• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

devildavid said:
So? That isn't from the Old Testament. That is a made up quote by the character Jesus in the New Testament. There is no evidence of the character Jesus in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

No it's the quote from Jesus,that got him arrested.
You claim there was no Jesus,but you don't know the Old from the New Testament.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
No it's the quote from Jesus,that got him arrested.
You claim there was no Jesus,but you don't know the Old from the New Testament.
Click to expand...

No, I said that Jesus is only a character in the New Testament. He does not appear in the Old Testament.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
Stop wasting my time.Isaiah 53
Click to expand...

Just provide evidence of the character of jesus in the old testament and you will no longer be wasting time.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
Stop wasting my time.Isaiah 53
Click to expand...

The verse seems to be written in the past tense as if the author was describing events that had already taken place and not a 'prophecy' about the future. It does seem to provide the framework for some of the Gospel stories, which does not however mean Isaiah and other Jewish prophets actually saw the future coming of Jesus.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman said:
The guy doesn't even have a Ph.d. What's more, this is how he describes himself: "Apart from graduate work, I am also an advocate of secular humanism, naturalist philosophy, and church-state secularism..."

The guy has an obvious bias.
Click to expand...

You're right, Matthew Ferguson doesn't have a Ph D - yet. He has just finished his thesis and will be sitting before the proctors in the near future. This past year he has been an adjunct/graduate teacher at the Univ. of California, Irvine. He is an atheist but he does believe that there was a Jesus person, just not the divine Son of God.

If you had taken the time to read the linked article, it is long, you would have read that Ferguson frequently quotes conservative, believing Christian academics like Craig Blomberg.
The internal anonymity of the Gospels is even acknowledged by many apologists and conservative scholars, such as Craig Blomberg, who states in The Case for Christ (pg. 22): “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”
Click to expand...

The earliest mention of the names attributed to the Four Gospels today is in the work of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, sometime between 175 and 180 CE. His primary reason for choosing and naming the four books seems to have been conflict with other groups within the faith who were using one or more of the Gospels which were later deemed heretical; books such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter.

Justin Martyr writing sometime between 150 and 160 CE refers to the Gospels collectively as “Memoirs of the Apostles,” without using the titles we know today or referring to any specific Apostles.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Somerville said:
The verse seems to be written in the past tense as if the author was describing events that had already taken place and not a 'prophecy' about the future. It does seem to provide the framework for some of the Gospel stories, which does not however mean Isaiah and other Jewish prophets actually saw the future coming of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Every Christian scholar says Isaiah 53 is all about the coming Messiah Jesus.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

nota bene said:
Last time I checked, "civilized" wasn't a synonym for "non-theist" or "without faith."
Click to expand...

No. But it does mean rational and educated in critical thinking and modern science.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
What a surprise scholars know what they are talking about,that have dedicated their lives to study the Bible.
Click to expand...

There are people who study Harry Potter and the Lord Of The Rings.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Somerville said:
If you had taken the time to read the linked article, it is long, you would have read that Ferguson frequently quotes conservative, believing Christian academics like Craig Blomberg.
Click to expand...

His family perhaps, not him.

Somerville said:
The earliest mention of the names attributed to the Four Gospels today is in the work of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, sometime between 175 and 180 CE. His primary reason for choosing and naming the four books seems to have been conflict with other groups within the faith who were using one or more of the Gospels which were later deemed heretical; books such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter.
Click to expand...

The earliest mention of the Resurrection was a creed written about by Paul in 1st Corinthians 15 that goes back to perhaps three to five years after the event.

https://righterreport.com/2013/01/17/1064/
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
You obviously haven't read the prophesies that have come to pass.Was Jesus a fictional character in your world?
Click to expand...

Have you read the prophecies?? None of the references in the Jewish scriptures are about Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
"Before Abraham,I Am".
Click to expand...

According to the Arian's, and they back it up with context, that is before abraham in 'priority'.. not in time. In essence, a number of non-tritarian groups are saying that Jesus is saying that he is greater than Abraham, not that he existed before Abraham.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
Stop wasting my time.Isaiah 53
Click to expand...

Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus. The suffering servaant is Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant

The Context of Isaiah 53

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Mizzy22 said:
Every Christian scholar says Isaiah 53 is all about the coming Messiah Jesus.
Click to expand...

More correctly -- SOME Christian scholars say the Isaiah verse is about a coming Messiah. Those who promote this idea are almost all believers on the evangelical/fundamentalist side of the faith.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman's responses to my earlier comments seem to have little connection with what I wrote.

Logicman said:
Originally Posted by Somerville
If you had taken the time to read the linked article, it is long, you would have read that Ferguson frequently quotes conservative, believing Christian academics like Craig Blomberg.
Click to expand...
His family perhaps, not him.
Click to expand...
The response here has zero connection or relevancy to what I wrote.



Logicman said:
Originally Posted by Somerville
The earliest mention of the names attributed to the Four Gospels today is in the work of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, sometime between 175 and 180 CE. His primary reason for choosing and naming the four books seems to have been conflict with other groups within the faith who were using one or more of the Gospels which were later deemed heretical; books such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter.
Click to expand...
The earliest mention of the Resurrection was a creed written about by Paul in 1st Corinthians 15 that goes back to perhaps three to five years after the event.

https://righterreport.com/2013/01/17/1064/
Click to expand...
The discussion had been about the supposed authors of the Four Gospels -- NOT about the Resurrection or the Creed of Corinthians. Unlike, the Gospels, even skeptical/mythicist scholars do find that a single person, perhaps with the name of Paul, did write at least 6 of the Epistles which are attributed to Paul and the majority of them do agree with a very early dating of the Creed.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

devildavid said:
What do Jewish scholars say?
Click to expand...

If you knew your Scripture,you would know,it's the "Time of the Gentiles",the Jews will have their day to recognize the Messiah.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Somerville said:
More correctly -- SOME Christian scholars say the Isaiah verse is about a coming Messiah. Those who promote this idea are almost all believers on the evangelical/fundamentalist side of the faith.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that,almost every mature educated Spirit filled Christian,knows Isaiah 53,points to Jesus.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Somerville said:
The earliest mention of the names attributed to the Four Gospels today is in the work of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, sometime between 175 and 180 CE.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. From my prior link / article:

Papias was much earlier:

“Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best he could.”

In the early 2nd century Papias attests to Markan authorship based on the reliable testimony of an elder or presbyter who knew the apostles:

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”(13)

Polycarp also spoke of information he gleaned from his disciple the Apostle John.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Somerville said:
The discussion had been about the supposed authors of the Four Gospels -- NOT about the Resurrection or the Creed of Corinthians.
Click to expand...

Which is the earliest mention of the resurrection.

Somerville said:
Unlike, the Gospels, even skeptical/mythicist scholars do find that a single person, perhaps with the name of Paul, did write at least 6 of the Epistles which are attributed to Paul and the majority of them do agree with a very early dating of the Creed.
Click to expand...

Paul and 1st Corinthians is well attested to by numerous scholars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom