|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11342
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-14 18:00:17
.... So unless you're an unbiased religious scholar making a determination based on historical knowledge, you're just picking the Bible used by the team you root for and calling it the best. I won't say mine is the best, too violent by far.
It is, however, the orignal.
Paged!
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2015-09-14 18:06:41
So unless you're an unbiased religious scholar making a determination based on historical knowledge, you're just picking the Bible used by the team you root for and calling it the best.
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-09-14 18:07:43
The pope is a catholic christian.
CHECKMATE PROTESTANTS!!
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 18:13:17
.... So unless you're an unbiased religious scholar making a determination based on historical knowledge, you're just picking the Bible used by the team you root for and calling it the best. I won't say mine is the best, too violent by far.
It is, however, the orignal.
Paged!
You have a collection of all of the untranslated original documents penned by the original authors that hasn't crumbled to dust?
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11342
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-14 18:28:59
....
You study theology, but your source for what they believe is a dumbed-down synopsis of their faith by a 3rd party on a Christian news site? Seems like you study theology in the same way you study politics. OK, here is a better source and a more complete explaination.
wikipedia said: Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic or Jesus' Name Pentecostalism and often pejoratively referred to as the “Jesus only” movement in its early days) refers to a grouping of denominations and believers within Pentecostal Christianity, all of whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness, which is similar to Sabellianism (also referred to as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, modal monarchism, or Patripassianism)....
The Oneness doctrine of God
Advocating a non-traditional view of God, Oneness Pentecostals find in modalistic monarchianism of the fourth century a historical predecessor that affirmed the two central aspects of their own convictions:
there is one indivisible God with no distinction of persons in God’s eternal essence, and
Jesus Christ is the manifestation, human personification, or incarnation of the one God.
The Oneness doctrine differs from Sabellianism in that Oneness Pentecostals conceive of the “trimanifestation” of God as simultaneous instead of successive, as is the case with classical Modalism. They contend that, based on Colossians 2:9, the concept of God’s personhood is reserved for the immanent and incarnate presence of Jesus only. Hence, Oneness Pentecostals generally argue that the Godhead is in Jesus, yet Jesus is not in the Godhead.[6]
Characteristics of God
Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. It equally proclaims that God is not made of a physical body, but is an invisible spirit that can only be seen in theophanies (such as the burning bush) that he creates or manifests, or in the person of the incarnate Jesus Christ. In the person of Jesus, one sees the last, best, and complete theophany of God (Colossians 2:9 KJV: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily").
Oneness Pentecostalism rejects all concepts of a subordination, duality, trinity, pantheon, co-equality, co-eternity, or other versions of the Godhead that assert plural gods, plural beings, divine "persons", individuals, or multiple centers of consciousness within that Godhead. It equally denies all concepts of Jesus as anything other than fully God and fully man, together with all teachings that assert that he was merely a "good man," or only a sinless man, high priest or prophet, rather than God himself. Oneness doctrine declares that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, but that this happened only when he was born from Mary on Earth. It rejects the view that any person can "obtain" the status of God whether by works or by grace, maintaining that Jesus Christ did not "obtain" his status, but rather that he is the one, eternal God himself manifested in the flesh according to the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:16, as is rendered in the King James Version. Full article
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 18:35:11
Yes, I read the Wikipedia article. Quite frankly I don't think their position makes any sense, but that also goes for almost every Christian interpretation of the Trinity where they try so very hard to make themselves out to be monotheistic. What you stated earlier was a gross oversimplification of a rather nuanced view.
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11342
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-14 18:40:41
.... So unless you're an unbiased religious scholar making a determination based on historical knowledge, you're just picking the Bible used by the team you root for and calling it the best. I won't say mine is the best, too violent by far.
It is, however, the original.
You have a collection of all of the untranslated original documents penned by the original authors that hasn't crumbled to dust? We have copies of the scrolls the Catholics drew on.
We have stuff far older than what the Catholics rewrote.
And we have Talmudic commentary on it going back to 200 ACE, about the time the Catholics were rewriting it.
Is that good enough?
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11342
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-14 18:42:23
Yes, I read the Wikipedia article. Quite frankly I don't think their position makes any sense, but that also goes for almost every Christian interpretation of the Trinity where they try so very hard to make themselves out to be monotheistic. What you stated earlier was a gross oversimplification of a rather nuanced view. I agree with everything you say here.
The Nicean view of the trinity is something I really can't understand.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 18:44:02
"Good enough" is subjective. "Original" isn't. I think if we were able to look at the actual originals and compare them to what we have today, the degree of difference between them would shock a lot of people.
By Jassik 2015-09-14 18:44:54
"Good enough" is subjective. "Original" isn't. I think if we were able to look at the actual originals and compare them to what we have today, the degree of difference between them would shock a lot of people.
I think the date of the originals alone would shock a lot of people.
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-09-14 18:46:24
I think the date of the originals alone would shock a lot of people. "New incredible earth shattering finding! You won't believe what you're about to read!"
god I hate those titles <.<
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 18:49:57
On a completely unrelated topic... Seha, is your avatar's outfit supposed to look like Dizzy's from Guilty Gear?
