> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > news:XNWdnW1oUuXDGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d@giganews.com... >> Wilba wrote: >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>> Savageduck wrote: >>>>>> Eric Stevens said: >>>>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was >>>>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that >>>>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or >>>>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity >>>>>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of >>>>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or >>>>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never >>>>>>>>> put out >>>>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what. >>>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has >>>>>>>> mutated >>>>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation >>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman. >>>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was >>>>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament. >>>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore >>>>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages >>>>>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language >>>>>> of JC and his motley crew. >>>>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of >>>>>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic. >>>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the >>>>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no >>>>> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek >>>>> based on what was heard in Aramaic. >>>> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were >>>> verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of >>>> the >>>> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never >>>> know >>>> how much revisionism existed.
>>>> However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds that >>>> Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it is fairly >>>> well >>>> known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew writing is >>>> generally considered to be derived from Aramaic writing. Now, it may be >>>> true that no Aramaic writings of any of the Disciples are known to exist >>>> but >>>> that is another issue entirely.
>>> Blame my memory before you dismiss him. :- )
>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became >>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>> miraculously impregnated.
>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't accept.
> Interesting discussion...
> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as > things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after > Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
> Take Care, > Dudley
What is more interesting and makes the whole thing closer to a conspiracy of myth than theological fact, is Constantine only came on the scene around 306. He proclamed the Edict of Milan in 313. Until then the Gospels seemed to be more of an oral history than a written one.
As they were probably dead,the likelihood that the "Big 4" Matthew, Mark, Luke & John ever having any editorial input into the written versions is slim, and you know how oral vrions of stories can change from telling to telling.
Given that it is likley the first written versions -- Regards,
> On 2009-11-02 04:46:14 -0800, "Wilba" <use...@CUTTHISimago.com.au> said: > It would have been so much better if they had just documented the man's > philosophy and life, rather than this fictional attempt to go the messiah > route, and then to deify him.
> Why is man so gullible in his need for a god to explain things?
> Virgin birth indeed.
You miss the whole point. (of religion) It is driven by the fear of death. Without the Christian myth, there would be no point to the religion. The whole story requires the ridiculous myth to escape eternal nothingness.......
> On 2009-11-02 19:38:04 -0800, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> said:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >> news:XNWdnW1oUuXDGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d@giganews.com... >>> Wilba wrote: >>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>> Savageduck wrote: >>>>>>> Eric Stevens said: >>>>>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was >>>>>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that >>>>>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or >>>>>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity >>>>>>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of >>>>>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or >>>>>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never >>>>>>>>>> put out >>>>>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what. >>>>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has >>>>>>>>> mutated >>>>>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation >>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman. >>>>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was >>>>>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament. >>>>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore >>>>>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages >>>>>>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language >>>>>>> of JC and his motley crew. >>>>>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of >>>>>>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic. >>>>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the >>>>>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no >>>>>> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek >>>>>> based on what was heard in Aramaic. >>>>> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were >>>>> verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of >>>>> the >>>>> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never >>>>> know >>>>> how much revisionism existed.
>>>>> However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds that >>>>> Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it is fairly >>>>> well >>>>> known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew writing is >>>>> generally considered to be derived from Aramaic writing. Now, it may be >>>>> true that no Aramaic writings of any of the Disciples are known to exist >>>>> but >>>>> that is another issue entirely.
>>>> Blame my memory before you dismiss him. :- )
>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became >>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>> miraculously impregnated.
>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't accept.
>> Interesting discussion...
>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as >> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after >> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>> Take Care, >> Dudley
> What is more interesting and makes the whole thing closer to a > conspiracy of myth than theological fact, is Constantine only came on > the scene around 306. He proclamed the Edict of Milan in 313. Until > then the Gospels seemed to be more of an oral history than a written > one.
> As they were probably dead,the likelihood that the "Big 4" Matthew, > Mark, Luke & John ever having any editorial input into the written > versions is slim, and you know how oral vrions of stories can change > from telling to telling.
> Given that it is likley the first written versions
I guess I didn't complete what I was typing. It was supposed to read;
Given that it is likely the first written versions for some sort of use in a formal religion were written in Greek around 314-318. They were probably modified after the First Council of Nicaea in 325 to suit the political ends of the Church.
>>> Savageduck wrote: >>>> Eric Stevens said: >>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was >>>>>>> determined >>>>>>> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke >>>>>>> said >>>>>>> so. We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or >>>>>>> whether >>>>>>> they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a >>>>>>> team of >>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or >>>>>>> whether >>>>>>> Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never put out >>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has >>>>>> mutated >>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation >>>>>> would >>>>>> be >>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written >>>>> in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore there >>>> is >>>> no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages in most use >>>> in >>>> Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language of JC and his >>>> motley >>>> crew. >>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of >>>> the >>>> myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the >>> Aramaic >>> scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no Aramaic >>> texts >>> exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek based on what was >>> heard in Aramaic.
>>It appears that even scholars have personal agenda. It seems there were >>Aramaic writings which pre and post dated the ...er "time of JC". >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic
>>What remains, regardless of the original language of the odd public >>relations & sales documents which became the New Testament, is the >>creation of a mythical hero on the same scale as a Hercules, Superman >>or Luke Skywalker.
>>It would have been so much better if they had just documented the man's >>philosophy and life, rather than this fictional attempt to go the >>messiah route, and then to deify him.
> Because true religion depends on it being based on something that man > cannot accomplish. By "true religion", I mean a religion that people > will accept unconditionally and not "true" in the sense of being > accurate.
> You could not make people accept and adhere to a philosophy based on > ordinary events that any person could put into place. There have been > many men over time that have presented admirable philosophical > teachings and have built up small - relatively - followings, but true > religion depends on a story that provides answers that the common man > cannot solve and a set of standards that man cannot completely meet.
> The very presence of Earth and man on Earth is unexplainable to the > common man without the story of creation as presented in the various > religious beliefs. You can talk about the Big Bang and evolution and > attempt to explain it, but most of us cannot process this information > with complete confidence.
> Even though the evolution of man is documented scientifically, most of > us accept the scientific theories on faith. We really don't > understand the concept completely, but we accept it as true. The > religious person is doing the same thing, but accepting a different > version on faith.
> I am a believer in a need for a true religion, but not any particular > true religion. I am personally an atheist, but I see the need and the > rewards that some people get from a strong religious belief system. > (And also the evils) I believe in that scientific version of > evolution, but damned if I can really grasp how that first spark of > life started.
>>Why is man so gullible in his need for a god to explain things?
> "Gullible" is really not the word that describes the acceptance of a > god or gods. "Gullible" means "easily duped or cheated". The > acceptance of a god or gods is a much deeper response based on the > need to have what is to them a logical explanation of that which they > cannot understand. I hate to see strong religious beliefs put on the > same level as believing that some crooked Nigerian bank officer is > willing to give you $10 million.
Why not? To me, they are both in the same, "gullible" category. You've got a much better chance of getting a few million dollars from the Nigerian bank officer than you have of getting eternal existence floating around in the clouds with the creator of the universe.....
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2009110205423911967-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2009-11-02 04:46:14 -0800, "Wilba" <use...@CUTTHISimago.com.au> said: >> It would have been so much better if they had just documented the man's >> philosophy and life, rather than this fictional attempt to go the >> messiah route, and then to deify him.
>> Why is man so gullible in his need for a god to explain things?
>> Virgin birth indeed.
> You miss the whole point. (of religion) It is driven by the fear of > death. Without the Christian myth, there would be no point to the > religion. The whole story requires the ridiculous myth to escape > eternal nothingness.......
Hi Bill,
I didn't miss the point, and it seems we are at least in agreement on this issue.
Dudley Hanks wrote: > "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > news:XNWdnW1oUuXDGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d@giganews.com... >> Wilba wrote: >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>> Savageduck wrote: >>>>>> Eric Stevens said: >>>>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was >>>>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that >>>>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or >>>>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a >>>>>>>>> chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of >>>>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or >>>>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she >>>>>>>>> never put out >>>>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what. >>>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe >>>>>>>> her has mutated >>>>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct >>>>>>>> translation would be >>>>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman. >>>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was >>>>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament. >>>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore >>>>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the >>>>>> languages in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all >>>>>> likelihood the language of JC and his motley crew. >>>>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of >>>>>> much of the myth they would have written the original drafts in >>>>>> Aramaic. >>>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the >>>>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and >>>>> no Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in >>>>> Greek based on what was heard in Aramaic. >>>> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and >>>> there were verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the >>>> final form of the >>>> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll >>>> never know >>>> how much revisionism existed.
