In your honest opinion

March 9, 2018

27 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart

and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways submit to him,

and he will make your paths straight.

~ Proverbs 3:5-6 (NIV)

According to Proverbs 3:5-6 though, we can't lean on our own understanding. If you can't trust your own so-described 'faulty reasoning' then how do you know that your interpretation of doctrine is correct?

To understand God, I cannot think what God should be like or what God should do. I cannot cherry pick the scriptures to make God conform to my ideas or inventions.

I had to trust God. I trust God in what I can understand. I trust God in the scriptures and the mysteries, I do not understand.

How do I know my interpretations correct?

I try to follow the instructions given in the Bible.

Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

~ Acts 17:11 (NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

~ 2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

~ 1 John 4:1 (NIV)

My decision to trust in Christ was not made in a bubble. I have decided from what I see and know of the universe is that it shouts of intelligent design. I believe there is a God. From my reading of other religions and atheism, I have decided the God and message presented in the scriptures is true.

I would add that rejection of God and Bible is also not made in a bubble. The homepage of EX-christian.net has dozens of books, articles, and testimony claiming Christianity is false. Many people searching this site for answers will use these materials and comments like these to aide in their final decision. I have no problem with any person having open access to opposing views. Like I said, I need to read other viewpoints.

As I have said before, in the end we must, weigh all this, and trust ourselves to make the correct decision.

Many of us made the same decision you did. ANd many like you will make the same decision we have. Life is funny that way. Your life is not over.

March 9, 2018

3 hours ago, ironhorse said:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart

and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways submit to him,

and he will make your paths straight.

~ Proverbs 3:5-6 (NIV)

According to Proverbs 3:5-6 though, we can't lean on our own understanding. If you can't trust your own so-described 'faulty reasoning' then how do you know that your interpretation of doctrine is correct?

To understand God, I cannot think what God should be like or what God should do. I cannot cherry pick the scriptures to make God conform to my ideas or inventions.

I had to trust God. I trust God in what I can understand. I trust God in the scriptures and the mysteries, I do not understand.

How do I know my interpretations correct?

I try to follow the instructions given in the Bible.

Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

~ Acts 17:11 (NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

~ 2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

~ 1 John 4:1 (NIV)

My decision to trust in Christ was not made in a bubble. I have decided from what I see and know of the universe is that it shouts of intelligent design. I believe there is a God. From my reading of other religions and atheism, I have decided the God and message presented in the scriptures is true.

I didn't conclude either way whether there's a god or not, because ultimately that's impossible to prove. I just couldn't accept the evil that masquerades as the biblical god. I therefore shake my head over how easily some can accept it.

March 9, 2018

March 9, 2018

5 hours ago, ironhorse said:

My decision to trust in Christ was not made in a bubble. I have decided from what I see and know of the universe is that it shouts of intelligent design. I believe there is a God. From my reading of other religions and atheism, I have decided the God and message presented in the scriptures is true.

I would add that rejection of God and Bible is also not made in a bubble. The homepage of EX-christian.net has dozens of books, articles, and testimony claiming Christianity is false. Many people searching this site for answers will use these materials and comments like these to aide in their final decision. I have no problem with any person having open access to opposing views. Like I said, I need to read other viewpoints.

My conclusion (as opposed to a decision) was not reached in a bubble either. I happened to be studying Revelation at Moody when everything finally came together for me. I had studied the Bible for years and was not exposed to "atheist literature" as you might imagine. The books you mentioned are of interest to people AFTER they have realized their sincere religious beliefs were misplaced all along. As many have said, the greatest tool for deconversion is the Bible itself, followed closely by a passing understanding of history, science and critical thinking.

March 10, 2018

11 hours ago, ironhorse said:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart

and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways submit to him,

and he will make your paths straight.

~ Proverbs 3:5-6 (NIV)

According to Proverbs 3:5-6 though, we can't lean on our own understanding. If you can't trust your own so-described 'faulty reasoning' then how do you know that your interpretation of doctrine is correct?

To understand God, I cannot think what God should be like or what God should do. I cannot cherry pick the scriptures to make God conform to my ideas or inventions.

I had to trust God. I trust God in what I can understand. I trust God in the scriptures and the mysteries, I do not understand.

How do I know my interpretations correct?

I try to follow the instructions given in the Bible.

Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

~ Acts 17:11 (NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

~ 2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

~ 1 John 4:1 (NIV)

My decision to trust in Christ was not made in a bubble. I have decided from what I see and know of the universe is that it shouts of intelligent design. I believe there is a God. From my reading of other religions and atheism, I have decided the God and message presented in the scriptures is true.

I would add that rejection of God and Bible is also not made in a bubble. The homepage of EX-christian.net has dozens of books, articles, and testimony claiming Christianity is false. Many people searching this site for answers will use these materials and comments like these to aide in their final decision. I have no problem with any person having open access to opposing views. Like I said, I need to read other viewpoints.

As I have said before, in the end we must, weigh all this, and trust ourselves to make the correct decision.

Total freedom is scary when you've been a slave all your life. Total freedom means you do your own thinking for yourself, not other people.

You say you've chosen the Christian path because of what you see, well I don't choose the Christian path because of what I know. What I know is based on objective data of what Christianity does to people's minds, and I think that's stronger evidence than just what you think you see.

You want to make sense of it all, so you've jammed this old theology in to your current knowledge of this universe. But you are only seeing a small part of it, so how can you determine that Jesus is the actual living creator of what you see.

Has Jesus put a trade mark on this creation, that you can be sure it was him? Is that trade mark found in the Bible? No you just see what's been created then pin that design on him.

March 10, 2018

all scriptures are god inspired

and the passages and books are selected by human.

even martin luther wants relevation be excluded in the 66 books

yes scriptures maybe inspired but the human are NOT

March 10, 2018

13 hours ago, ironhorse said:

I have decided from what I see and know of the universe is that it shouts of intelligent design. I believe there is a God. From my reading of other religions and atheism, I have decided the God and message presented in the scriptures is true.

So you had to make a judgment here by leaning on your own understanding?

March 10, 2018

On 3/4/2018 at 3:14 PM, ironhorse said:

How are you (or how is anyone) qualified to dictate to anyone whether something is a "false teaching" or not?

Concerning the scriptures, the scriptures warns of false teaching and tells us to search the scriptures to see if what they say is true. The scripture is the authority. So, I guess you could say exercising this skill of searching and studying the scriptures on these issues, qualifies a believer to make a judgement on teachings that do not align with scripture.

So then what defines these "the scriptures" in the first place?

You've got a whole mess of "the scriptures" that the Jews don't use.

There's a whole mess of "the scriptures" that neither the Jews nor the xians use but did at one point (either one, the other or both groups).

There is a whole world of "the scriptures" in some format (ie. written, oral, etc.) that the neither the Jews nor xians will touch with a ten foot pole (and some of these they even "borrowed" for their own "the scriptures").

Without knowing what a "the scriptures" actually is the term is kind of meaningless. You first have to have a book that is known to be a "the scripture" with which to compare otherwise you could never start the process in the first place. The very first book you had would be a non-starter. There would be no "the scripture" to compare to and therefore no way to ever know if this very first book could be considered a "the scripture."

So you'll have to let me, us, know what defines "the scriptures" in the first place and how one would know? You know, the real ones from the fake ones?

mwc

March 14, 2018

On 3/8/2018 at 8:43 AM, ironhorse said:

Absolutely, many make that claim.

So, do you trust them or trust yourself to find out what is correct or false?

I’m not pleading with anyone here to trust me.

Our decision on these matters are our own.

"Many make that claim"; but they are all false teachers. YOU make the same claim; how are you not also a false teacher?

March 14, 2018

As a point of clarification, my "decision" to reject god was, in fact, made within a bubble; and that bubble was, in fact, the church.

March 16, 2018

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:08 AM, mwc said:

     So then what defines these "the scriptures" in the first place?

     You've got a whole mess of "the scriptures" that the Jews don't use.

     There's a whole mess of "the scriptures" that neither the Jews nor the xians use but did at one point (either one, the other or both groups).

     There is a whole world of "the scriptures" in some format (ie. written, oral, etc.) that the neither the Jews nor xians will touch with a ten foot pole (and some of these they even "borrowed" for their own "the scriptures").

     Without knowing what a "the scriptures" actually is the term is kind of meaningless. You first have to have a book that is known to be a "the scripture" with which to compare otherwise you could never start the process in the first place. The very first book you had would be a non-starter. There would be no "the scripture" to compare to and therefore no way to ever know if this very first book could be considered a "the scripture."

     So you'll have to let me, us, know what defines "the scriptures" in the first place and how one would know? You know, the real ones from the fake ones?

          mwc

So then what defines these "the scriptures" in the first place?

The scriptures define themselves as God’s written word. Instead of dropping gold tablets from the sky, God chose to use humans in the process od revealing himself through the written word. This occurred over a long period of time.

You've got a whole mess of "the scriptures" that the Jews don't use.

The New Testament was written by Jews. Of course, within Judaism they are not used, but to Messianic Jews they are scripture.

There's a whole mess of "the scriptures" that neither the Jews nor the xians use but did at one point (either one, the other or both groups).

True, for example, Paul’s letters were not automatically viewed as scripture. The only scripture the early believers had on hand was what we now call the Old Testament. The Apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time.

There is a whole world of "the scriptures" in some format (ie. written, oral, etc.) that the neither the Jews nor xians will touch with a ten foot pole (and some of these they even "borrowed" for their own "the scriptures").

True, but these books were not found to meet the criteria as the various texts were chosen as authoritative. Also true, most Jews and Christians have dismissed many of them because they are way off in what they say when compared to other books in the Bible. Some others have some merit. In Bible versions many of these deuterocanonical books are retained as part of this tradition in a section called the "Apocrypha."

Without knowing what a "the scriptures" actually is the term is kind of meaningless. You first have to have a book that is known to be a "the scripture" with which to compare otherwise you could never start the process in the first place. The very first book you had would be a non-starter. There would be no "the scripture" to compare to and therefore no way to ever know if this very first book could be considered a "the scripture."

So you'll have to let me, us, know what defines "the scriptures" in the first place and how one would know? You know, the real ones from the fake ones?

The word “scripture” simply means something written.

And as I have repeated, whether you decided the Bible is the written message and word to mankind is up to you to decide.

March 16, 2018

20 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

There's a whole mess of "the scriptures" that neither the Jews nor the xians use but did at one point (either one, the other or both groups).

True, for example, Paul’s letters were not automatically viewed as scripture. The only scripture the early believers had on hand was what we now call the Old Testament. The Apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time.

Is it not true that the process for determining what you now call "scripture" was primarily determined though political maneuverings of the 'holy elite' ?

20 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

There is a whole world of "the scriptures" in some format (ie. written, oral, etc.) that the neither the Jews nor xians will touch with a ten foot pole (and some of these they even "borrowed" for their own "the scriptures").

True, but these books were not found to meet the criteria as the various texts were chosen as authoritative. Also true, most Jews and Christians have dismissed many of them because they are way off in what they say when compared to other books in the Bible. Some others have some merit. In Bible versions many of these deuterocanonical books are retained as part of this tradition in a section called the "Apocrypha."

In relation to my question above, the Judaic priests used similar political processes to determine what they considered to be worth putting into a book. They chose only those writings that were conducive to their world view. Historians and scholars can demonstrate that there are references in the current bible that pertain to other writings outside the bible. Not only that, there is evidence that parts have been tampered with - the original writing replaced by something more palatable, or references to unwanted things removed. This is consistent with a culture and their religions changing, but its not consistent with the inspired word from an omniscient unchanging being.

