, but the ordeal itself was a sacrifice.

I've already dealt with this. The 'ordeal' is not a sacrifice. It's a bargain. You can't trade X and get back Xplus infinity and call it a sacrifice.

If the person were aware, all along, that they were going to magically gain their life back, then they know that they are not surrendering anything. They are losing nothing.

They are gaining, they are making a bargain. They are making the 'bigger, better deal'

They are trading X, and getting back Xplus Infinity.

You cannot trade any finite for an infinite and call it a sacrifice. It's the ultimate gain, its the ultimate bargain.

No person would refuse to go on the cross if it meant saving everyone they Loved and at the same time, meant that they weren't going to die in the first place, anyway!

In fact, it would mean that they gain perfect knowledge that they can't die! That they are going to bliss, forever! That they would receive the love of billions!

You keep ignoring these points.... and this is your problem.

To trade a finite for an infinite is a bargain, not a sacrifice.

Quote:

It would be like if you allowed yourself to be slowly burned alive for 24 hours with the promise at the end you would be healed. Does this mean that you didn't suffer during the tortuous burning just because you were healed afterward?

You're missing the point.

It's not just that a person suffers, it's that they are offered a bargain, a trade, with full knowledge, all along, that nothing is to be lost.

You give me X

And you get back X times infinity.

There's no loss.

This "jesus" goes in knowing he will not die, that he's not giving up his life. He's not losing his life! He's not sacrificing his life, if he's still alive afterwards! He's gaining perfect knowledge that he's going to bliss for eternity, with the love of billions.

There's no sane person who wouldn't take this deal. Because it's the greatest deal possible... you trade in nothing, and get everything. You bargain away a Friday night, and you get paradise.

Sign me up!

Quote:

Which means that if you know you're going to get back what you've supposedly sacrificed, then there was no sacrifice, as there was no loss and not even an expectation of a loss!

To 'lose' something with the expectation of getting it right back is not a sacrifice!

It's just astonishing how you have to warp words to keep ahold of your dogma...


Quote:

It's equally astonishing how you can equate Jesus sacrifice with something akin to giving God a penny and having Him give it right back. That is not what occurred.

It's not really. Trading a finite for an infinite is necessarily a bargain. This is pretty straight forward logic.

So, jesus actually, he gave god a 'penny' and got back infinity.

He "gave up' a finite, and got back infinity. AND he knew it all along.

That's the best bargain possible. Not a sacrifice.

Quote:

Btw. if my dogma is obvious, rest assured, so is yours.

BTW, just asserting something isn't proving it. If my 'dogmatic' thinking is so obvious, then you'd think you could demonstrate it.

Seems to me that I present reasons why I hold to what I hold, reasons that are open to scrutiny.

Quote:

Oh snap! Did I just commit that darn Tuo Quo Fallacy again? Smiling

Actually, it was a naked assertion too.

'Tu Quoque" (not "o" after the "tu"), as wikipedia informs us, is "a line of one's defensive argument based on the concept that the adversary party also engages (or has engaged in the past) in the act for which one is accused by that party. This argumentative move works by showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it."

So if you are using the supposed existence of my 'dogmatic' thinking - which you assert without ever backing up - as a justification for your own, then yes, you're commiting another tu quoque logical fallacy.


Quote:
Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.


Quote:

Jesus sacrificed His life which is infinitely greater than ours and gained salvation for us.

Slow down a second.

Remember when you accused me of just 'making up' my definition.

Well, here, I demonstrated that my definition came from a dictionary.

AND I also showed how your own 'theological definition' aligned with the dictionary definition.... - a gift, a sacrifice.

Interesting that you just passed over that....

Quote:

I'm not sure you can make a theological case that God was getting the "good end of the bargain" here.

Did he die?

Did he lose anything permanently?

Is he is heavenly bliss for all eternity?

Did he save billions of souls?

Do billions rejoice in thankfulness to him?

Do you ever bother to read these questions?

That's a bargain. A finite for an infinite is the ultimate bargain.

Quote:
To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.

Quote:

Yes, but this is exactly what happened. Jesus took our punishment for us.

So you say... well, so the bible says... but what sense can we make of that? Do you ever really ponder it?

Can you tell me what he lost?

He 'gave up' a finite and got back infinity.

Will full knowledge that this was the case all along.

Quote:

And, in a way, He did loose something forever.

What did he lose?

Quote:
He lost the opportunity to live His perfect, sinless, eternal life without ever having to experience pain, suffering, and shame.

Bargains involve tradeoffs of opportunity. He 'gave up' a finite and got back infinity.

Besides, wasn't the entire point of his life to go on the cross? How is fulfilling his destiny an opportunity loss? That rhymed!

Quote:

And He did it for us. If that's not a sacrifice, I don't know what is.

If you really don't know what a sacrifice is, go and again read my posts, where I show you that a sacrifice involves a loss.

Or, oddly enough, you can recall your own 'theological analysis' that did nothing but waste a page here on hit site, considering your finaly analysis:

Remember your own words?

An offering... a gift.

You give it up, without any promise of it being returned.. You trade X, and surrender it forever, for the sake of something else - some "Y" some other thing that you value.... you don't give up X expecting to get X right back, or Xplus infinity!

Trading any finite for an infinite is a bargain.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Part two coming

Sara wrote:
Part two coming soon Eye-wink

Thank you for keeping part I mercifully brief...


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Nothing

MattShizzle wrote:
Nothing could be more idiotic than the idea of a god coming to life, and then sacraficing himself to himself in order to forgive humans for rules he himself created. It is obvious to me an actual god could forgive unconditionally (we do it all the time.) The idea of no forgiveness without a blood sacrafice is more appropriate to a mob boss than an infinite omnibenevolent being.

The origins of the jesus myth clearly had agrarian roots, (silly pun intented)... the sun 'dies' in winter to be 'reborn' in the spring.... so the story 'makes sense' in this light... (can't escape puns today)

Trying to hold it out as an actual sacrifice necessarily fails, since nothing is lost. Nothing is surrendered or offered up that isn't taken right back.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Sorry I can't say the same

Sorry I can't say the same for part II Smiling


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What matters is

Quote:
What matters is whether or not your presuppositions are rational.

Of course, you're free to presuppose that irrationalism is the way to go....

How does one decide which presuppositions are rational and which are not?
If all are biased [as you also stated earlier], would not our decisions about our biases be equally biased ad infinitum? On what do you base your truth? On reality? Which one? Who decides which is the what is reality? Aren't all opinions equal? If we are nothing more than products of the universe, is there any point whatever in arguing over whether something higher than the universe exists? Why should we quibble over anything that exists outside our known universe? Is that rational?

Doesn't the fact that we attempt to determine if such a higher Being exists prove to you that God is real?

Quote:

How do you know their understanding was rational? Or justified? How do you know their mindset?

It seems that it's possible to understand a lot about a person’s mindset and rationality by reading what they wrote. To me, their accounts don't seem irrational or insane.

Just an aside, do you apply this logic to all historical authors? Do you question the rationality or mindset of Josephus? What about Tocqueville? The framers of the constitution?

You do know these historians mentioned...God? Are they considered by you nothing more than psychotics with a pen?

Quote:
How do you know that they didn't just build a story from Isaiah? How do you know that they didn't just use Isaiah to make up their jesus story in the first place? Consider that the more parsimonious explanation was that they used books like Isaiah to create their story. That they turned his writing into 'prophecies' - even when a more sober reading tells us that they were not prophecies at all...they cobbled together a story using the OT, turning parts of the OT into 'prophecies' that they 'fulfilled' with their stories.

O.k. you are going to have to make a VERY rational case for how this is not lying on the part of the Gospel writers to "make up a Jesus story". Are you trying to redefine what lying means? Don’t make me break out my dictionary.

Quote:
Argue rationally, and I'll be convinced.

I don’t think it’s possible to argue my position to you since you consider even my premise irrational. Furthermore, since I seem to be doing such a poor job, I wonder if you would do me the honor of providing one rational argument for why Jesus' ordeal was a sacrifice and also one for the existence of God? I would really like to see what it such an argument would look like.

I figure since you are the master logician here, you could easily argue for either side using rational, thoughtful arguments and would also be able to refrain from falling victim to those pesky logical fallacies like I seem to keep doing. Think of it as exercise in your debating skills.

Quote:
Don't just assume I'm irrational because I disagree with you. That's self serving, and irrational itself.

I don't just assume that about you.. I assume you are rational, otherwise, what's the point of discussion? And when I make a claim about your arguments being irrational, I demonstrate it. At the same time, I don't presuppose that you yourself are irrational. Just dogmatic about your religion.

But, then again, if God is real then you are the irrational one, not me. So it all rests on that small point. Thus it seems a little rash for you to assume my arguments are irrational before we die. Afterward, if you are right, I will concede and sink into oblivion.

Quote:
My theory is more parsimonious. That's already one plus on my side.

According to who? You? I think that it's a minus personally.

Quote:
And here's another reason to doubt:

Look at Matthew, chapter 21, verses four and five. In those chapters are irrefutible proof that the matthew writer merely took from the Markian source and from the Old testament to tell his story, and did not ever witness anything.

In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Based on his MISREADING of Zechariah 9:9

9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Whoa, there cowboy. I think that you are jumping to some conclusions here that aren't correct. First, how is this a misreading of Zechariah? It says the exact same thing. Second, how does stating that Jesus is riding on a colt, which is a donkey and a foal of a donkey mean that He's riding on two animals? It's like saying that Jesus was riding on a donkey, and not just any donkey, but specifically on a colt. So it was only one animal, but just a description of it. Do you understand that there are some difficulties with Hebrew expressions and they don't often translate well into English? Are you going to base your whole claim on something like that?

You know that when people attempt to learn our language, we have some strange ways of stating things that don't make sense to them. Like the phrase "seeing eye to eye". If you were to take that phrase literally, you could get all sorts of meanings from it.

Quote:

Matthew misreads the original and has jesus riding TWO animals when the original writer only meant one!

This is proof that the matthew author took stories from the OT, and that he did NOT actually witness the events he wrote on!

For someone who just gave me the what for just because I stated that I understood the Gospel writers' intents and motives, you sure are guilty of doing the same thing.

How do you know that Matthew misread it? Do you think that a 21st century person from a different culture is going understand the HEBREW phrase better than a HEBREW would? That's so American of you.

Quote:
Since the book of mark, the first gospel, is clearly a midrash of the OT - we can clearly see that most of the claims are simply stories taken from books of the old testament. So this refutes the idea that ANY of the gospels are eye witness accounts:

We do not clearly see anything of the sort and you can't infer from Matthew's Gospel that none of the other accounts were from eyewitnesses. Can you say composition fallacy?

Secondly, there is some evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written first. Traditionally, the Early Church Fathers cite that Matthew was the first Gospel account (Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, quoting Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language [i.e. Aramaic], and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."). I know there is some dispute about Matthew having written in Hebrew (which is believed to be Aramaic by most scholars) because we have no extant copies in that language. But just because we don’t have the original document does not mean it never existed.

Quote:
Now: since we are discussing scripture, you're obviously free to use scripture to argue back...

What? Why is this ok now? The very first post by Rook discussed scripture and when I answered in kind, I have been assaulted with whines ever since about how this is circular reasoning. This is a little irritating to say the least.

Quote:
And neither am I, that's a strawman of my argument. Each writer might well have felt that there was an ultimate truth behind their stories... they didn't have to 'lie'... they could have really felt that there was an important truth to the 'story' they were telling.

So they were mad men? They were delusional? The couldn't see that telling a fake story was wrong? Wow, this is even more irrational than just calling them liars.

Quote:

These writers, except for John, all took from Mark... and Mark's work is midrash.

You think one little verse that you misinterpreted proves all that? Please forgive me as I haven't looked at your website YET (though I'm sure you didn't read mine either), but if this is all you've got, that is quite inadequate to base your assumption on. Like I stated, there is evidence for Matthew being written first.

Quote:

There isn't any compelling reason to hold that these were aged eye witnesses, actually writing down distant memories...

Who said they were all that distant? None of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 a.d. This event was so clearly predicted by Jesus (Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6) that it most assuredly would have been included. If the accounts were written after this date, regardless of the Gospel writer’s motives, mentioning this event would have been a golden opportunity for the writers to make their story even stronger by saying things like “and these saying of Jesus were fulfilled or the word of the Lord came to pass”, etc.)

Quote:
As for "john', eveyone agrees that this 'gospel' came last... making the idea that it was an eyewitness account simply insane....

Actually, why is that insane? He claims to be the "apostle whom Jesus loved". Was he lying? Why does the fact that his gospel came last mean it wasn't an eyewitness account? Maybe he wanted to provide details that the others lacked:

John 20:30-1 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Quote:
First of all, you are ignoring that you attempted to defend circular logic, earlier on, by holding it was valid. That was wrongheaded. Because circular logic isn't a formal fallacy to begin with! (Validity refers to logical form)

So let's not just ignore that, OK?

I’m not ignoring it. I have been trying to formulate my argument here. I’m not exactly familiar with formal logic as you obviously are, so it took me a while to fully understand what I was doing and how to state it. I knew that I was not committing the fallacy you cited (circular reasoning), but I did not know exactly phrase it. But your next paragraph here does a good job of it:

Quote:
Next, if you use a claim in the bible to prove the credibility of the bible, then you're just arguing in a circle.

However, if you say "the bible says X, and by that, it means Y" and then you cite passages Z, AA, BB, to demonstrate that, then you're not necessarily arguing in a circle - assuming that your interpretations of the passages themselves involve begging the question...

So yes, your example here is NOT necessarily a circular logic fallacy. .

But that is the point, my example is what I’ve been doing from the beginning: Citing that verse A means B and using verses C, D, and E to prove that. This is why I denied that I was committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning in the first place. However, I was not able to fully communicate that to you until the last post because I’m not used to this type of debate where the focus is so heavily upon logical fallacies.

Quote:
But this has nothing to do with:

1) your initial argument that justified circular logic because the form is valid

2) Any case where you do use the bible to justify the bible.

3) Any case where you simply beg the question that X, Y and Z, support W.

My initial argument was not worded correctly, like I said. But that was because I didn’t know how to word it. I thank you, though, for your clarifications and explanations as they did help quite a bit.

That being said, I don’t see how any argument can be made without committing fallacy number 3. Every assertion could be said to “beg the question”. You do it plenty of times (like when you say the gospels were written by innocent, but misguided tale-bearers who favored midrash).

Quote:
No. What I am saying is that, ultimately, trying to use the bible to justify the bible is circular.

If I've determined that the bible's key claims are false, I've done so based on a logical analysis of it... not just a dogmatic rejection of it.

