Gospel Writers, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Your opinion of the NT is irrelevant. Again, most Christian theologians agree that the NT texts are solid, properly attested historically and doctrinally sound.

LOL. Theologians are not Bible scholars. THEIR opinions are irrelevant.

Majority of NT scholars do not believe the Nativity narratives found in the gospels are credible.

Jesus reading out of the Septuagint in a synagogue is anachronistic. They use the Masoretic text for liturgy.

Even Stephen E. Robinson, my NT professor at BYU, says Matthew made crap up to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophesy.

He also called John historical fiction.

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Navidad]

50 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Even Stephen E. Robinson, my NT professor at BYU, says Matthew made crap up to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophesy.

He also called John historical fiction.

Ok . . . you are quoting a deceased person. I don't like CFRs because I see them as power plays. I will simply ask you to refer me to a book, article, chapter, speech, or talk where Stephen E Robinson said or wrote what you are attributing to him, inclusive of the words "crap," "make it look like," and "historical fiction." Thanks.

[Hamilton Porter]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok . . . you are quoting a deceased person. I don't like CFRs because I see them as power plays. I will simply ask you to refer me to a book, article, chapter, speech, or talk where Stephen E Robinson said or wrote what you are attributing to him, inclusive of the words "crap," "make it look like," and "historical fiction." Thanks.

He said it in class. He didn't say it anywhere in the wonderful books he's written. I'll give you a closer paraphrase.

Robinson cited the triumphal entry where Jesus gets on both a colt and a donkey. The prophesy was actually just a parallelism (two ways of saying the same thing).

He would repeatedly say, "Matthew isn't concerned with the truth," and "In Matthew, every time someone sneezes or turns around, a prophecy is fulfilled."

He compared the Gospel of John to The Work and the Glory, which is a historical novel written by LDS General Authority Gerald Lund. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[mfbukowski]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:18 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Of course. I've never claimed that history doesn't matter to Catholicism. I was just responding to Mark and his apparent claim that history shouldn't matter in LDS thought.

Do you think Kuhn would speak of absolute truth, when he knows that paradigms change all the time?

Let me dig out a Wittgenstein quote- but the INTELLECTUAL reason I joined the was that I KNEW pragmatism justified religious experience and that history is irrelevant to religious belief.  To me it is totally common sense.  

Thinking that history proves beliefs is simply circular reasoning!  One still has to have faith that the HISTORY IS TRUE!  Who the heck knows absoutely what a certain set of people said to each other 2000 years ago or 200 years ago?   Multiple sources?   Yeah, right.  Now you have to believe every one of those multiple alleged witnesses who all had an interest in spreading their cause.   Then there is the politics of Rome and all that Zealot stuff.   It makes the "truth" quest about Trump look like child's play!

What if Trump happened 2000 years ago with half the world believing he was spiffy and half believing he was a monster?  2000 years of stories and traditions?  If he started a religion?

2000 years of hearsay do not make the historical evidence stronger.

Your eternal salvation rests on 2000 years of hearsay?  If one PART of it is false history, you burn in hell ?   (I am not attributing these views to you- I consider you an excellent buddy and we agree on almost everything!

I could not do that.

The Kingdom of Heaven is in the heart, not in history!!  It is the Holy Ghost that confirms it all, not some hearsay argument.   You might BELIEVE on faith that these historical events happened!  The history becomes PART of the religious belief!!   That makes perfect sense!   But believing you are saved by HISTORY not faith?   ABSURD!  One mixed up fact and your entired faith becomes false?

Suppose Christ's body really was stolen.  Does that mean that we will NOT be resurrected?  THAT has to be the most important historical belief to be so totally wobbly for Christianity on that single point.   What ACTUALLY went on in those few hours over that night WITHOUT WITNESSES then becomes the biggest unknowable threat to Christianity.

Thousands believed in Christ-maybe, maybe thousands were against the whole idea.   AND now we have virtually NO evidence of what "really" happened to that body!   What if there was a drug in the vinegar that simulated death?  What if the body was stolen and the guards bribed- sounds like an easy plan to me.   What if the Roman to cut his side was bribed and part of the plan?   Where is the autopsy and death certificate? 