20 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

The word “scripture” simply means something written.

And as I have repeated, whether you decided the Bible is the written message and word to mankind is up to you to decide.

There has been much written in human history. How do you determine what is and what isn't the true message of the supposed divine being?

March 16, 2018

3 hours ago, ironhorse said:

So then what defines these "the scriptures" in the first place?

The scriptures define themselves as God’s written word. Instead of dropping gold tablets from the sky, God chose to use humans in the process od revealing himself through the written word. This occurred over a long

period of time.

Yeah, golden tablets. That would be silly.

So, if I wrote something that said it was a "the scripture" then it would then be such a thing? It defines itself? This post could qualify if I simply included the right words? ETA: And what what would those words be? Because if it's about comparisons then comparing to one group would mean I'm fine but to another group might mean I'm not. It can't be that.

That doesn't really explain things now does it? Nor does it explain the origin which is what I asked about.

Quote

You've got a whole mess of "the scriptures" that the Jews don't use.

The New Testament was written by Jews. Of course, within Judaism they are not used, but to Messianic Jews they are scripture.

But was it really? Written by Jews I mean? They wrote some mean Greek for Jews. And really didn't know much about being Jews or Judea for Jews. So probably not so much. People wanting to look like Jews? Probably. Jew adjacent? Maybe.

And Messianic Jews? Okay. But really?

Quote

There's a whole mess of "the scriptures" that neither the Jews nor the xians use but did at one point (either one, the other or both groups).

True, for example, Paul’s letters were not automatically viewed as scripture. The only scripture the early believers had on hand was what we now call the Old Testament. The Apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time.

Developed? That's an odd way to explain the origin of something, which, as you recall, is what I asked about. The very first one. The one to which the others were compared so as to know.

Quote

There is a whole world of "the scriptures" in some format (ie. written, oral, etc.) that the neither the Jews nor xians will touch with a ten foot pole (and some of these they even "borrowed" for their own "the scriptures").

True, but these books were not found to meet the criteria as the various texts were chosen as authoritative. Also true, most Jews and Christians have dismissed many of them because they are way off in what they say when compared to other books in the Bible. Some others have some merit. In Bible versions many of these deuterocanonical books are retained as part of this tradition in a section called the "Apocrypha."

Now we're starting to get down to it. Not found to meet what criteria? By whom? This is what I was asking about. This is what I'm still asking about.

We're now starting to see the Judeo-Christian centric bias. The other texts were wrong because? They didn't conform to the Jewish world view? Then the following xian world view? Because what other criteria is there?

Quote

Without knowing what a "the scriptures" actually is the term is kind of meaningless. You first have to have a book that is known to be a "the scripture" with which to compare otherwise you could never start the process in the first place. The very first book you had would be a non-starter. There would be no "the scripture" to compare to and therefore no way to ever know if this very first book could be considered a "the scripture."

So you'll have to let me, us, know what defines "the scriptures" in the first place and how one would know? You know, the real ones from the fake ones?

The word “scripture” simply means something written.

And as I have repeated, whether you decided the Bible is the written message and word to mankind is up to you to decide.

Generally it refers to sacred writings. If you want to broaden it to any and all writings that's fine with me since I don't find religious writings to be sacred.

I believe the bible is a written message and word but you're using those words differently than I am. I know how you're using them, and in that sense I disagree. How could I agree? You've not shown me how the origin could occur. You've told me that "scripture" simply means writings. Any writings. Nothing special. That god won't drop those writings from the sky so people just write things. Other people can read those things and write similar things. If other people like some similar things, but not other similar things, they can collect them together while excluding others (ie. the canonization process). They can even copy and alter writings they totally wish to exclude in such a way they can now include them (ie. copying the Sumerians/Babylonians). They can even alter their beliefs in ways that allow them to include writings they would previously exclude (ie. the Messianic Jews).

So when does the original simply appear? Whole cloth? On it's own? Not from some oral tradition. Not from on-high. But somehow makes an appearance so that people simply know that it is the original sacred text? The one to compare all others to? And which text was that one singular piece of writing? And how can anyone know that? You've already pointed out that it was in hindsight that what Paul wrote became sacred. It wasn't sacred originally. It may well have not become sacred had those who came after looked at it differently. Your attitude towards it today would be that it would then be not sacred but profane. So without hindsight how do we define an original?

mwc

March 16, 2018

2 hours ago, ironhorse said:

You've got a whole mess of "the scriptures" that the Jews don't use.

The New Testament was written by Jews.

Nope. It's written in the wrong language. Jewish people would have written it in their own language, Aramaic. The New Testament was written by Greeks and Romans because it's a Greek and Roman religion.

March 16, 2018

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

Nope. It's written in the wrong language. Jewish people would have written it in their own language, Aramaic. The New Testament was written by Greeks and Romans because it's a Greek and Roman religion.

I disagree. It was written in the most common language of the time.

A language that almost all could speak and understand, and many could also read and write: Koine Greek

Classical Greek was used by the educated class, but Koine Greek was the language of the working man, the peasant, the vendor, and the housewife—there was nothing fancy about it. It was the vernacular, or vulgar language, of the day.

Koine Greek was spread by the armies of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC.

Much like English has become today, Koine Greek became the most common and pervasive “international language” of the day.

Sounds like a smart move to me.

March 16, 2018

Wherever the translation comes from , when you read the bible with a critical eye, it has a lot of absurdity in it. So if God himself wrote every word of it, it makes God makes himself look foolish.

March 16, 2018

3 hours ago, ironhorse said:

I disagree. It was written in the most common language of the time.

A language that almost all could speak and understand, and many could also read and write: Koine Greek

Classical Greek was used by the educated class, but Koine Greek was the language of the working man, the peasant, the vendor, and the housewife—there was nothing fancy about it. It was the vernacular, or vulgar language, of the day.

Koine Greek was spread by the armies of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC.

Much like English has become today, Koine Greek became the most common and pervasive “international language” of the day.

Sounds like a smart move to me.

Your willful ignorance is irrelevant. Aramaic speaking peasants did not know classic Greek. You know, fishermen spend all day fishing instead of being tutored in writing a foreign language. So they could not have written the Net Testament. However the classically educated would have noticed immediately that the Gospel According To Mark is just the standard Homer's Odyssey with the names changed and fitted to a theatrical format. The first gospel was a novel and a stolen novel at that. Didn't you ever wonder why half the characters are named "a certain man"? They are "extras" in the cast so they were never given names. Of course you don't wonder. You take it on faith.

But if God was going to use his magic powers he could have delivered the Bible all at once, without any errors or confusion and in every language humans would ever speak. So why only do the miracles half-assed? God must be lazy. Only billions of human lives hang in the balance.

March 17, 2018

18 hours ago, ironhorse said:

I disagree. It was written in the most common language of the time.

A language that almost all could speak and understand, and many could also read and write: Koine Greek

Classical Greek was used by the educated class, but Koine Greek was the language of the working man, the peasant, the vendor, and the housewife—there was nothing fancy about it. It was the vernacular, or vulgar language, of the day.

Koine Greek was spread by the armies of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC.

Much like English has become today, Koine Greek became the most common and pervasive “international language” of the day.

Sounds like a smart move to me.

This all makes great sense...but does it really make great sense?

Why don't we ask someone who happened to live back then?

Wars

Preface
(3) I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; I Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work.]

5.6.3
(272) accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud in their own country language, “THE SON COMETH:” so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.

5.9.2
(361) so he mixed good counsel with his works for the siege; and being sensible that exhortations are frequently more effectual than arms, he persuaded them to surrender the city, now in a manner already taken, and thereby to save themselves, and sent Josephus to speak to them in their own language; for he imagined they might yield to the persuasion of a countryman of their own.

6.2.1
(96) Upon this, Josephus stood in such a place where he might be heard, not by John only, but by many more, and then declared to them what Caesar had given him in charge, and this in the Hebrew language.

Hmmm...It would seem that Josephus is telling us a story where the Hebrews, in Judea, happened to speak Hebrew and not something else. Perhaps there some wiggle room though? Let's see if we can get lucky...

Antiquities

20.11.2
(263) For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to the Jews. I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: (264) for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of freemen, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; (265) on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

Oh, so close. It would appear that instead of learning Greek, or other languages, and other cultures the Jews actually preferred to learn their own culture and master their own religion but only a few people were able to actually master that.

So it would seem that in spite of how common "common" Greek was it wasn't common to the Jews according to a Jewish historian and someone who had to act as a translator for the Romans and wrote two versions of his books so different audiences could actually read them.

The odds of some random, already illiterate, Jewish fishermen, speaking much less writing Greek? Roundabout zero percent. Them's the facts.

mwc

March 17, 2018

18 hours ago, ironhorse said:

I disagree. It was written in the most common language of the time.

A language that almost all could speak and understand, and many could also read and write: Koine Greek

Classical Greek was used by the educated class, but Koine Greek was the language of the working man, the peasant, the vendor, and the housewife—there was nothing fancy about it. It was the vernacular, or vulgar language, of the day.

Koine Greek was spread by the armies of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC.

Much like English has become today, Koine Greek became the most common and pervasive “international language” of the day.

Sounds like a smart move to me.

Scholars say the original manuscripts in Greek are well written by educated writers. It wasn't a common Greek form that was used, more like a 'high' form.

Acts 4:13 King James Version (KJV)

¹³Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

But apparently these "unlearned and ignorant" men could write in a fashion that would put modern writers to shame.

March 17, 2018

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

But apparently these "unlearned and ignorant" men could write in a fashion that would put modern writers to shame.

Well yeah. They were being inspired by God, after all.

March 18, 2018

On 3/16/2018 at 6:40 AM, ironhorse said:

So then what defines these "the scriptures" in the first place?

The scriptures define themselves as God’s written word. Instead of dropping gold tablets from the sky, God chose to use humans in the process od revealing himself through the written word. This occurred over a long period of time.

Glory to Allah! Even this infidel knows how the Holy Quran came to be! Muhammad, the Holy Messenger (PBUH) is once again shown to be the true prophet of Allah among the nations.

March 19, 2018

It does seem odd. While some writers like Marcus Aurelius and Plutarch chose to write in Greek, there was a reason. MA was highly educated and P was Boeotian before becoming Roman. It is odd that fishermen are thought to be writing highly polished Greek, albeit Koine. Half the population was illiterate. Luke, maybe, but not likely. If you wrote in Greek, you were NOT trying to reach the illiterate population. You were writing for the elite and Christianity was purposely appealing to the masses.

Then again, we don't even know how it was written. It has been tampered with by so many hands, who can tell? No one is like the early Christians anyway, Maybe they were cool. Maybe the early Christians would have made a lot of us happy and maybe they would have fed people and clothed them and helped people.

Sometimes I wonder if it's just this new breed of Christianity that is all twisted and disgusting and selfish that turns me off. Maybe if I knew even one single true Christian, I may feel differently?

BUT the again, maybe I would still find God;s lack of care to some little 5 year old laying on the street in some torn up town, crying for him mom who is dead laying next to him...............Hmmm, any God to watch that and CAN help but does NOT help? Brutal. Brutal.....MONSTROUS.

March 20, 2018

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 5:12 AM, mwc said:

     This all makes great sense...but does it really make great sense?

     Why don't we ask someone who happened to live back then?

Hmmm...It would seem that Josephus is telling us a story where the Hebrews, in Judea, happened to speak Hebrew and not something else. Perhaps there some wiggle room though? Let's see if we can get lucky...