I don’t think I’ve used the bible to justify the bible, in the manner you imply. I have only been using verses to clarify the meaning of other verses like everyone else on here has done.

Also, how do you know your analysis was logical or correct?

Quote:
You can use scripture to 'correct my interpretation" if you like...

Again, this is what I’ve been trying to do from the beginning. But I got waylaid by your incessant accusations that I was resorting to circular reasoning. I think that if you would have understood this from the beginning and I had been able to state it like I wanted to, we could have saved ourselves 5 posts…mais c’est la vie.

Quote:
but the truth is, you've already proven that no matter what the scripture says, you'll simply redefine the words until it fits your present need. So the real problem is that your argument style is to beg the question, to assume your conclusion and use that to interpret everything else.... if you get a round peg, the conclusion that it must fit into a square holes leads you to chisel the peg to conform.... that's the problem.

Theists typically rely on two tools - two complaints, really:

"Translation error!"

And

"Out of context"

The problem is that this method of arguing is often irrational, it often ends up circular... whatever the theist wants, is what it says....

But what if the common act among Atheists IS to rely on “translation errors” and to take verses “out of context”?

Furthermore, I don’t make up my own definitions (though I’m sure you would disagree), but think you are the one trying to certain definitions that help your case. I have gotten all my definitions from either lexicons or from verses.

Also, what if your interpretation is the “round peg” in this scenario and you are trying to fit it in the square hole of scripture?

Quote:
And the reason is that it's entirely ad hoc... there's no consistent, rational, non arbitrary method behind it... the truth is: whatever the (A)theist wants to prove, is what the passage will eventually say... once (he’s) done redefining everything. Need a square peg, and only have a round one? Well, it must really be square somehow....

Forgive the retranslation here, but I thought it so fitting. Smiling

Quote:
And maybe you're dogmatic need to believe this helps you warp the meaning of words until contradictions disapear. Or until all the pegs are jammed into their 'proper' holes....

The idea that there are not internal or external contradictions in the bible is simply insanity masquerading as piety....

Naked assertion?

Quote:
There's no symmetry here because it doesn't matter whether I start out thinking the bible is true or false... if i am rational, i will see the contradictions, even if I don't want to see them.

But if I take the next step into ad hocism, then I'm sunk... if you're commited enough, you can make anything appear to work.... and yet, that's exactly what theism asks of you... faith..belief no matter what....

I don’t know about that. I’ve read the bible plenty of times (and I began my life as a Christian, going on 5 years now, a little skeptical myself) but I haven’t found many scriptures that don’t have rational explanations or any that are blatant contradictions. Furthermore, seeking an answer for an APPARENT (i.e. ostensible) dilemma or contradiction and then finding a rational answer is not “blind faith”.

Quote:

So then, it's best to be as rational as we can be, it's best to be open to learning new things about ourselves. It's best not to insist that even if we are proven wrong, we'll still cling to our beliefs anway.

But what if you don’t think you’ve been proven wrong?

Quote:
The fact that everyone is biased doesn't give you the right to wallow in your own bias, Sara. The fact that everyone is biased ought to compel all of us to try and combat bias, not wallow in it, coz 'you're biased too'

That's a tuo quoque fallacy.

I don’t wallow in my bias, I revel in it Smiling. But I CAN see your point of view (believe it or not). I just don’t agree with it.

Quote:
Yet the reason we began this line of discussion was because you said that the 'scripture' guides the interpretation of scripture.. but now everyone has biases?

Ok, good. Glad we agree then. So you have to now concede that the claim that 'scripture interprets scripture' is bullshit... your interpretation guides what the bible says.

And you've proven this, by redefining words to fit your needs.

Thanks.

Allow me to clarify. If I believe that the bible is the word of God (a supportable, but biased position to be sure), then I allow the scripture to interpret the scripture because it’s not about my interpretation, but God’s. So in essence, allowing scripture to interpret scripture (remember the “verse A means B which is shown by verses C, D, and E example?) is an attempt to refrain from allowing my personal preferences to influence my interpretation. See the difference? I really don’t purposely try to make the bible say something that other than what it means because it’s not my place to do so. I want to allow other verses to clarify the meaning before I make a determination of the meaning. If I were going to allow my bias to “warp” my scripture interpretation, believe me, I could definitely come up with some odd interpretations for you. Take a look at the Gnostic writings if you want some examples of letting bias cloud your interpretation.

Quote:

This is rich!... again, the reason for this exchange was because you started out saying that scripture helps interpret scripture, and my point to you was that your own interpretation guides interpretation...

So apparently, you've taken ownership of this now... good.


No, when I said that I have biases and so do you, I was really thinking of the belief in God (i.e. our world view) when I made that comment.

Quote:
Well, let's see... you just said that even if I demonstrate that you are irrational, you'll just not care. Is that 'honesty"? Well we can say that you are honest about your dishonesty....

So, I'm not so sure that I'm less honest than you. But you can be honest, and so can I, so let's just leave it at that, why not?

No, I said that even if you THINK I’m irrational, even when you’re WRONG, I don’t care. There’s a slight difference.

Quote:
I've demonstrated where you've been irrational in your arguments, and you've responded by saying you don't care. I've shown that your misunderstanding of formal validity led you to defend circular logic when in fact it commits and informal fallacy - meaning that form was not an issue in the first place.... Yet you held to this position despite the fact that you clearly were not informed enough to hold to it.... you ran to it, because it bolstered up your beliefs... you ran to it, because you wanted something that made you feel right. This is irrationalism.

Like I said, I just worded it incorrectly.

Quote:
I've also shown that your line of discussion concerning tu quoque is also irrational.

Furthermore, you can't just assume that you are right, and that I am wrong, when I've demonstrated an error in your argument. You can't just stamp your feet and say "you're wrong, and I don't care".... that's just... well... irrational.


I have not stamped my feet once during this debate. I don’t get that upset about such things. I figure that if you see it, that’s your choice and if you don’t, that’s your choice. You may attempt to dismiss my arguments as being irrational and while some may be (as I am far from perfect), I don’t think that they all are. As I’ve repeated stated, reality (i.e. whether or not the biblical God is real), will determine who is and who is not rational.

Quote:
No, I am not. Please stop commiting the errors you accuse me off... you're just wrong here, and I've already stated why. There's no need for lies or a conspiracy... they could have felt it was telling the truth all along.... after all, if jesus lived, he woulda done all those things, right?

So they could have been just like you.. no need lie, you're not a liar... you just believe, and then make everything fit your belief.

If I made up the Person of Jesus and then went on to manufacture some false details of His life to communicate a truth, I would be a hypocrite and a liar.

Don’t soften it with “oh they thought they were doing good by being liars”. You really can’t defend that type of behavior no matter how you slice it.

Quote:
And where do you get this claim from? That anyone at all witnesses this jesus?

The gospels

Circular logic. How do you know there were any witnesses at all. in the first place?

Here's a nice challenge for you.

Name ONE contemporary historical account of "jesus'

Just one. One fella or gal who was alive when Jesus supposedly lived, who wrote something down DURING that time... an actual eyewitness report written during the time....

(PS - contemporary means alive when jesus would have lived, and old enough to write and produce a work during that time.)

(PPS Please don't waste my time and cite josephus. Please.... he's not an eyewitness, wasn't even alive then.... and citing him is self refuting for reasons' I'd be glad to share...)

I can’t produce such a witness because you’ve already discounted the only eyewitness accounts of the Gospels as being “circular”.

Good luck on that challenge, I’m sure you have a line up of “logical fallacies” and “conspiracy theories” awaiting anyone who would try.

Quote:

No, I do not. Sorry. It doesn't require a lie. As for earthly benefits, who are you to say that they didn't benefit from what they wrote?

I guess death at the hands of Romans, Jews, and wild animals was a benefit?

Quote:
Your proof of that is? And if he experienced it at an 'experiential level' did he do it as a man, or as a god/godman? Doesn't that change things?

When it says He tasted death for every man, I think that means He took every man’s penalty. Since there is more than one person in the world, I assume Jesus experience an exponential ordeal since He was paying the penalty for more ONE person. Since He is God, He is an infinite Being and would be the only one Who could pay the penalty and still be able to retain His life through it.

Quote:
Remember, you stated earlier that you couldn't go on the cross, as you wouldn't be able to... but your 'jesus' could... so clearly, you yourself are saying he had some 'extra ability' to deal with it....

Yeah, He was God and man. If He was man, He would be stuck in Hell for eternity (like I would have been and you may be if you don’t believe). But since He was both, “death could not hold Him”.

Quote:
So, you seem to be conviently leaving this out....

And doesn't the fact that he goes to bliss sorta soften the blow?

Is he still in torment?

Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

Again, why do you persist in ignoring what I’ve repeatedly said? Knowing what would happen after His sacrifice made Him willing to enduring it (Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.. ).

So it did not lessen His experience or suffering in the way you imply, it just made Him willing to go through it.

Second, Jesus doesn’t have an ego problem, so being a called a “hero” isn’t the reason why He endured the cross. He did it to save us from eternal damnation because He loves us, not to get our kudos. Like I said, a myriad of angels give Him praise day and night for all eternity already.

Quote:

and to then endure death, shame, hatred from your creation, beatings, crucifixion,

Do I even need to say that you're begging the question?


Half of your statements beg the question. Do you want the verses that back this up? Here you go:
The Hebrews verse above does, Matthew 27:29-31
And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put [it] upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify [him].

Luke 18:32-3
For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully treated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

The biblical authors are attesting to what Jesus endured. So you can accuse Matthew and Luke of begging the question.

Quote:
Just coz he knew he would go to heaven in eternal bliss, and save billions of greatful souls, it didn't make it better?

How do you know?

Do you just make up whatever helps you answer the question? Does it feel like lying to you?

Do you see how the gospel writers could have been just the same? Assuming it had to be true, finding whatever fit, and making everything else fit, no matter what...

Here is a Hebrews 12:2 again which states this very thing: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him ENDURED the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God..

If Jesus “joy” somehow lessened His ordeal, why would He “despise the shame of it” or needed to “endure” it? If what you claimed was true, I’m sure the bible would have said something like, “Jesus made a great bargain and went heaven, amen.”

Quote:
When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.

You keep asserting this, but you can't demonstrate it. You can't show what he lost, no can you prove what 'pain' he went through. And even if he did, you can't prove that it's more painful than a mother watching her child die from leukemia, without any reason for it, and without any guarentee that he'll 'go to heaven'

People die in pain every day, for no reason, for no reward, with no
promises.

You also can’t “prove” that Jews who were tortured in concentration camps at the hands of Nazis, suffered either. All we have are their “claims” that they felt pain and suffered. So if you choose to discount their story or claim from the beginning, then they really can’t make you believe it no matter what they tell you (Muslims who deny the holocaust even occurred are perfect examples of this).

But since you are stating that Jesus’ Deity made Him impervious to pain, let me remind you that He was also very human and could experience the same amount of physical pain that anyone else could. The mental anguish that He experienced is even more telling if you believe the biblical account. Why, if Jesus was incapable of suffering or if His suffering was lessened by His “reward”, did Jesus “sweat great drops of blood” at the thought of what He was going to experience (Luke 22:44)? I don’t see why Someone Who “made a good bargain” would have such a reaction.

Quote:

Yes, but the irony is that this doesn't need to be the case. People who are suffering and dying in this life COULD have the comfort of knowing they will enter eternal bliss for doing nothing more than truly believing in Christ!

But they don't have the certainty. Nor the rewards of being a christ. That's the point here.


A.)Yes, they can have certainty.

B.) Jesus is God and has been from all eternity, He didn’t receive anything more than He already had. You keep forgetting this small detail.

Quote:

The point is that children die every day, in pain, without promises or rewards.

Here’s an interesting link for you to consider: http://www.melvinmorse.com/images.htm

Quote:
Aren't I dead spiritualy, according to you?

Well then, I seem to handle it OK. ... how come your god found it so hard? Coz it's like 'exponential when he feels it?"

wouldn't he also have expontentially better ways to deal with it too?

See how self serving your 'arguments' are?

This is not the same as being in Hell or spending eternity in the lake of Fire. Jesus said it was better to cut of your hand or pluck out your eyes if they caused you to sin rather than to go there.

Quote:
Your carnal mind is at enmity with God and hence the reason why you deny His existence even though you know deep down that He is real.

Well, I could say that I think that, deep down, you know there isn't a god....

But I see no reason to attack you and call you a liar... so why call me one?


Well, again if the bible is the word of God, then it says you are at enmity with God and, as Romans 1:20-1 says “For the invisible things of [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.:.

This seems to bother you. I have to ask though, if you don’t believe it anyway, why do you take offense?

Quote:

This is where you christians go completely nutty.. why wouldnt I want to go to heaven in eternal bliss? All I have to say is 'jesus, may I?"

What an excellent question, why don’t you want to go?

If you really believe that Jesus is real, He is Who He claimed to be, and died in your place for your sins, you will go to Heaven. That’s why it’s called THE GOOD NEWS (i.e. the Gospel) J

Quote:

Dearheart, try thinking straight. I said "and you don't know either"....
Which would imply neither of us could know. Which implies that if I don't know, then you don't know.

So neither of us would know.

Rendering your arguments moot.

And rendering your arguments moot is 'rather brilliant', ain't it?
Smiling

If neither of us know, then doesn’t this render your arguments moot as well? Why do you persist in making them?

The very fact that you do argue about it implies that you know what God could or could not have suffered WITHOUT being told by Him. I don’t accept that. If God suffered anything, He would be the one to tell us and the bible claims to be the written record of His ordeal.

Quote:

My, oh my. Actually. that's been my argument... that he didn't lose anything. Nothing sacrificed. You don't seem able to grasp much of anything.

Being RESTORED to your original position means you LEFT it. Aside from His divesting Himself of His power and prerogatives, and choosing to allow Himself to be crucified, leaving Heaven (even for a moment, let alone 33 years), was in itself a sacrifice.

Quote:

But any INFINITE REWARD is necessarily INFINITELY MORE REWARDING than any finite loss.

You have yet to prove that Jesus gained an infinite “reward”. Please cite a verse that states that Jesus gained something He didn’t already possess.

Quote:

By the way:

"Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin"

This is a classic projection. This quote describes religion to a "T"

Religion is all about little lies.. .like 'sacrifice doesn't require a loss'


Ah, but this quote isn’t about religion, it’s about science…. unbiased and rational science. That’s the irony.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote: What

Sara wrote:
Quote:
What matters is whether or not your presuppositions are rational.

Of course, you're free to presuppose that irrationalism is the way to go....

How does one decide which presuppositions are rational and which are not?

That's a good question, a complex question, but the basic answer is this: a presuppostion can't contradict what we actually learn from our contact with the world. If I presuppose X, and then go on to encounter events that contradict it, then holding to my presupposition becomes irrational.

Supernatural presuppositions are automatically irrational for this reason. There's nothing in the natural world that can point to its own antithesis, that which is 'beyond nature'. It's irrational by definition.

Quote:

If all are biased [as you also stated earlier], would not our decisions about our biases be equally biased ad infinitum?

The fact that our thinking is biased by our biology, temperament, past experience, emotional states, etc., does not imply that our thinking is useless. You're implying a false dichotomy - the implication is: either thought is bias free, or useless. That's a preposterous standard and I doubt even you want to hold to it.

The very fact that we are able to uncover our biases and make such a statement about bias is, ironically enough, a good example of how our 'biased' thinking is still useful!

Quote:

On what do you base your truth? On reality? Which one?

If you are still talking about "presuppositions', I will again state that you can't just presuppose something that violates nature, you can't just presuppose a bleief that violates what we learn from our contact with the world, and then just try to force everything to fit yoru presupposition. That is irrational.

Stephen Hawking provides a guideline for rational and irrational hypotheses, in 'Universe in a Nutshell', when he states that while some cosmological assumptions may have as much evidence going for them as astrology, scienticific assumptions do not violate what we already know about the universe.

Theistic "presuppositions' violate everything we know of the universe.

Quote:

Who decides which is the what is reality?

No one decides on 'reality'... reality is forced upon you.... walk into a wall, and as good as your debate methods might be, your nose will get crinkled and your forehead will grow a bump...

Of course, you can come up with some psychological defense, some irrational means to block out reality once its occurred...

Quote:

Aren't all opinions equal?

No, not at all. While everyone has an equal right to an opinion, not all opinions are equivalent.

As I write on my logic page:

Everyone has an opinion, and in a democratic country everyone also has an equal right to state it, but not everyone's opinion is of equal value. The opinion of Einstein on physics is superior to that of Captain Kangaroo's. The opinion of Harry Truman on democracy is superior to that of Bozo the Clown's. And the reason for this is not solely because Einstein and Truman are well known "authorities", the reason is that each of these experts has a reasoned grounds for holding to their views based on experience, factual knowledge, evidence and a rational argument based on these facts.

In short, they don't hold to beliefs that are contradicted by reality.

Quote:

If we are nothing more than products of the universe, is there any point whatever in arguing over whether something higher than the universe exists?

First of all, the phrase "nothing more than products of the universe" is just negative rhetoric. One could rephrase it using positive rhetoric, and marvel at the fact that we are the 'universe's way of becoming aware of itself"

Next, if there is something 'beyond' our universe, beyond nature, there is no way for us to know about it. So in one sense, there's no 'point' in arguing over it, yes, because there can be no rational grounds for the argument in the first place.

But there is a need for people to recognize this simple point: that nothing natural can 'point' to its own antithesis, the supernatural. So we may well argue over that point.

Quote:

Why should we quibble over anything that exists outside our known universe? Is that rational?

It is rational to point out that any supernatural claim is necessarily irrational.

Quote:
Doesn't the fact that we attempt to determine if such a higher Being exists prove to you that God is real?

So then Allah is real? After all, muslims attempt to determine that he is real, right? Are the greek and roman gods real too? Is every god claim made in history real then, since people have attempted, and continue to attempt to determine that they are real?

Or do you find that argument ridiculous, when applied to any other god than your own?

I'm betting that you do.

The mere fact that man/woman seeks to imagine or even argue that there is something on the 'other side' of a limit, isn't proof that anything is actually there.... In olden times, map makers would write "there be dragons here" on the edges of known territory... we tend to want to fill in the spaces of our ignorance with very fanciful things. All this proves is that we don't like not knowing, and that we like making up stories to fill in the gaps.

Quote:

How do you know their understanding was rational? Or justified? How do you know their mindset?

Quote:

It seems that it's possible to understand a lot about a person’s mindset and rationality by reading what they wrote.

I'm glad it seems possible to you, but make sure you're not comparing apples and oranges, by comparing writing concerning ordindary, naturalistic claims, with extraordinary, supernatural claims.

Quote:

To me, their accounts don't seem irrational or insane.

And those windmills seemed like dragons to Don Quixote.

Anyway, there's a more important point to be made here: You seem to be equating irrational with 'insane' To be irrational is merely to be driven by emotional needs. Not insane.

Quote:

Just an aside, do you apply this logic to all historical authors?

A concern for their biases, their motivations? Sure. When it applies. But remember that ordinary claims provide us with other means of corroboration.

Just an aside, do you always compare extraordinary claims to ordinary claims?

Quote:

Do you question the rationality or mindset of Josephus? What about Tocqueville? The framers of the constitution?

If there is a proper motivation, a cause for alarm, yes. But considering that they are not making supernatural claims, there isn't necessarily a need to question their rationality. We have other means to corroborate naturalistic claims.

For example, whether or not Tocqueville had a bias when he gave us a report about our country in its infancy wouldn't imply that he was simply making things up when he declared that there was this nation called 'The United States' and that the people there seemed to be different, culturally, from europeans. The same go for the framers.....

There may be matters where his bias does relate... which is why critical examination of historical documents include psychological profiles, where possible.

So the short answer here is: yes, of course we consider the bias of writers, of course we make sure not to assume that we can 'know' everything that went on in their heads. But at the same time, naturalistic claims provide us with other means of corroboration, and keeping with the theme I started this reply with - naturalistic claims do not ask us to hold to beliefs that violate everything we already know of the world.

Quote:

You do know these historians mentioned...God?

So? What do you even think that means? Every person's 'god' is something different.

Quote:

Are they considered by you nothing more than psychotics with a pen?

Strawman.

If strawman were single, you'd marry him, wouldn't ya? You love him, you sing songs of devotion to him..... you just LOVE DA STRAWMAN

Seriously, I'll again stress that irrationality doesn't equate with psychosis. To be irrational merely means that you have non-rational motivations... emotions. Or, one may be working from flawed assumptions.

If one assumes that every peg in their bag of pegs is round, then a 'round' peg with four equal sides is a round peg that needs to be sanded down.... to get to its 'roundness'..... one isn't crazy to make the peg fit the 'presumption'... one is just unjustified, rationally.

Quote:
How do you know that they didn't just build a story from Isaiah? How do you know that they didn't just use Isaiah to make up their jesus story in the first place? Consider that the more parsimonious explanation was that they used books like Isaiah to create their story. That they turned his writing into 'prophecies' - even when a more sober reading tells us that they were not prophecies at all...they cobbled together a story using the OT, turning parts of the OT into 'prophecies' that they 'fulfilled' with their stories.

Quote:

O.k. you are going to have to make a VERY rational case for how this is not lying on the part of the Gospel writers to "make up a Jesus story".

All they need is to share your very own 'presupposition' - that there was a messiah... and that they missed out on seeing him themselves.... They then would do their best to tell 'his' story. Not having anything to go on, they would turn to the OT... and their presuppositions would 'guide' them to the 'right passages'.

Rook gives a fine example of how this works, concerning a story about... I think it was Peter... can't recall this second... Anyway, the story goes that Peter did X, and Y, and Z... and yet, the author had no information at all to back this up.

So why did he say it? Because he lied? No! Because his presuppositon was that Peter was of a certain character, ergo Peter would do X, Y, and Z, in the context of the story.

Or you can consider a Ouiji board... a Ouiji board requires that one person tell a little 'lie" by moving the dial across the board.... the next person might then 'move it a bit' but she knows that she didn't start moving it.... and so on....

No one person need 'lie' - each person might think that their 'story' was representative of what 'must be real' given their 'presupposition'

Quote:

Are you trying to redefine what lying means?

First, you're the one that brought up lying. I never said that they had to lie.

Second, you're confusing me for you again. You're the one who runs from refutations by redefining words. I've demonstrated that over and over here. So let's not pretend that this is somehow now my problem.

I will get to the rest later, but I thought is appropriate to go right to the end here:

Quote:

By the way:

"Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin"

This is a classic projection. This quote describes religion to a "T"

Religion is all about little lies.. .like 'sacrifice doesn't require a loss'


Ah, but this quote isn’t about religion, it’s about science…

Ah, but that's the irony and the reason that it is a projection.... science doesn't live by telling itself lies, religion does.

Science works by attempting to reject the null hypothesis... scientists would love to overturn commonly held theories..... science doesn't work by lies.

But religion does... not big lies, but little white lies... that the theist thinks "are somehow true anyway"

The fact that theists love to project out 'little white lies' as the problem of everyone else other than them is fascinating. It just demonstrates, again that projection is the key defense of the theist.

And if you're wondering: in my estimation, atheists tend to idealize things...

*********************
I just wanted to deal with this too:

Quote:
Argue rationally, and I'll be convinced.

Quote:

I don’t think it’s possible to argue my position to you since you consider even my premise irrational. Furthermore, since I seem to be doing such a poor job,

You're only doing a poor job in that you're revealing the flaws of your argument.

Quote:

I wonder if you would do me the honor of providing one rational argument for why Jesus' ordeal was a sacrifice and also one for the existence of God? I would really like to see what it such an argument would look like.

Well, aren't you clever? Seriously, not being patronizing... even if it sounds that way... I meant it seriously.

1) As for the jesus/sacrifice argument. There's no way make the argument rational without changing the story. Trading a finite for an infinite cannot be a sacrifice. In fact, that's the complete opposite of sacrifice, - trading a finite for an infinite is the best deal possible.

There's only one way to make the story a sacrifice: change it so that there actually is a sacrifice. In the new version, god's beloved 'son' dies and goes to hell for eternity, forever tormented for YOU, so that NO ONE else goes to hell. To sacrifice is to lose and this would make the story a sacrifice.

I'm not endorsing this as a religion I'd hold to... just as one possible way to make the story an actual sacrifice.

The alternative is to keep the story as it is, and just drop the word 'sacrifice'. Call it an 'perfect example"... as C S Lewis refers to it.

2) If you really want an 'argument' for the 'existence' of god from me, then we'd need to start another thread... but if it helps, all I'd give you is negative theology, and some Soren Kierkegaard.... nothing that would be all that satisfying to someone who holds to positive theology.

Quote:

I figure since you are the master logician here, you could easily argue for either side using rational, thoughtful arguments

There's no rational argument available. I've tried. But if you seriously want to continue along these lines and make our conversations less adversarial, then I'd be happy to go through it with you.....

Quote:

and would also be able to refrain from falling victim to those pesky logical fallacies like I seem to keep doing. Think of it as exercise in your debating skills.

I would, if I hadn't already tried it dozens of times over the last few decades. But If I go back in time to 1981, I'll be sure to bring your message along.

I will get to the rest later... Take care, and thanks for being pretty cool here. I enjoyed talking to you again.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote: Quote: Don't

Sara wrote:

Quote:
Don't just assume I'm irrational because I disagree with you. That's self serving, and irrational itself.

I don't just assume that about you.. I assume you are rational, otherwise, what's the point of discussion? And when I make a claim about your arguments being irrational, I demonstrate it. At the same time, I don't presuppose that you yourself are irrational. Just dogmatic about your religion.

But, then again, if God is real then you are the irrational one, not me.

Not really. First of all, simply assuming that you think you could be right isn't a reason, all on its own, to entertain the notion.

Next, my arguments are only irrational if my grounds for my claim is irrational - i.e. if I argue from emotions, or if my logical arguments are flawed.

One can be rational and incorrect. One can be irrational and correct.

Quote:

So it all rests on that small point. Thus it seems a little rash for you to assume my arguments are irrational before we die.

Not really. I can properly claim that your arguments are irrational if I can demonstrate that they are illogical. I have done so. So there's no need to wait.

In fact, let's consider a logical fallacy I call the "fallacy fallacy"

THE "FALLACY" FALLACY - Argumentum ad logicam

The "fallacy fallacy" occurs when one argues that the conclusion to an argument must be false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

Example:

"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."

"Wait a second! That answer must be wrong. You can't just cancel the six!"

And it turns out, that the answer is 'right' even as the method is faulty.

When we say that a person's position is irrational, we mean that they have no rational grounds for their claim. When we say that their argument commits a logical fallacy, what we mean is that conclusion does not follow, logically, from their premises.

But the conclusion of a faulty argument can still be right.

So what is the point of all this? To merely state that you've not given me any rational grounds for your claims, ergo you cannot claim to hold to your belief rationally.

A logical examination does not deal with the truth value of the conclusion... assessing truth value has to do with other processes.

Quote:
Afterward, if you are right, I will concede and sink into oblivion.

There's no need to wait to decide whether your argument is rational or irrational.

As for whether there remains a 'god' anyway... you've not presented any rational grounds for holding that there is....

By the way, all of this points to the one "possible' argument for 'god'.. although it's a very weak one...

Quote:
My theory is more parsimonious. That's already one plus on my side.

Quote:

According to who? You?

No, according to philosophy of science, going back 800 years ago to William Occam:

"It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."

Occam's Razor: Or The Law of Parsimony

The law is stated thusly:

'Entities should not be multiplied needlessly.' What this rule means is that, out of two or more competing explanations that explain the exact same data, the one which is simplest is the most epistemically sound. Another way to look at the razor is as a dictum that any explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

So any naturalistic claim is infinitely more parsimonious than a supernatural claim.

Quote:

I think that it's a minus personally.

But why do you think it is a minus? Can you give me a reason why, now that I've explained Occam's razor?

Quote:
And here's another reason to doubt:

Look at Matthew, chapter 21, verses four and five. In those chapters are irrefutible proof that the matthew writer merely took from the Markian source and from the Old testament to tell his story, and did not ever witness anything.

In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Based on his MISREADING of Zechariah 9:9

9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Quote:

Whoa, there cowboy.

Ah, I'm no cowboy... but I will whoa... go on...

Quote:
I think that you are jumping to some conclusions here that aren't correct. First, how is this a misreading of Zechariah?

It is a misreading because zechariah is not referring to two animals. He's refering to one, and using the concept of repetition to stress the nature of the one animal. Yet matthew mistook it to mean two animals:

Here, look:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (21:2-7)

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And Matthew reads it wrong, believing it refers to two animals:

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Again, chapter 21 is based on a mistaken misreading of Zechariah's use of a literary device of repetition for effect!

Quote:

Second, how does stating that Jesus is riding on a colt, which is a donkey and a foal of a donkey mean that He's riding on two animals?

It doesn't! That's my point too! You're about to sink yourself here....

Because matthew DOES write that jesus rode two animals, as per Zechariah, but Zechariah never states that there are two, he merely uses repetition to stress the nature of the ONE animal.