>>>> However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds >>>> that Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it >>>> is fairly well >>>> known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew >>>> writing is generally considered to be derived from Aramaic >>>> writing. Now, it may be true that no Aramaic writings of any of >>>> the Disciples are known to exist but >>>> that is another issue entirely.
>>> Blame my memory before you dismiss him. :- )
>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>> became "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary >>> was miraculously impregnated.
>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >> accept.
> Interesting discussion...
> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written > as things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years > after Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
And the Disciples who wrote the gospels no doubt had discussed matters among themselves at some length--still, their stories don't exactly agree.
There's also the possibility that they embellished the truth a bit. For all we know Mary could have been a hooker--we don't have any other information about her than what they wrote and they wrote what would suit their purposes.
>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became >>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>> miraculously >>> impregnated.
>> Exactly!
> On the other hand, the resurrection is believable, as even today, every > few years a story appears in the news that a person pronounced dead in a > modern, well staffed and equipped hospital will wake up in a mortuary.
Well, reusing Wilba's plausibility example (aka: Occam's razor) it is much more plausible that hospital staff (no matter how competent, well trained or equipped) made a horrible mistake than somebody actually dead coming back to life.
Dudley Hanks wrote: > "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > news:XNWdnW1oUuXDGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d@giganews.com... >> Wilba wrote: >>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became >>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>> miraculously impregnated. >> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't accept.
> Interesting discussion...
> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as > things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after > Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and declaring it "The Word of God".
But, of course, it is just faulty oral history collected and "thoughtfully" redacted for an end purpose. One that we have outgrown but for the institutions that rely on it.
>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became >>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>> miraculously impregnated. >>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't accept.
>> Interesting discussion...
>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as >> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after >> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by >the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >declaring it "The Word of God".
Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
What had you expected the topic to be?
Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by someone asking you to vote for them.
>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>> became "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary >>>>> was miraculously impregnated. >>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>> accept.
>>> Interesting discussion...
>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't >>> written as things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - >>> 50 years after Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted >>> down.
>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>> A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >> service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed >> by the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >> declaring it "The Word of God".
> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
> What had you expected the topic to be?
> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by > someone asking you to vote for them.
>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became >>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>> miraculously >>>> impregnated.
>>> Exactly!
>> On the other hand, the resurrection is believable, as even today, every >> few years a story appears in the news that a person pronounced dead in a >> modern, well staffed and equipped hospital will wake up in a mortuary.
> Well, reusing Wilba's plausibility example (aka: Occam's razor) it is much > more plausible that hospital staff (no matter how competent, well trained > or equipped) made a horrible mistake than somebody actually dead coming > back to life.
Yes, and especially since they don't, "Stay that way". IOW, they go on to die eventually anyway, which is a completely different situation from the Christian myth which promises eternal life.
>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>> became >>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>>> miraculously impregnated. >>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>> accept.
>>> Interesting discussion...
>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as >>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after >>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by >>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >>declaring it "The Word of God".
> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
> What had you expected the topic to be?
> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by > someone asking you to vote for them.
> -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
In my case, I would call it stupid. The idea that the Bible, which has been rewritten and retranslated many times in the past thousand years or more is the direct word of the creator of the whole universe is a very dumb idea, even for a priest. Most Christians today are not literalists.
>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>>> became >>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>>>> miraculously impregnated. >>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>>> accept.
>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as >>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after >>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by >>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by >> someone asking you to vote for them.
>> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>In my case, I would call it stupid.
Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say things like that in churches. Especially priests.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:41:12 -0800, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> > wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:jm31f55osv7a0td3uob270r3sjniroc6oh@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne >>> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>>>> became >>>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>>>>> miraculously impregnated. >>>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>>>> accept.
>>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written >>>>> as >>>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after >>>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >>>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by >>>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >>>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by >>> someone asking you to vote for them.
>>> -- >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>In my case, I would call it stupid.
> Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say > things like that in churches. Especially priests.
