Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[Gabu]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

But those people weren't eyewitnesses to any of the purported scientological events, while the Apostles were.

That wasn't my point.  The fact that they went through a lot of crap for their beliefs does not mean that their beliefs are more true.  It certainly makes it awfully likely that they felt that they were true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually true.

Do I know what they saw?  No.  Do I know why they were convinced of what they believed?  No.

None of this proves that what they believed was in fact the truth, however.  All you're proving is that they were really, really convinced of something.

[Bono]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

But those people weren't eyewitnesses to any of the purported scientological events, while the Apostles were.

That wasn't my point.  The fact that they went through a lot of crap for their beliefs does not mean that their beliefs are more true.  It certainly makes it awfully likely that they felt that they were true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually true.

Do I know what they saw?  No.  Do I know why they were convinced of what they believed?  No.

None of this proves that what they believed was in fact the truth, however.

Well, there are only three possible alternatives. Either they made it up, which we covered, or they had an hallucination, which we also covered, or they were telling the truth. I don't see any other possible hypothesis, short of things like Jesus was really an alien or stuff like that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Since I am not asserting a conspiracy of any kind, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to disprove something that I haven't said.

granted, I was simply presenting you with an argument, not using you as my example.

---

People are capable of believing things to be true that aren't true in reality.

True, but that is irrelevant to my point:  There is no evidence of a conspiracy behind Christianity, nor is there motive for one.  The trail leads directly to eyewitnesses in the middle of the 1st Century soon after the death of Jesus.

---

L. Ron Hubbard has successfully convinced thousands of people of the validity of Scientology.

Is Scientology L. Ron Hubbard’s eyewitness account of history?  If not, then the beginnings of Scientology can’t be compared with the beginnings of Christianity.

And, unlike Scientology, there is no individual source of Christianity, rather it sprang from the accounts of a group of eyewitnesses.  Christianity is a product of the eyewitness accounts of many witnesses. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Actually there is considerable historiographial evidence that there has been editing, both of the greek text and of course examples of papal edicts resulting in changes in translation alongside numerous existing and losts texts that never made the 'final cut' so to speak of the NT. And it is ludicrous and historically false to suggest otherwise (I have earned a qualification in historiography from a biblical context this gained at Jesuit college so I'm not saying this for the sake of argument!)

Ok, may we put your qualifications to a sincere test?

If you have studied the “editing” of the bible:
1) What passages were edited?
2) How has the changes (through the various edits) impacted my doctrine?

What I mean is this…I have three overreaching tests for accepting any doctrine that claims to be Christian.  These are the three tests and any single doctrine must pass ALL 3 tests:
1) The Foundation Test - It must have a basis originating in the Old Testament.
2) The Echo Test - It must be based on two or more passages of scripture.
3) The Mesh Test - It must not contradict other parts of scripture.

Demonstrate, through your qualifications in historiography of the bible, how the historical editing of the bible impacted any doctrine in which I believe.

[afleitch]

I did several weeks- or do you have a short memory? I don't see a need to tread through old debates simply so you can air your lungs.

[ilikeverin]

I also believe (curse that word, I can't spell it!) that the anti-Christ is alive and among us today. He is not an American or even a citizen of the Americas, but he is here.

PBrunsel, you seem to be confused; Hillary Clinton lives in New York.

Gabu, you are mistaken. The word is CHRIST and since God is a MAN then the anti-Christ must be man!

Wait a second...if GOD is a MAN, then the anti-God must be a woman!

Curse you and you're tricky wording Gabu. Now I must go prepare myself for Hillary Clinton's reign of terror.

PBrunsel, why aren't there more Christian fundamentalists like you?  You are just so nice and self-deprecating about your faith it makes me so much less frightened of Christian fundamentalism

[Frodo]

I'll vote 'yes' for the sheer hell of it if nothing else....

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I did several weeks- or do you have a short memory?

No, what you did was argue modern TRANSLATION of the ancient Greek, not the EDITING of the original Greek text.

But, even in your translational argument which I conceded to you without objection, allowing you to wipe any anti-homosexual context out of the bible, I still insisted your conclusion (your doctrine) met the following guidelines:

1) The Foundation Test - It must have a basis originating in the Old Testament.

Your conclusion that Jesus allowed homosexuals to practice sex without marrying in Matthew 19 not only VIOLATED the foundational pattern of the Old Testament establishing the only proper context for sex was within the confines of a marriage, it violated the original pattern set forth during Creation – a pattern that Jesus himself upheld in that very passage of scripture.

2)  The Echo Test - It must be based on two or more passages of scripture.

Your conclusion that Jesus allowed homosexuals to practice sex without marrying was based on a single passage of scripture (Mat 19) in which Jesus talked about avoiding the pitfalls of marriage, thus your conclusion VIOLATED the rule not to jump to conclusions without the testimony of two or three witnesses.

3) The Mesh Test - It must not contradict other parts of scripture.

Your conclusion that Jesus allowed homosexuals to practice sex without marrying in Mat 19 VIOLATED every scriptural example including: the pattern established during Creation which Jesus himself upheld, the formula Paul gave to avoid sexual immorality (celibacy or marriage).

---

So, I will ask you again….

Please name an example of editing (or even mis-translation) of scripture which has altered my doctrine in any way, shape, or form.

[afleitch]

No, what you did was argue modern TRANSLATION of the ancient Greek, not the EDITING of the original Greek text.

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation. 2. The Greek has been mistranslated. I did not say the Greek text has ever been edited.

So, I will ask you again….

Please name an example of editing (or even mis-translation) of scripture which has altered my doctrine in any way, shape, or form.

Making this question redundant (and I did offer a referal back to mistranslation argument) It is evident that you rarely read into what people are saying and instead jump to conclusions and then demand they answer questions.

[Ebowed]

However, if the statement is categorical, e.g. "We can't know", then proof is required of just why can't "we" know.

The burden of proof is on the person who says God exists.  RRB doesn't have to provide proof that God doesn't exist anymore than he has to provide proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

[Gabu]

However, if the statement is categorical, e.g. "We can't know", then proof is required of just why can't "we" know.

The burden of proof is on the person who says God exists.  RRB doesn't have to provide proof that God doesn't exist anymore than he has to provide proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

Not really.  That would only be true if God not existing was by far the accepted "default" assertion that was supported by all the facts accumulated thus far.  The burden of proof is on whoever makes a statement that is not patently obvious or part of generally accepted truths.  I don't consider it obvious or self-evident that God does not exist.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation. 2. The Greek has been mistranslated. I did not say the Greek text has ever been edited.

Ok, but my question was “how exactly has mistranslation led me into doctrinal error?”, for my doctrine is NEVER the product of translation, rather my doctrine if a product of overall cohesion.

[afleitch]

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation. 2. The Greek has been mistranslated. I did not say the Greek text has ever been edited.

Ok, but my question was “how exactly has mistranslation led me into doctrinal error?”, for my doctrine is NEVER the product of translation, rather my doctrine if a product of overall cohesion.

First of all you say that you are referring to your doctrine. Which is a pleasant admission, I hope, that there are many doctrines both universal and personal regarding the understanding of the Bible. I have my own, enforced by years of education and self education and learning (which I understand you refuse to don't think highly of or take seriously possibly due to the fact you see me as a liberal, because I'm gay, because I'm Catholic, or Jesuit or educated in Greek or not a biblical literalist or whatever) and you have yours which may be the product of the same, but with a different conclusion.

Secondly you ask how mistranslation has led you to doctrinal error. I don't know specifically what your 'doctrine' is. Indeed if I were aware of the entire spectrum of your ideology than it may not be guilty of mistranslation; it may be guilty of misunderstanding of imagery or symbolism for example. You are therefore asking me an open ended question which has no answer, because I cannot proceed to adress your doctrine if I am not aware of what that doctrine is.

[memphis]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

I would've thought that you (a Jew) would've believed Christ never existed.

[memphis]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

I would've thought that you (a Jew) would've believed Christ never existed.

Probably was a person about 2000 years ago, although there is no way of knowing. Certainly don't believe any miracles or divinity associated with him. Generally amused at how twisted Jesus's words have been and continue to be convenienty twisted to suit political needs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, but my question was “how exactly has mistranslation led me into doctrinal error?”, for my doctrine is NEVER the product of translation, rather my doctrine if a product of overall cohesion.

… You are therefore asking me an open ended question which has no answer, because I cannot proceed to adress your doctrine if I am not aware of what that doctrine is.

Well, first let me define my “doctrine on how to form doctrine”, which I believe is biblically based:

1) The Foundation Test - It must have a basis originating in the Old Testament.

It is my belief that EVERYTHING of doctrinal significance in the New Testament has a reference based in the Old Testament. 

I believe this because:
i) I have yet to find anything in the New Testament of doctrinal significance that can not be derived out of the Old Testament.
ii) The Old Testament is what Jesus taught out of.
iii) The Old Testament was the bible of the early church.
iv) All of Paul’s doctrine could be taught from the Old Testament - “They examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11)...“Do not go beyond what is written” (1Cor 4:6)

2)  The Echo Test - It must be based on two or more passages of scripture.