    Oh, so close. It would appear that instead of learning Greek, or other languages, and other cultures the Jews actually preferred to learn their own culture and master their own religion but only a few people were able to actually master that.

     So it would seem that in spite of how common "common" Greek was it wasn't common to the Jews according to a Jewish historian and someone who had to act as a translator for the Romans and wrote two versions of his books so different audiences could actually read them.

     The odds of some random, already illiterate, Jewish fishermen, speaking much less writing Greek? Roundabout zero percent. Them's the facts.

          mwc

The fact about facts is sometimes you must read other facts to study and consider before you can make a factual conclusion.

I’m posting text from a link and I posted five other links on this topic of languages in the 1^st century.

First, a little more about those "unlearned and ignorant" 1^st century Jewish fishermen:

On the other hand, the Bible expected the common people to be able to read and write. For example, when Moses led Israel out of Egypt, they were told to write the laws upon their door posts (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; 11:18-20). Isaiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the land to such a degree that a child could write the number of the trees left standing (Isaiah 10:19). This Scripture would make no sense at all unless children were customarily educated by either their parents (implying family literacy) or through an organized school presumably conducted through the Levitical ministry.

Concerning the 1st century, one of the favorite sayings of Jesus in rebuttal to his accusers was: “Have you not read…” This not only implied literacy to his opponents, but also to himself and to his apostles whom he taught, for why would he use the phrase against his accusers, if they could turn around and cast his own words in his teeth to point out the illiteracy of his followers? Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) implied literacy in the normal course of business in the Jewish society. This is also borne out in some archeological finds dating to the 12th century BCE where Israelite inscriptions are found on pottery and artifacts showing literacy was not exclusive to the elite.[3] Moreover, just before the Jewish revolt, the high priest Joshua ben Gamala (cir. 64 C.E.) declared that teachers would be appointed in every town of every province throughout Palestine. Their purpose was to provide an education for every male of the age of six or seven and upward. One teacher would serve a community of up to 25 students. A teacher’s assistant would be added for communities having up to 50 students and for communities having more than 50 students two teachers would be provided.[4]

More>>> https://coffeehouseapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/were-most-ancient-jews-illiterate/

And more on Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic in the 1^st century:

http://orvillejenkins.com/reviews/stambaughntinsocialenvironment.html

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/josephusabominablegreek.html

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/hebrewfirstcentury.html

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/josephusandaramaic.html

https://www.levitt.com/essays/language

March 20, 2018

13 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

First, a little more about those "unlearned and ignorant" 1^st century Jewish fishermen:

On the other hand, the Bible expected the common people to be able to read and write.

Irrelevant. The Bible is a set of claims, not a set of facts. When you see something in the Bible that needs to be verified before it should be believed.

15 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

This Scripture would make no sense at all unless . . .

Most of the Bible makes no sense at all. You can't point to what is in the Bible and then accept that as evidence of life after death or dragons or magic or any other nonsense. It's a fantastic fairy tail so who cares if the part about literacy is made up as well? Some guy making up religious texts in order to support his false religion does not fact make.

17 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

. . . why would he use the phrase against his accusers, if they could turn around and cast his own words in his teeth to point out the illiteracy of his followers?

The Bible is meant only to reinforce belief in those who already believe. Outside criticism is ignored because outsiders don't have the Holy Spirit/truth/are filled with Satan/insert some other random apologist nonsense.

So they didn't have to worry about some other group pointing out the flaws in Christianity. You don't turn people away from a religion through logical debate.

March 20, 2018

8 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

The fact about facts is sometimes you must read other facts to study and consider before you can make a factual conclusion.

I’m posting text from a link and I posted five other links on this topic of languages in the 1^st century.