To me it is absurd to change your life on such a slippery story TWO THOUSAND years ago, with TWO THOUSAND years to manipulate the alleged "evidence"

Can you imagine trying to pull that story off in a modern court today- proving it beyond a reasonable doubt???   SERIOUSLY!  Yes the body was attended only by a couple of guards who could have been bribed, but NO- despite the total lack of medical attention- the deceased rose from the dead and appeared before hundreds of people.   Yeah sure.  Any judge would go for that one right?  😱

Do we NOT know that in our hearts, that it is historically true?  That is part of the religion in itself!  It is not about "actual" history regardless of what that even means.

I would ask you about Pope Francis' opinion on those questions, but......  I won't.

   Luv ya man ! 

I'm going to look up that quote now from perhaps the most influential philosopher in the 20th century, making it easier for all people of faith to share the Rationality of belief and know that contemporary philosophy is in their favor.

But no, they have to keep struggling with old ideas so that they have erroneous reasons for leaving their churches.

Now THERE is some perverse logic.   It's right there in front of everyone that many of today's philosophers are on the side of religion even if they remain atheists as their personal "religions"

Some actually admit that their "faith" is that God does NOT exist, and they do not WANT to believe in God.  They hope there IS NO God, but it cannot be proven.

But no, believers still want to believe that relativism is bad for religion.

What a weird world we live in!

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

12 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Jesus reading out of the Septuagint in a synagogue is anachronistic. They use the Masoretic text for liturgy.

The Age of the Masoretes was hundreds of years after Christ (7th to 11th centuries AD) and the consolidation of the variant texts into the MT likely resulted from the imperative to preserve the text as a locus of Jewish society after Titus' destruction of Jerusalem - helped along by the fact that many copies of the Torah were destroyed in the Roman invasion, limiting the amount of variants which the scribes had to deal with. 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to Christ's time and conditions than the MT, and they have many variations from it. Inasmuch as they agree with the Masoretic text, scholars refer to it as "proto-Masoretic" or a predecessor text. The emphasis on the necessary perfection of Torah scrolls would arise later during the period of the Masoretes - it's unlikely that a regulated text was used across rural synagogues.

Ironically, the anachronism is claiming that Christ would have read from the Masoretic text, lol.

Though I agree, he probably didn't read from the Septuagint, the Gospel writers probably used the Septuagint text for ease of translation. 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Hamilton Porter]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to Christ's time and conditions than the MT, and they have many variations from it. Inasmuch as they agree with the Masoretic text, scholars refer to it as "proto-Masoretic" or a predecessor text. The emphasis on the necessary perfection of Torah scrolls would arise later during the period of the Masoretes - it's unlikely that a regulated text was used across rural synagogues.

Yeah I should've said you wouldn't go inside a synagogue and read from a Greek Tanak. He'd read from a Hebrew one.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Smiley McGee]

14 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

He compared the Gospel of John to The Work and the Glory, which is a historical novel written by LDS General Authority Gerald Lund. 

Oh gosh 🤮🤮🤮. I hope to God he didn’t make that comparison, hahaha.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Islander]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh yes, the entire world lived in perpetual fear of offending Islam since it was founded. Christianity definitely never pushed back against Islam due to political considerations. This is so stupid.

The idea that the Koran didn’t come perfectly from God is a new notion? Do you know any history at all? You are also listening to anti-Islamic polemics. Look for facts, people who can be trusted. People who tell you everything you want to hear are usually lying.

Okay, Ben Shapiro. Most of your facts are garbage. There are lots of reasons to doubt the authenticity of Islam and the Quran coming forth as taught. You just didn’t present those arguments. You like this myth that Islam has stood completely defended since the birth of the religion and now a couple of cranks have swept the rug out from under them. You don’t think Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and the like all tried to debate with Islam and prove their religion to be true and Islam false?

This is just dumb. Your feelings about Islam seem to be based on the myth that hordes of people today are scared to challenge Islam and that your political and religious enemies all love Islam and think it is a great religion. Facts don’t care about your delusions.

What is it with you and your feelings? I said, feeling don't care about facts. All you have done is argue without facts. Since you don't have any I guess this is where we part ways. 

Take care

[Islander]

20 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

LOL. Theologians are not Bible scholars. THEIR opinions are irrelevant.

Majority of NT scholars do not believe the Nativity narratives found in the gospels are credible.

Jesus reading out of the Septuagint in a synagogue is anachronistic. They use the Masoretic text for liturgy.

