| Subject: Specifics Please |
Author:
Brian
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/24/02 1:18am
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "Re: Futility?" on 05/22/02 11:53am
>..... Brian, you are to be commended that you've been
>reading also books that are NOT a part of the
>collection known as the books of the bible. Maybe you
>have missed these - I'm neither for nor against what
>these authors wrote, only to state that these are just
>a few examples of writings with *different* and
>*interesting* points of view
Quittner, I am not being obstinate, but I am trying to get you to say something that you are willing to consistently defend. Note part of one of your original statements: "…it is probable that what I have written is more likely to be closer to what really happened." When pressed for the specifics of what you were referring to, you come back with "I'm neither for nor against what these authors wrote…" Your original statement clearly said you think your idea is more correct than the traditional one. I presume, since you refer a set of titles to me, those contain some of the ideas you have adopted. Yet you proffer no feeling of agreement of disagreement with the authors.
>BM177.M33 1989 Judaism in the First Century by Hyam
>Maccoby
>BM620.M32 1973 Revolution in Judaea. Jesus and the
>Jewish Resistance by the same author
>BR128.G8F69 1999 The Jesus Mysteries. Was the
>'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and
>Peter Gandy
>BS2553.S24 1993 The Five Gospels. The Search for the
>Authentic Words of Jesus. By Robert W. Funk, Roy W.
>Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar
> - These are just a few of the very many I have read.
The issue you seem unwilling to defend is still open. The authors of the books you recommend utilized source materials. I suspect their source materials are equally available to all Biblical scholars. That being the case, why are the ideas they offer preferable to the ones from scholars who, utilizing the same sources, feel the traditional Biblical account is correct?
>>>>Since I must have missed it, could you please
>summarize these things you allude to that "happened
>before the crucifixion of Jesus" that you have the
>more correct understanding of.<<<
>..... Summarize all I have been reading? Read the
>books above for a start, then, perhaps, you'll ask for
>another list.
I question whether you have clear ideas in which you feel your viewpoint is the better one. It should be a simple thing to offer up some itemized points, but you instead ask me to read several books. It may be that these books will lead me to the ideas you claim to hold, but if they did, I would hope to be able to enumerate the ideas that were new to me. That is what I am asking you to do.
For example, the only idea that I have seen you offer that might be contested by many biblical scholars is that God has continued to offer new knowledge since the bible was given. Is that the sum of the improvements you think you have in early Christina history? Nothing else that is amenable to a simple statement?
>>>>I take it your participation on this board is to
>offer many general platitudes, but never to back up
>thing up with specifics. When asked a specific
>question - toss it off to "God".<<<
>..... If you want specifics read a book on Science.
>Items related to religions/belief systems are NOT,
>cannot be proven, and are as specific as psychic
>phenomena.
There is a big difference between asking for proof, and asking for specifics. I asked for specifics.
>..... Many Christian denominations maintain lots of
>things that are not agreed upon. What is regarded as
>God's message is unlikely to be exactly what it said
>in the no longer available original version in its
>original language, very many years ago, and is very
>probably now obsolete or at least superseded by later
>messages from God.
Whether we have the bible in its original language or version is secondary to whether or not the ideas God implanted in it were faithfully carried to us. You mention obsolete. Can you specifically itemize (not prove) those messages in the Bible that you feel are obsolete? And by the way - I see you still make use of lots of "waffle words" - "unlikely" (as opposed to a flat yes or no), "very probably" (as opposed to IS), etc.
Your claim that parts of the bible have been superseded (note I advanced your waffling statement to an absolute). For some message in the bible to be superseded, a newer message must have been given. Please list one of more of the biblical messages that have been superseded, along with the newer messages that replaced them.
>..... An outside source is outside the bible and other
>scriptures, "holy" or not, also an outside source does
>NOT include any of the clergy's pronouncements and
>claims.
Since you mention it specifically, please tell us what the "other scriptures" are you allude to.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 