First, a little more about those "unlearned and ignorant" 1^st century Jewish fishermen:

On the other hand, the Bible expected the common people to be able to read and write. For example, when Moses led Israel out of Egypt, they were told to write the laws upon their door posts (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; 11:18-20). Isaiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the land to such a degree that a child could write the number of the trees left standing (Isaiah 10:19). This Scripture would make no sense at all unless children were customarily educated by either their parents (implying family literacy) or through an organized school presumably conducted through the Levitical ministry.

Concerning the 1st century, one of the favorite sayings of Jesus in rebuttal to his accusers was: “Have you not read…” This not only implied literacy to his opponents, but also to himself and to his apostles whom he taught, for why would he use the phrase against his accusers, if they could turn around and cast his own words in his teeth to point out the illiteracy of his followers? Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) implied literacy in the normal course of business in the Jewish society. This is also borne out in some archeological finds dating to the 12th century BCE where Israelite inscriptions are found on pottery and artifacts showing literacy was not exclusive to the elite.[3] Moreover, just before the Jewish revolt, the high priest Joshua ben Gamala (cir. 64 C.E.) declared that teachers would be appointed in every town of every province throughout Palestine. Their purpose was to provide an education for every male of the age of six or seven and upward. One teacher would serve a community of up to 25 students. A teacher’s assistant would be added for communities having up to 50 students and for communities having more than 50 students two teachers would be provided.[4]

More>>> https://coffeehouseapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/were-most-ancient-jews-illiterate/

Nice apologetic. He uses outdated references (ie. a BAR article from 1978?) so he lives up to his mission. I wasn't the one who said the "unlearned and ignorant" comment. It was @LogicalFallacy quoting the Acts so you'll have to take it up with the guy who wrote that.

We could say that all the people of Israel were utterly and totally literate in their own language (it would not be true considering the actual number would probably be under 10%) and that wouldn't change what I said about what Josephus said about the Greek. The idea of establishing schools would reinforce what he claims about teaching folks about their own ways (we shouldn't expect schools created by a Rabbi to teach Greek as opposed to the national language after all). If anything we're starting to split hairs between total illiteracy and some form of functional illiteracy which is more nuanced.

8 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

And more on Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic in the 1^st century:

http://orvillejenkins.com/reviews/stambaughntinsocialenvironment.html

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/josephusabominablegreek.html

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/hebrewfirstcentury.html

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/josephusandaramaic.html

https://www.levitt.com/essays/language

This site has more information. Lots of links are dead though so a little disappointing.

The article tends to agree that Josephus says exactly what I said he did. It then goes on to say that it was unenforceable. Add to that Josephus used Greek and so Greek must have been used. But what about when Josephus actually talks about how he had to *speak* in the language of his country so people could understand? And that the people, the guards on the wall, spoke in the language of their country? Not Greek. Another language. I don't care what language but it's not Greek because he says Greek when he talks about it. So the language of his country is not Greek. And people talked in that language as their primary language. I suppose it's best not to use examples from Josephus but to talk about other Jews to make our case.

So we can also focus on other Jews. "Paul," Philo, Zeno. What about them? Well, they weren't from Judea. And I did kind of put that as a qualifier didn't I? Somewhere in my post I say "in Judea" because we don't want to confuse our Jews. Those from in-country with those in diaspora who likely do speak other languages (or are bi/multi-lingual). Makes sense that if you're born in Greek Alexandria that you'll speak Greek after all. And Philo did just that. So what did he do when he went up to Jerusalem? I have no idea. Maybe he was bilingual. Maybe someone in Jerusalem was bilingual. He was upper-class and had the time and opportunity to learn.

mwc

In your honest opinion

Recommended Posts

RachelSkates

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

florduh

MOHO

TheRedneckProfessor

Posted Images

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

quinntar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

florduh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

quinntar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pratt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

austere

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ironhorse

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LogicalFallacy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ironhorse

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LogicalFallacy

Acts 4:13 King James Version (KJV)

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

But apparently these "unlearned and ignorant" men could write in a fashion that would put modern writers to shame.

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RachelSkates

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ironhorse