Even Stephen E. Robinson, my NT professor at BYU, says Matthew made crap up to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophesy.

He also called John historical fiction.

 

You changed the subject, so I guess you ran out of arguments. That's OK. It seems like the MO of the forum.

Take care.

[Hamilton Porter]

28 minutes ago, Islander said:

You changed the subject, so I guess you ran out of arguments. That's OK. It seems like the MO of the forum.

Take care.

Huh?

[Hamilton Porter]

Quote

In Islam, as in no other religion, the performance of various aspects of religious ritual has been assisted by scientific procedure.

Quote in David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Basic Books, 2009)

Edited April 27, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Teancum]

On 4/25/2023 at 1:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

No, actually there is not much variation in the purpose of religion.

But there is a myriad of variation from religions teaching us the things yu say we do not know.  Things that conflict.

On 4/25/2023 at 1:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

They are all about WHY there is anything. 

And religion gives thousands of different answers to that question.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:18 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Of course. I've never claimed that history doesn't matter to Catholicism. I was just responding to Mark and his apparent claim that history shouldn't matter in LDS thought.

It ain't me! And it ain't just LDS thought-  It is an entire generation of philosophers.

Quote

 

 Queer as it sounds:  the historical account of the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this; not however,  because it concerns ‘universal truth of reason’!  Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof -game) is irrelevant to belief. This message (the Gospels) is seized on by men belevingly (i.e. lovingly). That is the certainty characterizing the particular acceptance- as- true, not something else.

     A believer's relation to these narratives is neither the relation to historical truth (probability), nor yet that to a theory consisting of  ‘truths of reason’. There is such a thing- (We  have quite different attitudes even to different species of what we call fiction!)

 

 

Wittgenstein, “Culture and Value” Translated by Peter Wnch, University of Chicago Press, 1980

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo5961023.html

Edited April 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On 4/25/2023 at 2:41 PM, mfbukowski said:

I think the problem is that I feel that you confuse HOW and WHY questions.

HOW things work seems to be very important to you.

How questions in religion (sacrament, ordinances, liturgies, nature of God, etc etc) vary dramatically, but WHY questions in religion almost do not vary at all.

Spencer Kimball:

Well I would say both how and why.  I would propose as well that they why questions of religion significantly.  Even in the realm of Christianity.  For example Mormonism's why are we here is very different than most of the rest of Christianity's why are we here is.  Hinduism likely differs significantly as well.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Islander said:

What is it with you and your feelings? I said, feeling don't care about facts. All you have done is argue without facts. Since you don't have any I guess this is where we part ways. 

Take care

You’re ignoring over a thousand years of recorded history. You are in lala land.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

But there is a myriad of variation from religions teaching us the things yu say we do not know.  Things that conflict.

And religion gives thousands of different answers to that question.

You still don't get it.  You think that "Why was the earth created?" SHOULD have a "correct answer".

I said that all religions are about "WHY there is anything."

That has nothing to do with there being one correct answer to "why there is anything".   

ALL are still about the best course for humanity to reach a better state of life after death.  There could be 14 million different answers to the same question, but all are seeking a different and better state of existence.

Again,to me you seem stuck in "HOW"- like you are seeking the mechanics of different kinds of cars,- which car runs best- not the bigger issue questioning wheter or not we  we need cars at all.  It is a different category and a different context.

It's not about what is the best flight to get somewhere- it is why we are going on the trip at all,

[Hamilton Porter]

I'm not a postmodernist (although I do love Kierkegaard, who is) but I know the Book of Mormon is a religious history written with a rhetorical purpose, it's not supposed to get all the details right.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You still don't get it.

Perhaps.  Maybe you don't get it.  Why should I simply defer to your approach to these things?

 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

  You think that "Why was the earth created?" SHOULD have a "correct answer".

Well your approach is religion answers the why for these things.  If your best answer through Mormonism conflicts with someone else's anwer then does it matter?  If not just say so. I don't know that there is a correct answer, or perhaps the answer is there is no why and religion it attempting to fill the void for something that has no answer.  Pragmatism right?  If it seems true enough to be pragmatic and give purpose to life then who cares if it really is correct or true. 

 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I said that all religions are about "WHY there is anything."

I understand that.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That has nothing to do with there being one correct answer to "why there is anything".   