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-09-14 18:50:35
On a completely unrelated topic... Seha, is your avatar's outfit supposed to look like Dizzy's from Guilty Gear? It's Terra cosplaying as Kuja. From a pic of Terra cosplaying as all FF villains:
I considered Cloud of Darkness and Jecht cosplays too, but I like Kuja more so chose that as avatar.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 18:52:11
Yeah, still looks more like a Dizzy than a Kuja, but thanks. =)
Edit: No offense intended, Dizzy's one of my favorite fighting game characters.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2015-09-14 20:30:58
We have stuff far older than what the Catholics rewrotetranslated. FTFY lol
When translating Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Latin there are cases where there are no direct translations of the words so translators had to pick the word they thought was being used.
The Church I'm sure portions not published in any book. It's been long said that Mary and Mary Magdalene wrote Gospels, and the Church simply didn't want to publish them.
By Jassik 2015-09-14 20:40:38
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 20:45:58
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.
An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-09-14 21:09:38
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.
An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer. You sound surprised.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11342
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-14 21:29:56
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »We have stuff far older than what the Catholics rewrotetranslated. When translating Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Latin there are cases where there are no direct translations of the words so translators had to pick the word they thought was being used. "The horned Moses"
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died. An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer. Historical proven fact. None of the gospels were even written in the time of intimate expectation.
I will find the references tomorrow.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2015-09-14 21:31:04
An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.
Jassik may be correct.
Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels
Historical reliability of the Gospels
Quote: According to the majority viewpoint the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded.[1][22][23] The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke'.
You have to remember during that time the vast majority of the population was illiterate. So it's completely believable that the apostles contracted writers.
[+]
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11342
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-14 21:36:38
Thanks Bacon.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2015-09-14 21:46:25
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »Of course Jassik is correct.
Only someone completely naive would think otherwise.
Yet, don't mind us. We just don't take handed down bronze age goat herder myths to be reliable.
Well no it's unfair to completely assume that all followers of Christ were illiterate and didn't contribute to their respective Gospels.
e.g. Mary Magdalene was definitely literate and she spoke several languages. She came from a very wealthy family. Paul was also educated.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 22:06:33
I don't often have to do this, but since apparently nobody even knows what they're arguing, I'll recap. Jassik made a claim that the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the fact as if there were irrefutable proof. I said there was no such proof, and I never said that it wasn't possible. There's a difference between evidence and proof. Then Bacon says he was right... by suggesting that the apostles could have contracted writers. Unless the dead apostles contracted writers hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, Bacon clearly missed the point.
By Jassik 2015-09-14 22:07:33
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.
An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.
I'm most definitely not a biblical historian, but the fact that the earliest versions of the gospels have been dated through multiple methods as being written between 150 and 300 ce is not a recent revelation. While older versions may have existed at some point, there is no evidence that they did or that they were even second hand accounts. And, as you've said several times, they were interpreted/translated multiple times throughout history. On top of that, much of church doctrine revolves around things that absolutely do not appear in any of the published gospels and were never things Jesus talked about in any of the accounts.
I'm not expressing a bias, 2000 years is a long time in the minds of men, but the inaccuracies in biblical history to almost every other historical record is pretty common knowledge at this point. Just the inconsistencies in the accounts of the crucifixion are pretty stark, and the Romans kept VERY good records.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-14 22:12:57
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.
An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.
I'm most definitely not a biblical historian, but the fact that the earliest versions of the gospels have been dated through multiple methods as being written between 150 and 300 ce is not a recent revelation. While older versions may have existed at some point, there is no evidence that they did or that they were even second hand accounts. And, as you've said several times, they were interpreted/translated multiple times throughout history. On top of that, much of church doctrine revolves around things that absolutely do not appear in any of the published gospels and were never things Jesus talked about in any of the accounts.
I'm not expressing a bias, 2000 years is a long time in the minds of men, but the inaccuracies in biblical history to almost every other historical record is pretty common knowledge at this point. Just the inconsistencies in the accounts of the crucifixion are pretty stark, and the Romans kept VERY good records.
Not entirely accurate. You're making a lot of arguments out of sweeping generalizations.
By Jassik 2015-09-14 22:15:41
None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.
An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.
I'm most definitely not a biblical historian, but the fact that the earliest versions of the gospels have been dated through multiple methods as being written between 150 and 300 ce is not a recent revelation. While older versions may have existed at some point, there is no evidence that they did or that they were even second hand accounts. And, as you've said several times, they were interpreted/translated multiple times throughout history. On top of that, much of church doctrine revolves around things that absolutely do not appear in any of the published gospels and were never things Jesus talked about in any of the accounts.
I'm not expressing a bias, 2000 years is a long time in the minds of men, but the inaccuracies in biblical history to almost every other historical record is pretty common knowledge at this point. Just the inconsistencies in the accounts of the crucifixion are pretty stark, and the Romans kept VERY good records.
Not entirely accurate. You're making a lot of arguments out of sweeping generalizations.
sweeping generalizations? I spoke about a couple specific things that don't line up. Do you just pull a random dismissal card out of a hat every time you disagree with someone?
The only gospels I can find any possibility of being genuine are Mathew and possibly Luke and Mark. Peter and Paul both died before even those were written, sometime between 70 and 90 ce. Granted, none of those 3 exist as original documents anymore, anyway.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2015-09-14 22:18:54
Then Bacon says he was right... by suggesting that the apostles could have contracted writers. Unless the dead apostles contracted writers hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, Bacon clearly missed the point. When I said Jassik may be correct I was reffering to authorship of the Gospels
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|