So matthew screwed it up! And you agree that he did. You yourself realize it's a literary device of repetition, and not a reference to two animals.

Now, I just gotta see how you try to run from this.

Quote:

It's like saying that Jesus was riding on a donkey, and not just any donkey, but specifically on a colt.

I agree! That's what Zechariah actually says, based on our mutual understanding of the writing style of repetition.

But Matthew gets it wrong! He confuses the repetition for actually being two animals.

Quote:

So it was only one animal, but just a description of it.

Dear, that's what I'm telling you!

Quote:
Do you understand that there are some difficulties with Hebrew expressions and they don't often translate well into English?

Yes, I do.

But matthew didn't.

That's the point!

Quote:

Are you going to base your whole claim on something like that?

This is pretty funny! If you'd actually read the post more carefully, you'd realize that I not only know this, but just explained it to you!

So I know this. You know this. My point here is that Matthew didn't!

Again, you must read more carefully...!

Matthew is writing that 'jesus' rode two animals, because he misread Zechariah!

Quote:

Matthew misreads the original and has jesus riding TWO animals when the original writer only meant one!

This is proof that the matthew author took stories from the OT, and that he did NOT actually witness the events he wrote on!

Quote:

For someone who just gave me the what for just because I stated that I understood the Gospel writers' intents and motives, you sure are guilty of doing the same thing.

Smiling You just explained the situation precisely as I did! Neither of us are speaking to motives of the writer, but to how the literary device of repetition was used to stress the nature of a particular object! It's a clear error to hold that Zechariah was referencing two animals.

But this is precisely what matthew does!

And you agree!

Quote:

How do you know that Matthew misread it?

You just agreed that Zechariah was just using repetition, and not speaking of two animals! According to your own analysis, he got it wrong.

So it's painfully obvious that matthew never witnessed anything like this. This is a prima facie proof that he merely read Zechariah and tried to make a "prophecy' of it, without even properly understanding it!

WOW.... I want you to respond to this, and just this... you've been caught red handed in another serious blunder. By your own argument, Matthew screwed up. And this is prima facie evidence that the 'gospel' writers didn't observe the things they wrote on... they worked from presumptions, and used the OT to tell their story.

I'm wondering how you'll deal with this.

PS "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. So this is doubly evidence that the gospel writers cobbled together OT stories and made them into a story about 'jesus''', damn the facts.

(the last part is from the 'skeptic's bible')

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Look at Matthew,

Quote:
Look at Matthew, chapter 21, verses four and five. In those chapters are irrefutible proof that the matthew writer merely took from the Markian source and from the Old testament to tell his story, and did not ever witness anything.

In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Based on his MISREADING of Zechariah 9:9

9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

It is a misreading because zechariah is not referring to two animals. He's refering to one, and using the concept of repetition to stress the nature of the one animal. Yet matthew mistook it to mean two animals:

Here, look:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (21:2-7)

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And Matthew reads it wrong, believing it refers to two animals:

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Again, chapter 21 is based on a mistaken misreading of Zechariah's use of a literary device of repetition for effect!

You just agreed that Zechariah was just using repetition, and not speaking of two animals! According to your own analysis, he got it wrong.

So it's painfully obvious that matthew never witnessed anything like this. This is a prima facie proof that he merely read Zechariah and tried to make a "prophecy' of it, without even properly understanding it!

WOW.... I want you to respond to this, and just this... you've been caught red handed in another serious blunder. By your own argument, Matthew screwed up. And this is prima facie evidence that the 'gospel' writers didn't observe the things they wrote on... they worked from presumptions, and used the OT to tell their story.

I'm wondering how you'll deal with this.

PS "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. So this is doubly evidence that the gospel writers cobbled together OT stories and made them into a story about 'jesus''', damn the facts.

(the last part is from the 'skeptic's bible')


O.k. there are two problems here.

First, it is clear that Jesus only rode the colt as Zechariah points out and the other Gospel writers attest. Matthew states that coats were placed on both animals and that Jesus sat upon the coats [i.e. the "them" in the verse is not referring to both donkeys but the coats]. Whether or not the coats that Jesus sat upon were on the mare or the foal, Matthew does not say. But this verse does not imply that Jesus somehow rode on both animals, only at the very most that He sat on the coats on one or the other.

Second, the fact that Matthew includes the incidental detail that the mother of the foal accompanied the procession, does not necessarily mean that he misunderstood Zechariah either. Granted, the other Gospel writers do exclude this detail, but this does happen when there is more than one eyewitness of an event. We see that in some instances there are portions of each author's narrative that are expanded on while the other authors remain silent, such as in the case of the angel(s) at the tomb of Christ, the demoniac(s) at Gadara, which person was at the tomb of Christ first, the blind man/men along the road, etc. It seems that this is another case of one disciple providing a detail that the others do not.

Just an aside, it does seem plausible that both the mother and foal would have been brought since the foal had never been ridden before (Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30). Because it was untrained and apparently young enough to be called a "colt", it would follow that the foal would have been tethered to the mother during the procession.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:O.k. there are

Sara wrote:

O.k. there are two problems here.

Yes. There are.

1) You very dishonestly skimmed over your blatant mistake in claiming that I was confusing the Zechariah passage as implying two animals. You went on and on and on about how this was a common error, and yet, all along, it was painfully clear to any careful reader that I was holding the passage DOES ONLY refer to one animal and that my very point was that Matthew made the error of confusing zechariah 9:9 as refering to two animals.

I caught you red handed in this error, and you didn't even acknowledge your error here, let along concede it.

2) Despite the fact that I've demonstrated matthew's error, you've failed to concede that this error exists and instead run to the sort of
"apologist reasoning' that makes freshman logic professors cry.

Quote:

First, it is clear that Jesus only rode the colt as Zechariah points
out

We both agree that Zechariah refers to only one animal being ridden in passage 9:9. That was my point to you all along.

But the point before you is that Matthew read Zechariah wrong, and confused the passage to read as if the "king" in the passage were riding two animals, and when he used this passage as a 'prophecy' of jesus he screwed up the story.

By the way, Zechariah couldn't actually refer to jesus at all.

The gospels (especially Mt.21:4-5 and Jn.12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of Zech.9:9. But the next few verses (9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

- skeptics bible.

Quote:

Matthew states that coats were placed on both animals

Yes, he refers to two animals, where there is actually only supposed to be one.

Thanks for refuting yourself here.

Now, can you be honest enough to admit it?

Quote:

and that Jesus sat upon the coats [i.e. the "them" in the verse is not referring to both donkeys but the coats].

So that he could ride both animals!

They sat him on the coats on top of THE TWO ANIMALS!

How can you be so obtuse? Was it deliberate?

This was matthew's apparent 'mechanism' for having jesus ride both animals to 'fulfill' the 'prophecy'. Otherwise, there's no way for matthew to get jesus on 'both' of them, as per his misreading of Zechariah!

You're funny!

Again, the passages in matthew refer to two animals, where the 'prophecy' in zechariah, which can't refer to jesus in the first place, really only speaks to one.

Ergo, we have a prima facie proof that 'matthew' was not witnessing anything, that he was really pulling things from the OT to tell a story.

Here, read matthew again:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (21:2-7)

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And Matthew reads it wrong, believing it refers to two animals:

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Again, chapter 21 is based on a mistaken misreading of Zechariah's use of a literary device of repetition for effect!

Quote:

Second, the fact that Matthew includes the incidental detail that the mother of the foal accompanied the procession, does not necessarily mean that he misunderstood Zechariah either.

Um, yes it does. He's misreading the passage for two animals, where Zechariah only speaks of one animal. He even goes to bizarre lengths to figure out how 'jesus' could ride them both.

Your desparation is revealing of your dogmatic thinking on this matter.

Quote:

Granted, the other Gospel writers do exclude this detail,

In other words, they didn't screw up the passage like Matthew did.

Quote:

but this does happen when there is more than one eyewitness of an event.

How quaint... the fact that matthew gets it 'wrong' proves to you that it's an eyewitness account, because eyewitness accounts often conflict!

What logic! Eyewitness accounts often include errors, so the fact that matthew got it wrong makes it an eyewitness account. Talk about transductive reasoning!

So, tell me: if they agreed, then would the passages be wrong then? Why do I get the feeling that in that case, you'd cite their agreement as evidence of their veracity!

In other words, whatever the outcome,agreement, disagreement, it doesn't matter... whatever it says, it 'fits' your dogma.

To those who are willing to be open minded and rational about this, I've just demonstrated that no one could have actually seen this event, as it is clearly a misreading of a passage in zechariah that couldn't even relate to 'jesus' to begin with. Your insistence that it is still an eyewitness account is irrational.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I caught you red

Quote:

I caught you red handed in this error, and you didn't even acknowledge your error here, let along concede it.

2) Despite the fact that I've demonstrated matthew's error, you've failed to concede that this error exists and instead run to the sort of
"apologist reasoning' that makes freshman logic professors cry.

Well, far be it from me to make a professor cry. I don't think there have been any errors on my part. But let's see.

Quote:
We both agree that Zechariah refers to only one animal being ridden in passage 9:9. That was my point to you all along.

But the point before you is that Matthew read Zechariah wrong, and confused the passage to read as if the "king" in the passage were riding two animals, and when he used this passage as a 'prophecy' of jesus he screwed up the story.

Matthew was very adept with his Hebrew which is evident from his translations of other verses directly from Hebrew (Mt 11:10). It seems that he would easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine. So there really is no way to accuse Matthew of "misunderstanding" it unless you also accuse him of being ignorant of Hebrew and dismiss all the accurate translations he DID render from this language.

Quote:
By the way, Zechariah couldn't actually refer to jesus at all.

The gospels (especially Mt.21:4-5 and Jn.12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of Zech.9:9. But the next few verses (9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

- skeptics bible.

Well, I bet you just love this answer when you get it. But apparently this will be fulfilled in Jesus' second coming.

Quote:
Yes, he refers to two animals, where there is actually only supposed to be one.

Thanks for refuting yourself here.

Now, can you be honest enough to admit it?

No refutation here. Matthew's inclusion of the mare was most likely a detail which the other gospel writers omitted.

Quote:
So that he could ride both animals!

They sat him on the coats on top of THE TWO ANIMALS!

That's not true. Aside from the fact that it would have been ridiculous (as well as nearly impossible) to ride two animals at once which were of different statures down the middle of a crowed street, you can't make that inference from the Greek. The last antecedent for "them" was the "garments", not the donkeys! So again, you cannot make the connection that Jesus rode both animals from this passage.

Second, when the disciples laid their garments on the animals, they did so to pay homage to Jesus. If the mare was accompanying the foal, it seems very likely that they place a garment on her as well.

Quote:
How can you be so obtuse? Was it deliberate?

Uh, no Mr. Dufresne if you please.

Quote:
You're funny!

Thanks?

Quote:
Again, the passages in matthew refer to two animals, where the 'prophecy' in zechariah, which can't refer to jesus in the first place, really only speaks to one.

Ergo, we have a prima facie proof that 'matthew' was not witnessing anything, that he was really pulling things from the OT to tell a story.

Here, read matthew again:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (21:2-7)

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And Matthew reads it wrong, believing it refers to two animals:

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Again, chapter 21 is based on a mistaken misreading of Zechariah's use of a literary device of repetition for effect!

O.k. So I read it again and I repeat: If Matthew read Hebrew and could translate it very accurately, he would have known that Zechariah's word for "donkey" was male and could not have "misread it".

Quote:
Um, yes it does. He's misreading the passage for two animals, where Zechariah only speaks of one animal. He even goes to bizarre lengths to figure out how 'jesus' could ride them both.

Your desparation is revealing of your dogmatic thinking on this matter.

Your uninformed assertion is revealing your reliance on skeptical literature instead of doing your own thinking on this matter.

Quote:
How quaint... the fact that matthew gets it 'wrong' proves to you that it's an eyewitness account, because eyewitness accounts often conflict!

What logic! Eyewitness accounts often include errors, so the fact that matthew got it wrong makes it an eyewitness account. Talk about transductive reasoning!

So, tell me: if they agreed, then would the passages be wrong then? Why do I get the feeling that in that case, you'd cite their agreement as evidence of their veracity!

In other words, whatever the outcome,agreement, disagreement, it doesn't matter... whatever it says, it 'fits' your dogma.

No, I don't think they were wrong to include details that other writers omitted. That is just your atheistic bias showing. You think that because two people write an account which differs slightly that means one was wrong and the other was right. This is not so. If the Gospels were in complete agreement in every detail, there would be no need for more than one.

Also every atheist like yourself would be declaring that the "agreements" proved they were copies and not individual accounts (which is pretty much the consensus today among your kind). So it's pretty much a lose lose situation for the theist since it doesn't matter how the Gospels are presented, the skeptic will cite both agreements and differences to prove their case while accusing theist of being "dishonest" and "dogmatic" when they do the same.

Quote:
To those who are willing to be open minded and rational about this, I've just demonstrated that no one could have actually seen this event, as it is clearly a misreading of a passage in zechariah that couldn't even relate to 'jesus' to begin with. Your insistence that it is still an eyewitness account is irrational.

You've demonstrated nothing of the kind. People who are open minded and rational would not begin with the a priori assumption that Matthew did not know Hebrew (especially after they read his translations of OT verses) or that he was silly enough to claim that Jesus rode two donkey's at once. It takes a rather conspiratorial mind to come up with that kind of logic.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote:I caught

Sara wrote:
Quote:

I caught you red handed in this error, and you didn't even acknowledge your error here, let along concede it.

2) Despite the fact that I've demonstrated matthew's error, you've failed to concede that this error exists and instead run to the sort of
"apologist reasoning' that makes freshman logic professors cry.

Well, far be it from me to make a professor cry. I don't think there have been any errors on my part.

Well, I'll repeat my argument here again, so I'll let my argument speak for itself.

But I want to stress to the board what you cut out of my post above

This:

1) You very dishonestly skimmed over your blatant mistake in claiming that I was confusing the Zechariah passage as implying two animals. You went on and on and on about how this was a common error, and yet, all along, it was painfully clear to any careful reader that I was holding the passage DOES ONLY refer to one animal and that my very point was that Matthew made the error of confusing zechariah 9:9 as refering to two animals.

I caught you red handed in this error, and you didn't even acknowledge your error here, let along concede it.

I've pointed this error out twice now, and you just run from it. This is how you handle difficult issues: you blot them out.

Quote:
We both agree that Zechariah refers to only one animal being ridden in passage 9:9. That was my point to you all along.