“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Dt 17:6; 19:5; Mat 18:16; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28)

This simple law about not jumping to conclusions based on a single piece of evidence was given in the Old Testament, confirmed by Jesus himself, and used throughout the New Testament

3) The Mesh Test - It must not contradict other parts of scripture.

Jesus himself taught that the doctrines of man will contradict the teachings of scripture (Mat 15:3; Mark 7:8 ).

---

I believe adhering to these common sense rules will make one’s doctrine immune from scriptural revisions and/or translational errors.

Someone may claim a certain verse translated “correctly” requires believers to spin a pickle three times on their nose before praying.  My retort does NOT have to argue the translation, rather I can simply say:  “If that is the case, then from where in the Old Testament can that teaching be derived?  Where is the second witness in scripture for such a requirement?  Why doesn't that mesh with the rest of scripture?”

Such was the case in our previous debate.  Your conclusion that a correct translation and interpretation of Mat 19 has Jesus allowing homosexuals to have sex outside of marriage not only has no basis from the Old Testament and no second witness, it also contradict Paul’s recipe to avoid sexual immorality (get married or stay celibate) and contradicted the uniform biblical code of marriage being the proper context for sex.

Your interpretation of Mat 19 did not coincide with any example or teaching in the rest of scripture.  That is what I was trying to explain to you.

In contrast, my interpretation of Mat 19 has Jesus referring NOT to homosexuality, but only to marriage and celibacy.  And it just so happens that my interpretation of Mat 19 dovetails precisely with the rest of scripture.  It passes “The Foundation Test” where the Old Testament initially defined sex in the context of marriage (Gen 4:1).  It passes “The Echo Test” in that choosing between marriage and celibacy is the recipe Paul gives to avoid sexual immorality.  And it passes “The Mesh Test” by dovetailing with every example of proper sexual conduct in the bible.

If my interpretation of Mat 19 is wrong, then why does it so perfectly mesh with the rest of scripture?  And if your interpretation of Mat 19 is correct, why does it contradict the rest of scripture?

---

Is not formation of doctrine tantamount to reverse engineering scripture?  And isn’t the best test for a reverse engineered product a comparison test to see if the final product matches the original?  If the end product of a theory contradicts the product it was seeking to reverse engineer, doesn’t that make the theory null and void?

In all your studies of proper translation, you seemed to have forgotten that the conclusions of your theory have to jive with the overall structure of what you are studying.  So, you can argue the details of translational errors all you want, down to even the DNA level of a duck.  And you may claim the duck you engineered has all the proper gene sequencing down to the minutest detail…But, in the end, the duck you engineer better look, quack, and walk like a duck. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

Oh really?  Then why did Paul teach that Christ can NOT return until the apostacy and the revealing of the AntiChrist?

2Thes 2:1-4  "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

[KEmperor]

Oh really?  Then why did Paul teach that Christ can NOT return until the apostacy and the revealing of the AntiChrist?

He was drunk that day, duh.

[AkSaber]

I haven't the slightest idea. It's not like God put a timer on earth and let us count down the final seconds till Jesus comes back like it's a New Year's ball dropping or something.

[KEmperor]

I haven't the slightest idea. It's not like God put a timer on earth and let us count down the final seconds till Jesus comes back like it's a New Year's ball dropping or something.

Don't be silly, I know where the timer is.

[Alcon]

I haven't the slightest idea. It's not like God put a timer on earth and let us count down the final seconds till Jesus comes back like it's a New Year's ball dropping or something.

Don't be silly, I know where the timer is.

And they laughed at me when I said that no one could use my microwave because it would cause the end of the world.

[KEmperor]

I haven't the slightest idea. It's not like God put a timer on earth and let us count down the final seconds till Jesus comes back like it's a New Year's ball dropping or something.

Don't be silly, I know where the timer is.

And they laughed at me when I said that no one could use my microwave because it would cause the end of the world.

It's an established fact that the instrument of the apocalypse is made in Taiwan.

[Bono]

No, what you did was argue modern TRANSLATION of the ancient Greek, not the EDITING of the original Greek text.

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation.

Actually, none of the apocrypha was given full canon status widely until the council of trent, where the romanist church made them canon because it was using them against the reformation efforts. Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon. If anything, the books which are in canon present certain doubts, not the oposite.

[Bono]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

I would've thought that you (a Jew) would've believed Christ never existed.

Probably was a person about 2000 years ago, although there is no way of knowing. Certainly don't believe any miracles or divinity associated with him. Generally amused at how twisted Jesus's words have been and continue to be convenienty twisted to suit political needs.

Well, there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty, given the natural limits of the historical method, but we have more than enough historical testimony for not having reasonable doubt.