Exactly. - And I don't. But if I did, and the pastor were to say something like that, I would ask him afterward if he were a literalist, and if not, I would call him on his comment that the Bible was, "The word of God". I would probably point out the discrepancy between Matthew 19:24 and Ecclesiastes 10:19 (for example), and ask him if God was just having a bad day when he wrote one or the other of those two contradicting passages.
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>news:jm31f55osv7a0td3uob270r3sjniroc6oh@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne >>>> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>>>>>> miraculously impregnated. >>>>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>>>>> accept.
>>>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written >>>>>> as >>>>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after >>>>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >>>>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by >>>>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >>>>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>>>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>>>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>>>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by >>>> someone asking you to vote for them.
>>>> -- >>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>In my case, I would call it stupid.
>> Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say >> things like that in churches. Especially priests.
>Exactly. - And I don't. But if I did, and the pastor were to say something >like that, I would ask him afterward if he were a literalist, and if not, I >would call him on his comment that the Bible was, "The word of God". I would >probably point out the discrepancy between Matthew 19:24 and Ecclesiastes >10:19 (for example), and ask him if God was just having a bad day when he >wrote one or the other of those two contradicting passages.
I can imagine that. Easily. I can imagine you going to a church with the sole intent of starting an argument with a priest. I can imagine you going to a place where you absolutely know something will be said that you absolutely disagree with just so you can have the opportunity to voice an opinion that you know the other person will absolutely disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.
> I can imagine you going to a place where you absolutely > know something will be said that you absolutely disagree > with just so you can have the opportunity to voice an > opinion that you know the other person will absolutely > disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.
>>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>news:jm31f55osv7a0td3uob270r3sjniroc6oh@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne >>>>> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" >>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was >>>>>>>>> miraculously impregnated. >>>>>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't >>>>>>>> accept.
>>>>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas >>>>>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed >>>>>>by >>>>>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and >>>>>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>>>>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>>>>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>>>>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by >>>>> someone asking you to vote for them.
>>>>> -- >>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>>In my case, I would call it stupid.
>>> Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say >>> things like that in churches. Especially priests.
>>Exactly. - And I don't. But if I did, and the pastor were to say something >>like that, I would ask him afterward if he were a literalist, and if not, >>I >>would call him on his comment that the Bible was, "The word of God". I >>would >>probably point out the discrepancy between Matthew 19:24 and Ecclesiastes >>10:19 (for example), and ask him if God was just having a bad day when he >>wrote one or the other of those two contradicting passages.
> I can imagine that. Easily. I can imagine you going to a church with > the sole intent of starting an argument with a priest. I can imagine > you going to a place where you absolutely know something will be said > that you absolutely disagree with just so you can have the opportunity > to voice an opinion that you know the other person will absolutely > disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.
Whatever gave you the idea that I would go to church with the sole intent of starting an argument with a priest? I seldom go to any church. In any case, I wouldn't be in one unless I was the guest of someone else, since I have no religion of my own, and, being someone else's guest, I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest". I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very probably not the, "Word of God". And, I doubt seriously if there is any pastor that hasn't heard that position expressed before I came along. As a matter of fact, I have found very few positions of my own that most pastors are in serious disagreement with. It is surprising to me that as an atheist, I am so compatible with most men of the cloth. They are quick to tell me that their beliefs are not logical, but are matters of, "faith". Although I have no, "faith", I can easily understand that position.
>>> I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest".
>>>I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very >>>probably not the, "Word of God".
>> Only Bill, and perhaps John Navas, would not see the conflict between >> those two sentences.
>> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>Only Tony can't tell the difference between, "Start an argument with", and >"Bring to the attention of".
Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an argument.
>>>> I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest".
>>>>I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very >>>>probably not the, "Word of God".
>>> Only Bill, and perhaps John Navas, would not see the conflict between >>> those two sentences.
>>> -- >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>Only Tony can't tell the difference between, "Start an argument with", and >>"Bring to the attention of".
> Sure I do. "Start an argument with" is a straight-forward and honest > statement of intent. "Bring to the attention of" is a disingenuous > opening that allows the person to feign surprise at ending up in an > argument.
You mean, "......that allows Tony Cooper to feign surprise at ending up in an argument." Speak for yourself, and not for all persons. I have had many interesting discussions with men of the cloth, which rarely ended up in arguments.
|