But the point before you is that Matthew read Zechariah wrong, and confused the passage to read as if the "king" in the passage were riding two animals, and when he used this passage as a 'prophecy' of jesus he screwed up the story.

Quote:

Matthew was very adept with his Hebrew which is evident from his translations of other verses directly from Hebrew (Mt 11:10).

You can assert this all you like, but the point before you is that the matthew author misread Zechariah 9:9. Let's deal with that.

Quote:
By the way, Zechariah couldn't actually refer to jesus at all.

The gospels (especially Mt.21:4-5 and Jn.12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of Zech.9:9. But the next few verses (9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army or a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

- skeptics bible.

Quote:

Well, I bet you just love this answer when you get it. But apparently this will be fulfilled in Jesus' second coming.

I do love that answer.

So, any screw up in the use of the OT as a 'prophecy' can be 'corrected' by saying that "jesus will do it next time"? Don't you see how ad hoc that is? Whatever doesn't work, will 'just happen next time'. Don't you see how your presupposition allows you to slam any square peg into any round hole?

And there's another problem with it: the problem is that this passage from Zechariah was used by the matthew author 1900 years ago, as a prophecy for his own time. He clearly was slamming square pegs into round holes too.

Quote:
Matthew's inclusion of the mare was most likely a detail which the other gospel writers omitted.

This response is pricless. "They omitted it'. And how do you know? Because they don't write about it so they must have omitted it! Because, you already know, ahead of time, that it MUST have happened.... so they must have just omitted it! And so, given this unjustified presumption, whatever square peg shows up, you'll slam it into the round hole....

Do you ever stop and realize that the only reason it 'works' is because you simply assume, ahead of time, that it has to work, no matter what?

Here's the more sober picture: The matthew author included this 'second animal' because he misread Zechariah 9:9. There was never any actual reference to two animals, just the matthew author's confusion of the writers' use of repetition.

The other synoptic gospels report only one animal. Perhaps it is because they did not commit the same error, given that both you and I agree that zechariah only does refer to one animal?

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

The matthew author refers to both references to the same animal here as if they are actually two animals and he uses the same terms:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet[/b[, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

[B]21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

RIDE THEM BOTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS TWO ANIMALS. BOTH.

But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.

******The matthew author has commited an error.***********

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Quote:
So that he could ride both animals!

They sat him on the coats on top of THE TWO ANIMALS!

Quote:

That's not true.

But that's what it says. So argue with your bible. Here, 21:5 makes it plain enough even for a square peg/round hole gal:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Quote:

Aside from the fact that it would have been ridiculous (as well as nearly impossible) to ride two animals at once

Agreed. But this is what matthew says. So you can't use the fact that it's ridiculous to deny it's what he says! You should use the fact that it's ridiculous to reject the veracity of the passage!

The passage clearly says that they sat "him' thereupon.. i.e. on them. Here, look at 21:5 again:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

21:1-2 introduce these animals as two animals. Not one. 21:5 has 'jesus' speaking as if he will ride both. and 21:7 has him placed on them both... (or , on the garments resting on them both, if you prefer) either way, he's riding them both, plural, as per 21:5

As per the matthew author's confused misreading of zechariah.

Quote:
which were of different statures down the middle of a crowed street, you can't make that inference from the Greek. The last antecedent for "them" was the "garments", not the donkeys!

So, he rode the GARMENTS INTO TOWN? Hi-Ho Bathrobe, away?!

Ok, you're not saying that. You think it's just referring to the garments atop of one donkey.

But what of 21:5, where 'jesus' speaks of riding both? Or 21:2 which has 'jesus' himself laying down the fact that this is a reference to two animals? You can say that 'jesus' was set on top of the garments if you prefer, but this only means that the garments were strewn across both animals, because 21:5 has 'jesus' announcing his intent to fulfill the prophecy of riding 'two' animals:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, [b]thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And again, the matthew author is refering to two animals, as he has 'jesus' himself stating, here:

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

So when we get to 21:7, 'jesus' has be set on both animals, whether he's riding bareback (quite a feat!, no wonder he's a miracle worker!), or on a saddle of garments which might be a way to make 'sense' of jesus riding two animals.

Quote:

Second, when the disciples laid their garments on the animals, they did so to pay homage to Jesus. If the mare was accompanying the foal, it seems very likely that they place a garment on her as well.

You just keep ignoring your own bible:

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (21:2-7)

and then:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, [b]thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

and then:

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

And then 'set' him upon them. Plural. So even if you want to say it refers to 'garments', the garments are placed on both animals.

The reality is this:

The matthew author screwed up the passage.

He came up with the bizarre conclusion that this 'king' was riding two animals.

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, [b]thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

He came up with the bizarre solution of having this 'king' ride on the garments across the two animals, so that he could make sense of the 'prophecy'

He even has 'jesus' make a point of setting up this bizarre arrangement himself.

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Quote:
How can you be so obtuse? Was it deliberate?

Quote:

Uh, no Mr. Dufresne if you please.

Well, you get 10 bonus points for catching that reference. Which gives you a score of 10.

Quote:

No, I don't think they were wrong to include details that other writers omitted.

Your unjustified presumption is assuming that they 'omitted' it in the first place. To assume that, you'd have to first know that there were two animals. But you can't know that, you only assume it, and you only assume it for ad hoc reasons.

Quote:

That is just your atheistic bias showing.

This is a hollow complaint given the dogmatic thinking you've demonstrated here.

Quote:

You think that because two people write an account which differs slightly that means one was wrong and the other was right.

Come on. What I have argued here is far more detailed than that. I am not saying 'they disagree, so one is wrong!" What I am saying is that there is very good reason to hold that the matthew author screwed up. He pulled something from the OT that he did not fully understand. He then tried to write a story that fit his misperception.

You yourself agree that the zechariah author was not actually referencing two animals.

Quote:

People who are open minded and rational would not begin with the a priori assumption that Matthew did not know Hebrew

Another strawman. I don't have to begin with any a priori assumption nor do I need to speak to the matthew author's mastery of hebrew. You and both can see that zechariah refers to one animal, and at least one of us can also see that the matthew author screwed up and misread the zechariah author's use of repetition as refering to two animals. I've demonstrated why I see this.

Quote:

(especially after they read his translations of OT verses) or that he was silly enough to claim that Jesus rode two donkey's at once.

Let me step out of this argument for a second and say that I find it odd that you could accept zombie saints rising from graves, but you balk at jesus doing some trick riding.

But, back to our discussion: The matthew author has 'jesus' himself making the claim right here:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And we know he's actually holding that these are two animals, because the matthew author has 'jesus' himsel' say so, right here:

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals. So 'jesus' is refering to two animals, as per the matthew author.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

here, the matthew author screws up and takes zechariah's words as implying two animals, see also 21:1-2.

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Read this without trying to run from the reality of what it says. Read it without recourse to your pre-set need to slam square pegs into round holes....

Quote:
It takes a rather conspiratorial mind to come up with that kind of logic.

Another hollow complaint. It takes a 'conspiratorial' mind to run from the reality that the matthew author is talking about two animals, when the 'prophecy' only speaks of one. This is an error. The matthew author screwed up. Deal with it.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Matthew was very

Sara wrote:
Matthew was very adept with his Hebrew which is evident from his translations of other verses directly from Hebrew (Mt 11:10). It seems that he would easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine.

What's in question is Matthew's interpretation of a literary device in Zec 9:9. Please stay focused. In addition, it does not follow that one who is able to translate language X also possesses the ability to understand the aforementioned language's literary devices. One need not know of Hebrew parallelism to translate Zec 9:9. Here's the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9:

...al-cha-mor (upon a donkey) v'al-a-yir (upon a colt) ben-a-to-not (the foal of a donkey).

In translating the above, it's a matter of matching the Hebrew with one's language's equivalents. How would not knowing of Hebrew parallelism stop one from knowing the English equivalents to the above Hebrew?

Quote:
So there really is no way to accuse Matthew of "misunderstanding" it unless you also accuse him of being ignorant of Hebrew and dismiss all the accurate translations he DID render from this language.

Strawman. Accusing Matthew of misunderstanding a Hebrew parallelism is not also accusing him of being ignorant of Hebrew in general - it's merely accusing him of is being ignorant of a single Hebrew parallelism.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, he refers to two animals, where there is actually only supposed to be one.

Thanks for refuting yourself here.

Now, can you be honest enough to admit it?

No refutation here. Matthew's inclusion of the mare was most likely a detail which the other gospel writers omitted.

How do you know this detail was omitted in the prophecy and the other gospel accounts without begging the question?

Quote:
Quote:
So that he could ride both animals!

They sat him on the coats on top of THE TWO ANIMALS!

That's not true. Aside from the fact that it would have been ridiculous (as well as nearly impossible) to ride two animals at once which were of different statures down the middle of a crowed street, you can't make that inference from the Greek. The last antecedent for "them" was the "garments", not the donkeys!

Actually, in the Greek it's not clear what the antecedent is. Regardless, it still follows that Jesus rode both animals...

Quote:
So again, you cannot make the connection that Jesus rode both animals from this passage.

Wrong. If garments were on both animals, then how could Jesus sit on the garments without sitting on both animals? Remember, you said the antecedent of "them" is the garments, and the garments in Mat 21:7 are spoken of as a whole.

Mat 21:7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them [the donkey and the colt's cloaks]. (NRSV)


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Well this is all very nice.

Well this is all very nice. Both of you failed to see my point which was that the Hebrew word for donkey in Zechariah is a male donkey. So unless Matthew was not able to read Hebrew, he could NOT have misunderstood this verse. Let me illustrate what it would read in Hebrew:

Zechariah 9:9 behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a [MALE donkey], [even] upon a colt, the foal of a donkey.

The word in Hebrew for male donkey is chamowr (which is what Zechariah used) while the word for a female donkey is athown. Since Matthew can read Hebrew, he obviously would have seen that the verse only referred to a male donkey (i.e. the foal). So there is no way for him to get that Zechariah was speaking of two donkeys or that the mare was also a fulfillment of prophecy since Zechariah does not mention an athown (female donkey). The fact that he includes the incedental accompaniment of the mare is simply a case of citing a detail that the others did not.

Also, Tod, I think you are focusing on the KJV rendering of this verse which includes the word "and". If you would take the time to do a little research, you would have seen that this word in Greek can be translated "even", so you are relying on a poorly translated word to prove your point. Second, it says that Jesus SAT upon the garments...so if you say that Matthew was foolish enough to believe that Jesus somehow SAT on two animals at once, could you please explain how one could accomplish this especially since the foal was undoubtedly shorter than the mare???

And Bill, yes it is clear which is the antecedent and it's the clothes. Here is the last part of the verse in Greek:

ho himation kai epikathizO epanO autos
THE GARMENTS AND He-ON-seats ON-UP OF -them

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Correction: Zechariah does

Correction:

Zechariah does mention a mare at the end, but he states that the King would ride on the Male donkey, not both. I apologize for the error.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This whole thing going on

This whole thing going on for a while about a donkey reminds me of something - can't remember the exact words, but Robert Ingersoll said something about Jesus having ridden on an ass, and now his religion rides on many of them?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:

Sara wrote:

Well this is all very nice. Both of you failed to see my point which was that the Hebrew word for donkey in Zechariah is a male donkey. So unless Matthew was not able to read Hebrew, he could NOT have misunderstood this verse. Let me illustrate what it would read in Hebrew:

Zechariah 9:9 behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a [MALE donkey], [even] upon a colt, the foal of a donkey.

The word in Hebrew for male donkey is chamowr (which is what Zechariah used) while the word for a female donkey is athown. Since Matthew can read Hebrew, he obviously would have seen that the verse only referred to a male donkey (i.e. the foal). So there is no way for him to get that Zechariah was speaking of two donkeys or that the mare was also a fulfillment of prophecy since Zechariah does not mention an athown (female donkey). The fact that he includes the incedental accompaniment of the mare is simply a case of citing a detail that the others did not.

Based on a reading of Mat 21:2, it's not known whether the donkey is male or female.

Thayer's Greek Definitions wrote:

onos
1) an ass
Part of Speech: noun masculine or feminine

Thayer's Greek Definitions wrote:

autos
1) himself, herself, themselves, itself
2) he, she, it
3) the same
Part of Speech: pronoun

Mat 21:2 saying to them, Go into the village over against you, and immediately ye will find an ass [onon] tied, and a colt with it [auths]... (Darby)

Some translations have assumed the donkey is female because it's tied along side a colt. These translations render the pronoun for the donkey as "her" based on this assumption. Grammatically there is/are no reason(s) for doing so. Since the gender of the donkey is unknown, the pronoun for the donkey should be "it."

Matthew's account is consistent with the charge that he failed to see the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9. Since there is only a colt mentioned in Zec 9:9, and Matthew's account contains a donkey and a colt, the only rational reason Matthew could have been led to include a donkey in his account is if he failed to see the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9. What else could have led him to include a donkey? If a donkey was omitted from Zec 9:9, how could Matthew know this? How could he know a detail that doesn't exist!?

By the way, I omitted something in my post. Take my word for it - or perhaps you can know what I omitted by using the special ability for knowing things that don't exist that Matthew must have had!

Quote:

And Bill, yes it is clear which is the antecedent and it's the clothes. Here is the last part of the verse in Greek:

ho himation kai epikathizO epanO autos
THE GARMENTS AND He-ON-seats ON-UP OF -them

1. You disingenuously excluded from your analysis the donkey and the colt which are potential antecedents of "them."
2. It's not "the garments" it's "their [the donkey and the colt's] garments." You screwed up your translation by excluding vital parts of Mat 21:7.
3. This issue is a red herring and you've established yourself as disingenuous so I'm going to try to focus on other things.

Again, if garments were on both animals, then how could Jesus sit on the garments without sitting on both animals? Remember, you said the antecedent of "them" is the garments, and the garments in Mat 21:7 are spoken of as a whole.

Mat 21:7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them [the donkey and the colt's cloaks]. (NRSV)


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Bill, It would be nice if

Bill,

It would be nice if you could try to understand what I'm saying instead of repeating your argument over and over. I have pointed out three times now why it would have been impossible for Matthew to misunderstand this prophecy. But let me try one more time, if you still don't understand after this post, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time repeating it again.

First, the source of the prophecy from which Matthew quoted was in Hebrew.

The Hebrew word for the donkey the King would ride on in Zechariah was chamowr (male donkey) and ayir (male colt) which would be the foal of an athown (female donkey).

If Matthew could read Hebrew (and clearly he could), then there would be no way for him to misunderstand that Zechariah was speaking a single male donkey.