Great.  Then it does not matter what anyone believes right?  It they think GOd, the holy ghost or some other metaphysical experience confirms their why then who care.  Hobbits are real. Leprechauns as well.  I like Odin and Thor.  If I pray to them will they save me?

 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

ALL are still about the best course for humanity to reach a better state of life after death. 

Trying to answer the unanswerable right?

 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

There could be 14 million different answers to the same question, but all are seeking a different and better state of existence.

So why should anyone defer to Mormonism?

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Again,to me you seem stuck in "HOW"- like you are seeking the mechanics of different kinds of cars,- which car runs best- not the bigger issue questioning wheter or not we  we need cars at all.  It is a different category and a different context.

It's not about what is the best flight to get somewhere- it is why we are going on the trip at all,

No not really.  Not stuck on the how at all. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps.  Maybe you don't get it.  Why should I simply defer to your approach to these things?

 

Well your approach is religion answers the why for these things.  If your best answer through Mormonism conflicts with someone else's anwer then does it matter?  If not just say so. I don't know that there is a correct answer, or perhaps the answer is there is no why and religion it attempting to fill the void for something that has no answer.  Pragmatism right?  If it seems true enough to be pragmatic and give purpose to life then who cares if it really is correct or true. 

 

 I like Odin and Thor.  If I pray to them will they save me?

 

What's in a name? If you earnestly follow that path, we will meet on the other side. My truth says we can change after death.  Hobbits? Same thing I guess if you are serious.

Please read Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32 and James 1:5 until it sinks in.

ASK GOD AND HE WILL TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO DO.

Like you, I had a period in my journey where I was agnostic/atheist.

I NEEDED THAT ON MY JOURNEY TO START ME THINKING. GOD KNEW THAT!!. What is correct and true for you lies in your heart! It is what sends you CLOSER to God.

The fine tuning happens on the other side 

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND

Study more physics.

No one can even define truth in physics. The observer affects the data.

Always.  Physics and religion both are seen in a MIRROR of the observer, darkly. You see what is inside you, not what you would call  "correctness"

If you want agnosticism, make it about "correctness".

Correctness is dead. Long live the best guess.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What's in a name?

I am not sure what you mean by this question.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

If you earnestly follow that path, we will meet on the other side.

So if I follow the path that I believe I am being led on, even if it is different than will my position before God be the same as yours?  Even if I reject the LDS path?

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

My truth says we can change after death. 

Well I understand the LDS doctrine on after death opportunities.  But I do not think those, based om the doctrine, would apply to me as one who was taught it, accepted it and now rejects it.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Hobbits? Same thing I guess if you are serious.

I am sure you understand that this example is tongue in cheek from me and only given to attempt to show that we really cannot just believe whatever we want.  Your paradigm certainly would still reject many such fictional things right?

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Please read Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32 and James 1:5 until it sinks in.

My friend I have likely read all of these passages and pondered them as much as you have.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

ASK GOD AND HE WILL TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO DO.

Well I always did ask God when I was a faithful church member.  And I felt I had answers.  But much has chance.  And now,  even though I am now more agnostic I really still do ask.  Not every day.  But often. 

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Like you, I had a period in my journey where I was agnostic/atheist.

I understand and I know you have shared that. I appreciate your candor.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I NEEDED THAT ON MY JOURNEY TO START ME THINKING. GOD KNEW THAT!!. What is correct and true for you lies in your heart! It is what sends you CLOSER to God.

The fine tuning happens on the other side 

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND

I don't comprehend that the fine tuning happens on the other side?  Or something else?

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Study more physics.

No one can even define truth in physics. The observer affects the data.

Always.  Physics and religion both are seen in a MIRROR of the observer, darkly. You see what is inside you, not what you would call  "correctness"

My best friend outside my marriage is an engineer/scientist.  He is a faithful church member. In fact I was the missionary who taught him and baptized him when he was 25 years old. We have been friends for 42 years. He would agree with your comments above.  We talk about physics, science, gravity, space/time, etc quite a lot.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

If you want agnosticism, make it about "correctness".

Correctness is dead. Long live the best guess.

Hmmmm.....

[Hamilton Porter]

Stephen Smoot has validated what I've been trying to say for this thread.

We have the entire story about the transmission of the Book of Mormon, with detail Bible scholars can only dream of. We can tell how fast it was dictated. We can tell what kind of mistakes were made to the manuscript.