Second, your point about the other donkey's gender "not being known" in the Greek is a real stretch. I think you are getting a little desperate to prove your point. It only makes sense that a foal would be tied next to the mare and not some random male donkey. If you've ever been around any sort of equine (or any other animal for that matter), you would know that separating the mare from her foal is very distressing for both animals. The fact that the foal was young enough to never have been ridden before (Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30), indicates that it may not have been previously separated from it's mother so she would have accompanied the foal in the procession.

Lastly, I said that the NEAREST antecedent of "them" was the garments. So in terms of Greek, the NEAREST antecedent is often used to determine what is being referred to. Furthermore, if the antecedent was the donkeys, then the verse has Jesus SITTING on both animals and it is impossible to SIT on two animals at once.

Also the word for garments in Greek is himation which means:

a) the cloak or mantle and the tunic

2) the upper garment, the cloak or mantle

This word is clearly referring to human clothes, which belonged to the disciples, not the donkeys (unless you know of any donkeys that were tunics or cloaks?). The same word is used in the next verse regarding the garments of the multitudes that were laid in the street.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote: Bill, It would

Sara wrote:

Bill,

It would be nice if you could try to understand what I'm saying instead of repeating your argument over and over.

I've only been repeating what you've been dodging. It would be nice if you would stop dodging.

Quote:

I have pointed out three times now why it would have been impossible for Matthew to misunderstand this prophecy. But let me try one more time, if you still don't understand after this post, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time repeating it again.

First, the source of the prophecy from which Matthew quoted was in Hebrew.

The Hebrew word for the donkey the King would ride on in Zechariah was chamowr (male donkey) and ayir (male colt) which would be the foal of an athown (female donkey).

If Matthew could read Hebrew (and clearly he could), then there would be no way for him to misunderstand that Zechariah was speaking a single male donkey.

I've already addressed this non sequitur.

For the second time, it does not follow that one who is able to translate language X also possesses the ability to understand the aforementioned language's literary devices. One need not know of Hebrew parallelism to translate Zec 9:9. Here's the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9:

...al-cha-mor (upon a donkey) v'al-a-yir (upon a colt) ben-a-to-not (the foal of a donkey).

In translating the above, it's a matter of matching the Hebrew with one's language's equivalents. How would not knowing of Hebrew parallelism stop one from knowing the English or Greek equivalents to the above Hebrew?

It takes knowledge of some Hebrew to gather from Zec 9:9 that a king would ride upon a donkey and a colt the foal of a donkey, but it takes knowledge of Hebrew parallelism to know that the colt wasn't an addition to the donkey that was mentioned.

Please stop equating knowledge of general Hebrew with knowledge of Hebrew literary devices.

Quote:

Second, your point about the other donkey's gender "not being known" in the Greek is a real stretch. I think you are getting a little desperate to prove your point. It only makes sense that a foal would be tied next to the mare and not some random male donkey. If you've ever been around any sort of equine (or any other animal for that matter), you would know that separating the mare from her foal is very distressing for both animals.

You're begging the question that Matthew's account is factual.

Quote:

The fact that the foal was young enough to never have been ridden before (Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30), indicates that it may not have been previously separated from it's mother so she would have accompanied the foal in the procession.

What a load of shit of a donkey, a colt the foal of a donkey. If the colt was so inexperienced that it needed its mother, why would the colt be ridden instead of its mother? You're making the authors of Zechariah and the gospels look like morons. In addition, citing Mark and Luke doesn't support your case because they apparently didn't think the colt needed to be accompanied despite it never being ridden before.

Readers, I encourage you to read the following accounts to see the absurdity of the charge that Mark and Luke omitted a donkey:

NRSV wrote:

Mar 11:1 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, "Why are you doing this?' just say this, "The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.' " 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"

Luk 19:29 When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, "Why are you untying it?' just say this, "The Lord needs it.' " 32 So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?" 34 They said, "The Lord needs it." 35 Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. 36 As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. 37 As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, 38 saying, "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!"

Quote:
Lastly, I said that the NEAREST antecedent of "them" was the garments.

Short term memory? Lying? Mistyped? You said no such thing.

Here's what you said:

Quote:

And Bill, yes it is clear which is the antecedent and it's the clothes. Here is the last part of the verse in Greek:

ho himation kai epikathizO epanO autos
THE GARMENTS AND He-ON-seats ON-UP OF -them

Quote:

So in terms of Greek, the NEAREST antecedent is often used to determine what is being referred to.

Again, I don't want to focus on this issue because it's a red herring and you've established yourself as disingenuous. However, since you're merely offering your opinion, I will cite the opinion of a biblical scholar whose opinion carries weight.

G.M Soares Prabhu "The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew" wrote:

To sum up: Text-critical and grammatical analyses cannot solve the ambiguity of Mt 21,7. The text is to be retained as it stands. The disciples put garments on both animals (ep auton), and only the context can tell us whether the epano auton which follows, has himatia or onos kai polos as its antecedence. But the context of the whole narrative has been largely influenced by the formula quotation of 21,4f. Through abbreviation, insertion, and deft change, Mt continually focuses our attention on the formula quotation, and strains to make it unmistakably clear that the quotation is literally fulfilled through what Jesus does.

Quote:

Furthermore, if the antecedent was the donkeys, then the verse has Jesus SITTING on both animals and it is impossible to SIT on two animals at once.

I see you're begging the same question that you were begging earlier.

----------

Statement A: Humans are made of chocolate.
Statement B: Humans are not made of chocolate.

Dave: You see, it's impossible for humans to be made of chocolate; it's also impossible for something to be made of X and not made of X at the same time, so statement A must not mean what it says!

Sally: That's nice, Dave, but clearly statement A omits "not."

----------

Here are some things for you to continue to dodge: For the third time, if garments were on both animals, then how could Jesus sit on the garments without sitting on both animals? Remember, you said the antecedent of "them" is the garments, and the garments in Mat 21:7 are spoken of as a whole.

Mat 21:7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them [the cloaks on the donkey and the colt]. (NRSV)

For the second time: Since there is only a colt in Zec 9:9, and Matthew's account contains a donkey and a colt, the only rational reason Matthew could have been led to include a donkey in his account is if he failed to see the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9. What else could have led him to include a donkey? If a donkey was omitted from Zec 9:9, how could Matthew know this? How could he know a detail that doesn't exist!?

If you had a shapes puzzle when you were a kid I bet all its pegs are broken.

Quote:
Also the word for garments in Greek is himation which means:

a) the cloak or mantle and the tunic

2) the upper garment, the cloak or mantle

This word is clearly referring to human clothes, which belonged to the disciples, not the donkeys (unless you know of any donkeys that were tunics or cloaks?). The same word is used in the next verse regarding the garments of the multitudes that were laid in the street.

Yes, I was wrong on an inconsequential fact. I have integrity so I have no problem admitting to an error I've made. Speaking of integrity...

Sara wrote:
todangst wrote:

And here's another reason to doubt:

Look at Matthew, chapter 21, verses four and five. In those chapters are irrefutible proof that the matthew writer merely took from the Markian source and from the Old testament to tell his story, and did not ever witness anything.

In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Based on his MISREADING of Zechariah 9:9

9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Whoa, there cowboy. I think that you are jumping to some conclusions here that aren't correct. First, how is this a misreading of Zechariah? It says the exact same thing. Second, how does stating that Jesus is riding on a colt, which is a donkey and a foal of a donkey mean that He's riding on two animals? It's like saying that Jesus was riding on a donkey, and not just any donkey, but specifically on a colt. So it was only one animal, but just a description of it. Do you understand that there are some difficulties with Hebrew expressions and they don't often translate well into English? Are you going to base your whole claim on something like that?

You know that when people attempt to learn our language, we have some strange ways of stating things that don't make sense to them. Like the phrase "seeing eye to eye". If you were to take that phrase literally, you could get all sorts of meanings from it.

todangst wrote:

1) You very dishonestly skimmed over your blatant mistake in claiming that I was confusing the Zechariah passage as implying two animals. You went on and on and on about how this was a common error, and yet, all along, it was painfully clear to any careful reader that I was holding the passage DOES ONLY refer to one animal and that my very point was that Matthew made the error of confusing zechariah 9:9 as refering to two animals.

I caught you red handed in this error, and you didn't even acknowledge your error here, let along concede it.

I've pointed this error out twice now, and you just run from it. This is how you handle difficult issues: you blot them out.

Be careful not to break your backspace key!


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:For the second time,

Quote:
For the second time, it does not follow that one who is able to translate language X also possesses the ability to understand the aforementioned language's literary devices. One need not know of Hebrew parallelism to translate Zec 9:9. Here's the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9:

...al-cha-mor (upon a donkey) v'al-a-yir (upon a colt) ben-a-to-not (the foal of a donkey).

In translating the above, it's a matter of matching the Hebrew with one's language's equivalents. How would not knowing of Hebrew parallelism stop one from knowing the English or Greek equivalents to the above Hebrew?

It takes knowledge of some Hebrew to gather from Zec 9:9 that a king would ride upon a donkey and a colt the foal of a donkey, but it takes knowledge of Hebrew parallelism to know that the colt wasn't an addition to the donkey that was mentioned.

Please stop equating knowledge of general Hebrew with knowledge of Hebrew literary devices.

Matthew seems to have a very solid grasp on knowing the nuances of Hebrew language. His occasional loose translations directly from the Hebrew OT and his other uses of Hebraisms such as "Son of Man" and other Hebrew phrases clearly show that he was very knowledgeable of the language and culture. While you lightly dismiss this as being a "non-sequitur", I don't think that it's as meaningless as you make it. If a person were to have such an in depth knowledge of the language, OT scriptures, Hebrew culture and religious practices, it would follow that it would also be likely he would understand literary devices. After all, if we 21st century Americans can see Hebrew parallelism even in a different language, do you really think a Hebrew familiar with his own religious scriptures couldn't recognize it???

Furthermore, Matthew did correctly identify parallelism when it was used elsewhere. For example, in Matthew 12:18, Matthew quotes from Isaiah 42:1 which says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." This is clearly a Hebrew parallelism that is referring to one person and amazingly enough Matthew correctly understands this verse and applies it to one Person; Jesus. So it seems that you are mistaken in your assessment that Matthew was unable to understand this literary device since he recognizes it in Isaiah.

Quote:
Quote:

Lastly, I said that the NEAREST antecedent of "them" was the garments.

Short term memory? Lying? Mistyped? You said no such thing.

Here's what you said:
Quote:

And Bill, yes it is clear which is the antecedent and it's the clothes. Here is the last part of the verse in Greek:

ho himation kai epikathizO epanO autos
THE GARMENTS AND He-ON-seats ON-UP OF -them

Well, that's very nice of you to accuse me of lying. But if you had taken the time to go maybe a post or two above this one, you would have seen that I actually said:

Quote:
The last antecedent for "them" was the "garments", not the donkeys!
which I posted on Sat, 2006-09-23 at 17:27. So I wasn't lying. Though I admit that I didn't use the exact word "nearest" because I wasn't attempting to quote myself word for word, both of my statements have the same meaning. Nice try though.

Second, the reason I pointed out the impossibility of Jesus sitting on two animals, was to illustrate how unlikely it would be for Matthew to have claimed this. Matthew doesn't cite this amazing feat as being "miraculous" as it would likely be. Since neither you nor todaganst were able to answer my question about how it was actually possible for a person to sit on two donkeys of unequal stature at the same time while riding down a busy and crowded street, I would have to assume that it would be a miracle. Yet Matthew doesn't seem to give this awesome accomplishment very much attention. Strange.

I also like how you accuse me of making the Gospel writers "look like morons" for not including a detail and then nicely state that Matthew makes some silly and impossible "error" about how Jesus sits on two animals at once. Do you think that accusation lends any credence to Matthew's intelligence?

Quote:
For the second time: Since there is only a colt in Zec 9:9, and Matthew's account contains a donkey and a colt, the only rational reason Matthew could have been led to include a donkey in his account is if he failed to see the Hebrew parallelism in Zec 9:9. What else could have led him to include a donkey? If a donkey was omitted from Zec 9:9, how could Matthew know this? How could he know a detail that doesn't exist!?

If you had a shapes puzzle when you were a kid I bet all its pegs are broken.

No, the only rational reason Matthew could have been led to include a donkey was because there really was a second donkey present with the colt and Mattew was there to see it.

The other Gospel writers obviously didn't see the need to include it since Jesus only rode the colt and this was the fulfillment of the prophecy. Matthew may have included it just to be thorough.

Also, Matthew also doesn't say that Jesus rode both animals, just that He sat upon the garments. Granted that garments were placed on both animals, but it could have very well been that there was more than one garment placed on each animal. Therefore the the "them" that Jesus sat on could have been referring to plural garments not plural donkeys.

Just an aside, "shapes puzzle with broken pegs"??? Do all atheist's use the same phrases and analogies? It's like I'm talking to the same person who keeps changing names.

Quote:

Yes, I was wrong on an inconsequential fact. I have integrity so I have no problem admitting to an error I've made. Speaking of integrity...

Glad to see you are full of self esteem, it's so becoming a person.

But I do want to let you know that I wasn't trying to accuse todangst of misunderstanding Zechariah per se (but I'm happy that you are willing to debate in his stead for him since he's seemed to have disappeared.)

I was trying to get across to him that he misunderstood the KJV version verses because they say "sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." It seems as though the KJV writers translated this verse inaccurately by using the word "and" instead of even. Other translations such as the NKJV and NAS say "sitting on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey" or "mounted on a donkey, EVEN on a colt.." etc. I didn't address it because it seemed to me, to borrow your term, "inconsequential". But since you see it as a matter of integrity, I thought I would oblige you.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:

Sara wrote:

Matthew seems to have a very solid grasp on knowing the nuances of Hebrew language. His occasional loose translations directly from the Hebrew OT and his other uses of Hebraisms such as "Son of Man" and other Hebrew phrases clearly show that he was very knowledgeable of the language and culture. While you lightly dismiss this as being a "non-sequitur", I don't think that it's as meaningless as you make it. If a person were to have such an in depth knowledge of the language, OT scriptures, Hebrew culture and religious practices, it would follow that it would also be likely he would understand literary devices. After all, if we 21st century Americans can see Hebrew parallelism even in a different language, do you really think a Hebrew familiar with his own religious scriptures couldn't recognize it???

Furthermore, Matthew did correctly identify parallelism when it was used elsewhere. For example, in Matthew 12:18, Matthew quotes from Isaiah 42:1 which says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." This is clearly a Hebrew parallelism that is referring to one person and amazingly enough Matthew correctly understands this verse and applies it to one Person; Jesus. So it seems that you are mistaken in your assessment that Matthew was unable to understand this literary device since he recognizes it in Isaiah.

Isa 42:1 is nothing like Zec 9:9. Here's how Zechariah used parallelism:

Zec 7:1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of Jehovah came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chislev. (ASV)

Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the chieftains of Judah like a pan of fire among wood, and like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour all the peoples round about, on the right hand and on the left; and they of Jerusalem shall yet again dwell in their own place, even in Jerusalem.

Anyway, I only want to focus on one thing to show the absurdity of your position; show that the basis for your position is ad hoc. How do you know the other authors omitted a donkey?

Quote:

Well, that's very nice of you to accuse me of lying. But if you had taken the time to go maybe a post or two above this one, you would have seen that I actually said:
Quote:

The last antecedent for "them" was the "garments", not the donkeys!

which I posted on Sat, 2006-09-23 at 17:27. So I wasn't lying. Though I admit that I didn't use the exact word "nearest" because I wasn't attempting to quote myself word for word, both of my statements have the same meaning. Nice try though.

You capitalized "nearest," and "last" and "nearest" aren't synonymous, so I don't think you can blame me for thinking you claimed to have used the word "nearest" or a synonym for it. You were being misleading. Please try to write more carefully in the future.

Quote:

Second, the reason I pointed out the impossibility of Jesus sitting on two animals, was to illustrate how unlikely it would be for Matthew to have claimed this. Matthew doesn't cite this amazing feat as being "miraculous" as it would likely be. Since neither you nor todaganst were able to answer my question about how it was actually possible for a person to sit on two donkeys of unequal stature at the same time while riding down a busy and crowded street, I would have to assume that it would be a miracle. Yet Matthew doesn't seem to give this awesome accomplishment very much attention. Strange.

If this is a valid form of reasoning, then such reasoning can be used to establish that sensible interpretations of the accounts in the Koran or the Book of Mormon are always more likely than nonsensical interpretations.

Quote:
I also like how you accuse me of making the Gospel writers "look like morons" for not including a detail and then nicely state that Matthew makes some silly and impossible "error" about how Jesus sits on two animals at once. Do you think that accusation lends any credence to Matthew's intelligence?

That's not a fair comparison. You're making 4 authors look like morons based on an omission charge for which you have provided no evidence.

Quote:
No, the only rational reason Matthew could have been led to include a donkey was because there really was a second donkey present with the colt and Mattew was there to see it.

You're begging the question that Zec 9:9 omits a donkey and that Matthew was an eyewitness who recorded an actual prophecy fulfillment.

Quote:
The other Gospel writers obviously didn't see the need to include it since Jesus only rode the colt and this was the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Begging the question. How do you know they didn't see a need to include a donkey if you have no evidence that they omitted a donkey?

Quote:
Also, Matthew also doesn't say that Jesus rode both animals, just that He sat upon the garments. Granted that garments were placed on both animals, but it could have very well been that there was more than one garment placed on each animal. Therefore the the "them" that Jesus sat on could have been referring to plural garments not plural donkeys.

Nice try, but the garments are spoken of as a whole. So if the antecedent of "them" is the garments (as you have claimed), then Jesus sat on all of the garments (which were on both animals), not some of the garments.

Quote:

Glad to see you are full of self esteem, it's so becoming a person.

But I do want to let you know that I wasn't trying to accuse todangst of misunderstanding Zechariah per se (but I'm happy that you are willing to debate in his stead for him since he's seemed to have disappeared.)

I'm not willing to debate this issue. I simply wanted to get you to acknowledge this issue since you kept avoiding it - I wanted to see what your response would be so I could make a judgment on your character.

Quote:
I was trying to get across to him that he misunderstood the KJV version verses because they say "sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." It seems as though the KJV writers translated this verse inaccurately by using the word "and" instead of even. Other translations such as the NKJV and NAS say "sitting on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey" or "mounted on a donkey, EVEN on a colt.." etc. I didn't address it because it seemed to me, to borrow your term, "inconsequential". But since you see it as a matter of integrity, I thought I would oblige you.

"Kai" can mean "and,"...also, biblical scholar G. M. Soares Prabhu thinks Matthew destroys the original parallelism by placing "kai" between "onos" and "polos," so you shouldn't dismiss translations that use "and" as inaccurate just because they don't agree with your position.

I'm neutral on this issue because I haven't researched it thoroughly.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Bill Johnson wrote:Sara

Bill Johnson wrote:
Sara wrote:
Matthew was very adept with his Hebrew which is evident from his translations of other verses directly from Hebrew (Mt 11:10). It seems that he would easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine.

What's in question is Matthew's interpretation of a literary device in Zec 9:9. Please stay focused.


If she actually attempted to focus on the issue, she's be confronted with her error.
Quote:

In addition, it does not follow that one who is able to translate language X also possesses the ability to understand the aforementioned language's literary devices.

A nice point.

However the key point to me is that there's no need for debate here: Matthew 21 makes it abundantly clear that the matthew author confused zechariah 9:9 as refering to two beasts, not one. There's no need to bring in other issues - even superlative translators make errors.

Quote:
So there really is no way to accuse Matthew of "misunderstanding" it unless you also accuse him of being ignorant of Hebrew and dismiss all the accurate translations he DID render from this language.

Quote:

Strawman. Accusing Matthew of misunderstanding a Hebrew parallelism is not also accusing him of being ignorant of Hebrew in general - it's merely accusing him of is being ignorant of a single Hebrew parallelism.

Well said. In addition, a reading of Matthew 21 makes it abundantly, painfully clear that the matthew author has 'jesus' misunderstanding zechariah 9:9 as refering to two animals. Matthew 21:1-5 establish this.... Sara simply must run from this reality, she has no other choice but to try and focus on 21:7 and hope that some grammatical trickery will save her faith in the gospels. But even this is a lost cause - even if you ignore 21:1-5, 21:7 makes it pretty clear that this 'jesus' is riding two beasts, not one...

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, he refers to two animals, where there is actually only supposed to be one.

Thanks for refuting yourself here.

Now, can you be honest enough to admit it?

No refutation here. Matthew's inclusion of the mare was most likely a detail which the other gospel writers omitted.

Quote:

How do you know this detail was omitted in the prophecy and the other gospel accounts without begging the question?

Bingo. She simply begs the question that the gospels are 'gospel' truth... hence, for her to concede the argument is to surrender that cherished assumption.

So this is a matter of faith, not reason..... her begging the question here is evidence of this.

Quote:
Quote:
So that he could ride both animals!

They sat him on the coats on top of THE TWO ANIMALS!

That's not true. Aside from the fact that it would have been ridiculous (as well as nearly impossible) to ride two animals at once which were of different statures down the middle of a crowed street, you can't make that inference from the Greek. The last antecedent for "them" was the "garments", not the donkeys!

Quote:

Actually, in the Greek it's not clear what the antecedent is. Regardless, it still follows that Jesus rode both animals...

Matthew 21:1-5 states is plainly, as I've quoted and requoted dozens of times... in bold letters...

Quote:
So again, you cannot make the connection that Jesus rode both animals from this passage.

Quote:

Wrong. If garments were on both animals, then how could Jesus sit on the garments without sitting on both animals? Remember, you said the antecedent of "them" is the garments, and the garments in Mat 21:7 are spoken of as a whole.

Mat 21:7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them [the donkey and the colt's cloaks]. (NRSV)

Sara's only hope is to play word games with 21:7. But even this must fail, seeing as the 'garments' are placed upon both animals... her argument only moves the problem one step back... unless 'jesus' is intending to ride the garments alone, into town!

But her goose was already cooked in 21:1-5

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

The matthew author refers to both references to the same animal here as if they are actually two animals and he uses the same terms:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus ordered that BOTH ANIMALS BE BROUGHT TO HIM SO THAT the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 would be fulfilled:

[B]21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

RIDE THEM BOTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS TWO ANIMALS. BOTH.

But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.

******The matthew author has commited an error.***********

It's inescapable, unavoidable, and all there in 21:4-5. Passages that sara dodges over and over.

Making any argument over 21:7 moot, even though sara's argument fails here anyway.

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

So in the end, it's just another thread where a theist runs from reality and the projects her intransigience onto others....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Bill Johnson wrote: Anyway,

Bill Johnson wrote:

Anyway, I only want to focus on one thing to show the absurdity of your position; show that the basis for your position is ad hoc. How do you know the other authors omitted a donkey?

We both know the answer to this one: because otherwise, the gospels include a clear translation error.... So the others must have ommited them!

Thanks for your comments, Bill.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Isa 42:1 is nothing

Quote:
Isa 42:1 is nothing like Zec 9:9. Here's how Zechariah used parallelism:

Zec 7:1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of Jehovah came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chislev. (ASV)

Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the chieftains of Judah like a pan of fire among wood, and like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour all the peoples round about, on the right hand and on the left; and they of Jerusalem shall yet again dwell in their own place, even in Jerusalem.

Anyway, I only want to focus on one thing to show the absurdity of your position; show that the basis for your position is ad hoc. How do you know the other authors omitted a donkey?

I'm sorry but you really have no leg to stand on here. The issue at hand was whether or not Matthew was able to understand Hebrew parallelism and I've clearly shown you a case where he did. If you reject this example of where Matthew recognizes and correctly interprets this literary device simply because, in your opinion, it's doesn't "match" Zechariah's, I can only conclude that you don't want to admit you were wrong.

Zechariah 9:9 and Isaiah 42:1 are both examples of Hebrew parallelism. We have two instances where a single subject is being repetitiously described in both Zechariah and Isaiah and Matthew undeniably saw it in the latter. So complaining that the verses aren't the exactly the "same" really doesn't really matter since the debate was centered on whether or not Matthew understood the literary device. Given that Zechariah's use of parallelism was not significantly different from Isaiah's, one cannot automatically conclude that Matthew somehow "missed" it in one but not the other.

As for me knowing that the other authors "omitted a donkey", unless Matthew was a liar, it seems that he included a detail that the other's did not. The Gospels claim to be separate eyewitness accounts of the same event. These accounts do differ at times, but that is due to the fact that they focus on different aspects. As I pointed out to Todangst, the other Gospel writers often included other details left out by some of the authors such as the demoniac(S) at Gadara, the angel(S) at the empty tomb, and the blind beggar(S) along the road healed by Jesus, etc. Matthew's second donkey is just another example of this.

BTW, as for all your "begging the question" accusations, I really don't care to play this game. Half of your statements (i.e. that Matthew was NOT an eyewitness, that he did NOT understand Hebrew Parallelism and that Jesus rode two donkeys) do the same, so let's not go there o.k.?

Quote:
If this is a valid form of reasoning, then such reasoning can be used to establish that sensible interpretations of the accounts in the Koran or the Book of Mormon are always more likely than nonsensical interpretations.

Let's not compare apples to oranges. The bible is quite different from both the Koran and the BOM for various reasons. So it's not really valid to say what' true for the bible must also be true for 'holy' book A, B, or C. If you want to discuss the claims made by Muslims or Mormons, be my guest, but it must be done on an individual basis. It would be like me comparing all Atheist "manifestos" to those of communists like Stalin or Mao. I really don't think you would appreciate that.

Quote:

That's not a fair comparison. You're making 4 authors look like morons based on an omission charge for which you have provided no evidence.

Only you and other Atheists would take it that way. Mark, Luke and John most likely didn't include the presence of the second donkey because they didn't see it as a fulfillment of prophecy since Zechariah only speaks of the King riding a colt. If the colt was tethered to a second donkey, would that really have made a difference in light of the prophecy? No. Jesus rode the colt and apparently the other authors felt that was all that needed to be mentioned. Why Matthew does mention it is anyone's guess, but it doesn't make either Matthew or the other Gospel writers "look like morons" simply because their accounts differ on a non-essential detail.

Quote:
Nice try, but the garments are spoken of as a whole. So if the antecedent of "them" is the garments (as you have claimed), then Jesus sat on all of the garments (which were on both animals), not some of the garments.

How do you know the "garments are spoken of as a whole"? If two or more garments were placed on each animal, then the "garments" that Jesus sat on could have been on either the colt or the second donkey. Since Matthew doesn't say which donkey Jesus sat on, we only have the other Gospel accounts to draw from which state He rode the colt.

Speaking of skirting issues, you and Tod have still failed to show (despite my asking three times now) how a person could SIT on two donkeys at the same time. So there is no reason to assume that Jesus did something that is seemingly impossible. If He were to do something so miraculous, believe me, the Gospel writers would have all mentioned such an amazing feat as an example of Jesus supernatural abilities.

Quote:
"Kai" can mean "and,"...also, biblical scholar G. M. Soares Prabhu thinks Matthew destroys the original parallelism by placing "kai" between "onos" and "polos," so you shouldn't dismiss translations that use "and" as inaccurate just because they don't agree with your position.

I'm neutral on this issue because I haven't researched it thoroughly.

Well, the KJV translators also add "and" to the Hebrew in Zechariah where it clearly isn't in the original. Please don't misunderstand me, I really like the KJV, but there are some difficulties with it. As for the Greek (i.e. NT), "and" can be translated "even". There are several other translations which do not even include "and" in Matthew 21:5. It seems that there were two donkeys in Matthews account in verse 2 so kai could legitimately be translated "and" there.

Just to address one very important issue from the previous posts where you stated that the second donkey's gender was ambiguous in the Greek, I wanted to let you know that this doesn't seem to be the case. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

ονον noun - accusative singular feminine
onos on'-os: &nbspa donkey -- an ass.

while the colt is:

πωλον noun - accusative singular masculine
polos po'-los: a foal or filly, i.e. (specially), a young ass -- colt.

In general, nouns that denote an object's sex in Greek are written in masculine or feminine voice that corrosponds with it's gender. Since the word for donkey is written in singular "feminine", it seems that the translators did not make an arbitrary assumption as to the second donkey's gender.

So, back to my original point. In the Hebrew, there would have been no mistaking that the King in Zechariah 9:9 rode anything but a male colt. Since Matthew was obviously able to read Hebrew, he could not have misunderstood that the prophecy in Zechariah was referring to both a female donkey and a male colt.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Sara's point comes back to bite her in the onos.

I'm addressing only the following portion of Sara's previous post because she ends up refuting herself which means it's unnecessary to respond to the other portion.

Sara's extreme ignorance is making me consider never corresponding with her again. If I continue corresponding with her after this post (which I doubt I will as I'm having trouble taking her seriously at this point), it will only be for a short time because I don't have the patience to continue correcting her blunders.

Sara wrote:

Just to address one very important issue from the previous posts where you stated that the second donkey's gender was ambiguous in the Greek, I wanted to let you know that this doesn't seem to be the case. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

ονον noun - accusative singular feminine
onos on'-os: &nbspa donkey -- an ass.

while the colt is:

πωλον noun - accusative singular masculine
polos po'-los: a foal or filly, i.e. (specially), a young ass -- colt.

In general, nouns that denote an object's sex in Greek are written in masculine or feminine voice that corrosponds with it's gender. Since the word for donkey is written in singular "feminine", it seems that the translators did not make an arbitrary assumption as to the second donkey's gender.

So, back to my original point. In the Hebrew, there would have been no mistaking that the King in Zechariah 9:9 rode anything but a male colt. Since Matthew was obviously able to read Hebrew, he could not have misunderstood that the prophecy in Zechariah was referring to both a female donkey and a male colt.

Sara may be right regarding how a donkey's gender in Greek is denoted and I'm tending to think she is. However, what she thinks supports her case actually does the opposite. She commits the fallacy of self refutation, which is the worst fallacy one can commit!

Mat 21:5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey [N-ASF], and on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (NRSV)

Mat 21:5 ειπατε2036 V-2AAM-2P τη3588 T-DSF θυγατρι2364 N-DSF σιων4622 N-PRI ιδου2400 V-2AAM-2S ο3588 T-NSM βασιλευς935 N-NSM σου4675 P-2GS ερχεται2064 V-PNI-3S σοι4671 P-2DS πραυς4239 A-NSM και2532 CONJ επιβεβηκως1910 V-RAP-NSM επι1909 PREP ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 CONJ πωλον4454 N-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM υποζυγιου5268 N-GSN (Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine GNT)

Mat 21:5 ειπατε2036 V-2AAM-2P τη3588 T-DSF θυγατρι2364 N-DSF σιων4622 N-PRI ιδου2400 V-2AAM-2S ο3588 T-NSM βασιλευς935 N-NSM σου4675 P-2GS ερχεται2064 V-PNI-3S σοι4671 P-2DS πραυς4239 A-NSM και2532 CONJ επιβεβηκως1910 V-RAP-NSM επι1909 PREP ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 CONJ πωλον4454 N-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM υποζυγιου5268 N-GSN (Textus Receptus GNT)

Mat 21:5 ειπατε2036 V-2AAM-2P τη3588 T-DSF θυγατρι2364 N-DSF σιων4622 N-PRI ιδου2400 V-2AAM-2S ο3588 T-NSM βασιλευς935 N-NSM σου4675 P-2GS ερχεται2064 V-PNI-3S σοι4671 P-2DS πραυς4239 A-NSM και2532 CONJ επιβεβηκως1910 V-RAP-NSM επι1909 PREP ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 CONJ επι1909 PREP πωλον4454 N-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM υποζυγιου5268 N-GSN (Westcott-Hort GNT)

The above GNT's show that the first donkey mentioned in Mat 21:5 is accusative singular feminine, however, one of Sara's points was that Matthew "was very adept with his Hebrew" and seemingly would have "easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine."

Sara wrote:

Matthew was very adept with his Hebrew which is evident from his translations of other verses directly from Hebrew (Mt 11:10). It seems that he would easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine. So there really is no way to accuse Matthew of "misunderstanding" it unless you also accuse him of being ignorant of Hebrew and dismiss all the accurate translations he DID render from this language.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey [chamor - masculine], on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (NRSV)

If the gender of a donkey in Greek is determined by whether it's ASF or ASM, then had Matthew understood that the Hebrew word "chamor" in Zec 9:9 was masculine, the first donkey mentioned in Mat 21:5 would be ASM (not ASF), like in Luke 13:15:

Luk 13:15 But the Lord answered him and said, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey [N-ASM] from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? (NRSV)

Luk 13:15 απεκριθη611 V-ADI-3S δε1161 CONJ αυτω846 P-DSM ο3588 T-NSM κυριος2962 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ειπεν2036 V-2AAI-3S υποκριται5273 N-VPM εκαστος1538 A-NSM υμων5216 P-2GP τω3588 T-DSN σαββατω4521 N-DSN ου3756 PRT-N λυει3089 V-PAI-3S τον3588 T-ASM βουν1016 N-ASM αυτου846 P-GSM η2228 PRT τον3588 T-ASM ονον3688 N-ASM απο575 PREP της3588 T-GSF φατνης5336 N-GSF και2532 CONJ | απαγων520 V-PAP-NSM | απαγαγων520 V-2AAP-NSM | ποτιζει4222 V-PAI-3S (Westcott-Hort GNT)

Recap: If the gender of a donkey in Greek is determined by whether it's ASF or ASM, then the first donkey mentioned in Mat 21:5 is female.

Mat 21:5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey [female], and on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (NRSV)

In Zec 9:9, however, the first donkey mentioned is not female.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey [male], on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (NRSV)

So, if the gender of a donkey in Greek is determined by whether it's ASF or ASM, Matthew made an error in translating the masculine "chamor" (male donkey) into a feminine "onos" (female donkey), thus establishing that showing some knowledge of Hebrew in one area does not mean one will understand Hebrew in another. In addition, the original parallelism in Zec 9:9 gets destroyed because the colt is male. After all, how is it possible to clarify that a female donkey is a young male donkey? Hilarious!

Sara not only completely refutes the argument she has been defending, she continues to not back up her claim that Zec 9:9 omits a donkey. I see no good reason to correspond with her anymore. This may be my last post that addresses her. There is no possible way for her to save face at this point. She has been annihilated and nothing she says will change that. Her blunder is now as clear as a blunder can be, so if she tries to rationalize it away, she will only end up looking silly.

I predict Sara will backpedal via semantic masturbation, the ad hoc fallacy and the special plead fallacy.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Bill Johnson wrote:I'm

Bill Johnson wrote:
I'm addressing only the following portion of Sara's previous post because she ends up refuting herself which means it's unnecessary to respond to the other portion.

Sara's extreme ignorance is making me consider never corresponding with her again. If I continue corresponding with her after this post (which I doubt I will as I'm having trouble taking her seriously at this point), it will only be for a short time because I don't have the patience to continue correcting her blunders.

I hear you.

To me, it's all over right here:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.

So that there is a misunderstanding here is plain.

The matthew author has commited an error.

The end.

Quote:

Sara may be right regarding how a donkey's gender in Greek is denoted and I'm tending to think she is. However, what she thinks supports her case actually does the opposite. She commits the fallacy of self refutation, which is the worst fallacy one can commit!

Yep. Internal contradiction.

Quote:

Mat 21:5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey [N-ASF], and on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (NRSV)

Mat 21:5 ειπατε2036 V-2AAM-2P τη3588 T-DSF θυγατρι2364 N-DSF σιων4622 N-PRI ιδου2400 V-2AAM-2S ο3588 T-NSM βασιλευς935 N-NSM σου4675 P-2GS ερχεται2064 V-PNI-3S σοι4671 P-2DS πραυς4239 A-NSM και2532 CONJ επιβεβηκως1910 V-RAP-NSM επι1909 PREP ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 CONJ πωλον4454 N-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM υποζυγιου5268 N-GSN (Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine GNT)

Mat 21:5 ειπατε2036 V-2AAM-2P τη3588 T-DSF θυγατρι2364 N-DSF σιων4622 N-PRI ιδου2400 V-2AAM-2S ο3588 T-NSM βασιλευς935 N-NSM σου4675 P-2GS ερχεται2064 V-PNI-3S σοι4671 P-2DS πραυς4239 A-NSM και2532 CONJ επιβεβηκως1910 V-RAP-NSM επι1909 PREP ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 CONJ πωλον4454 N-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM υποζυγιου5268 N-GSN (Textus Receptus GNT)

Mat 21:5 ειπατε2036 V-2AAM-2P τη3588 T-DSF θυγατρι2364 N-DSF σιων4622 N-PRI ιδου2400 V-2AAM-2S ο3588 T-NSM βασιλευς935 N-NSM σου4675 P-2GS ερχεται2064 V-PNI-3S σοι4671 P-2DS πραυς4239 A-NSM και2532 CONJ επιβεβηκως1910 V-RAP-NSM επι1909 PREP ονον3688 N-ASF και2532 CONJ επι1909 PREP πωλον4454 N-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM υποζυγιου5268 N-GSN (Westcott-Hort GNT)

The above GNT's show that the first donkey mentioned in Mat 21:5 is accusative singular feminine, however, one of Sara's points was that Matthew "was very adept with his Hebrew" and seemingly would have "easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine."

Sara wrote:

Matthew was very adept with his Hebrew which is evident from his translations of other verses directly from Hebrew (Mt 11:10). It seems that he would easily been able to understand that Zechariah was referring to a male donkey (i.e. the foal) since the Hebrew word used was chamowr which was masculine. So there really is no way to accuse Matthew of "misunderstanding" it unless you also accuse him of being ignorant of Hebrew and dismiss all the accurate translations he DID render from this language.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey [chamor - masculine], on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (NRSV)

If the gender of a donkey in Greek is determined by whether it's ASF or ASM, then had Matthew understood that the Hebrew word "chamor" in Zec 9:9 was masculine, the first donkey mentioned in Mat 21:5 would be ASM (not ASF), like in Luke 13:15:

Luk 13:15 But the Lord answered him and said, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey [N-ASM] from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? (NRSV)

Luk 13:15 απεκριθη611 V-ADI-3S δε1161 CONJ αυτω846 P-DSM ο3588 T-NSM κυριος2962 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ειπεν2036 V-2AAI-3S υποκριται5273 N-VPM εκαστος1538 A-NSM υμων5216 P-2GP τω3588 T-DSN σαββατω4521 N-DSN ου3756 PRT-N λυει3089 V-PAI-3S τον3588 T-ASM βουν1016 N-ASM αυτου846 P-GSM η2228 PRT τον3588 T-ASM ονον3688 N-ASM απο575 PREP της3588 T-GSF φατνης5336 N-GSF και2532 CONJ | απαγων520 V-PAP-NSM | απαγαγων520 V-2AAP-NSM | ποτιζει4222 V-PAI-3S (Westcott-Hort GNT)

Recap: If the gender of a donkey in Greek is determined by whether it's ASF or ASM, then the first donkey mentioned in Mat 21:5 is female.

Mat 21:5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey [female], and on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (NRSV)

In Zec 9:9, however, the first donkey mentioned is not female.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey [male], on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (NRSV)

So, if the gender of a donkey in Greek is determined by whether it's ASF or ASM, Matthew made an error in translating the masculine "chamor" (male donkey) into a feminine "onos" (female donkey), thus establishing that showing some knowledge of Hebrew in one area does not mean one will understand Hebrew in another. In addition, the original parallelism in Zec 9:9 gets destroyed because the colt is male. After all, how is it possible to clarify that a female donkey is a young male donkey? Hilarious!

Indeed, and just to recap, Sara's argument is a non sequitur for two reasons. 1) The fact that a person may be an expert in a given language does not guarentee that such a person will never make a translation error. 2) The matthew author is clearly having 'jesus' refer to two animals.

There's no sane way for her to avoid this problem.

Quote:

Sara not only completely refutes the argument she has been defending, she continues to not back up her claim that Zec 9:9 omits a donkey. I see no good reason to correspond with her anymore. This may be my last post that addresses her. There is no possible way for her to save face at this point.

She usually just blots out that part of a post that refutes her... go and look...

Quote:

She has been annihilated and nothing she says will change that. Her blunder is now as clear as a blunder can be, so if she tries to rationalize it away, she will only end up looking silly.

I predict Sara will backpedal via semantic masturbation, the ad hoc fallacy and the special plead fallacy.

If she posts at all... yes, agreed....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
O.k.... So, you're right.

O.k....

So, you're right. I'm wrong. I have no rebuttal. This is the first time I've encountered a biblical difficulty that didn't have a plausible explanation. My response was delayed because I was awaiting some information from a professor versed in Biblical Greek at the University of Washington in the Department of Classics. He seemed to think that the Donkey in Matthew 21:5 was indeed female and this does refute my argument. So I concede. Unless I find anymore information that contradicts this assertion, I will not be posting anymore on this topic (though that doesn't mean I won't pipe in on other discussions on this forum Smiling )

I do appreciate the time I spent on here in this debate as it has helped me to learn a great deal. Though some of you would do well to lose your vulgar language, overall it was quite an educational experience.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:O.k....So,

Sara wrote:
O.k....

So, you're right. I'm wrong. I have no rebuttal. This is the first time I've encountered a biblical difficulty that didn't have a plausible explanation.

Considering the 'plausible' 'explanations' you've given here, I have grave doubts about the other explanations.....

Seriously, there's a lot more for you to explore.

Quote:

My response was delayed because I was awaiting some information from a professor versed in Biblical Greek at the University of Washington in the Department of Classics. He seemed to think that the Donkey in Matthew 21:5 was indeed female and this does refute my argument. So I concede.

Kudos to you.

The key error is the matthew author's misreading of Zechariah's passage as implying two animals when it only was speaking of one.

It's pretty clear that the matthew author concocted the bizarre occurences in matthew 21 to try and made sense of his erroneous reading of zechariah.

Quote:

I do appreciate the time I spent on here in this debate as it has helped me to learn a great deal.

Good.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

Bill Johnson wrote:
Anyway, I only want to focus on one thing to show the absurdity of your position; show that the basis for your position is ad hoc. How do you know the other authors omitted a donkey?

We both know the answer to this one: because otherwise, the gospels include a clear translation error.... So the others must have ommited them!

In other words, the fallacy of adverse consequences because there is no evidence that a mother donkey was omitted in Zec 9, and those falling to the "Zechariah omitted a mother donkey" charge cannot have insight into the mind of a writer who wrote over 2500 years ago. Of course, Robert Turkel aka J.P. Holding, being the hack apologist that he is, falls to the omission charge as well. He commits the fallacy of begging the question within the first few sentences of his article on this very subject.

J.P. Holding wrote:

Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Matthew's variation from the other Gospels on this point raises two questions -- was there one donkey or two, and did Jesus ride one or two?

Strictly speaking, one could point out for the first question that there is no technical, logical contradiction, since the other Gospels do not say there was only the colt there -- they merely don't bother mentioning the mother. Yet her presence is likely in this context, even if it is not mentioned. Keener [Matthew commentary, 491] notes that an unbroken colt "might require the mother's presence to keep it calm amid shouting crowds" -- we know well enough from American rodeos what chaos an unbroken animal might cause.

[snip]

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/twodonkeys.html

One would first need evidence that a mother donkey was omitted in Zec 9 to conclude that Zechariah didn't bother mentioning a mother donkey. Turkel also begs another question: that the colt in Zec 9:9 was "unbroken." Zechariah does not speak of the colt's condition.

Quote:

Thanks for your comments, Bill.

Back at you.