Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 158
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Go and see Mel Gibson's Passion...
    Viewers of the particular movie have found the dual depiction of satan (as mother and child) following Jesus on the way to the Cross as most disturbing. I found the scene grotesque and unbecoming since no reference of such incident exists in the Holy Scriptures!
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    I don't work for AiG. However, I do believe that, but evidently you fail to understand what it means. It includes just what I said. Since the Bible reports ‘And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"’, it is factually true that they said that. But since those people were not Jesus, apostles, or prophets, the Bible is not affirming that what they said was right, just that they said it.
    That's a fair point. But presumably you believe that Matthew - and only Matthew - was divinely inspired to include it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Because they said it, and the Bible was reporting accurate history.
    But the Bible doesn't record everything that happens. For example, the statement itself only appears in Matthew, but not in the other Gospels. As that statement has been used to justify anti-Semitism, and God would presumably have foreseen this, it is hard to believe that God inspired its inclusion. Just leaving out the final phrase ("and on our children") could have helped to avoid a lot of suffering.
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 23-03-2015 at 06:57 PM.

  3. #33
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,021
    Of course Pilate was real:

    ... "Oh ye, and verily, let there be known my exercise regime, and trainers go forth unto the heathens so that others may benefit from my healthful ways...."
    I think that was from part of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls that was surpressed by the Catholics - how else can one explain the popularity of Pilates today!
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    That's a fair point. But presumably you believe that Matthew—and only Matthew—was divinely inspired to include it?
    Yes. Note that inspiration means that God used the human authors, without overriding their styles and aims, to write down accurately what He wanted. E.g. Matthew wrote his Gospel first to Jews, to show that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Bible, hence the frequent Old Testament fulfilment, typology, and application.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    But the Bible doesn't record everything that happens.
    Who ever claimed that it does? I've written myself that the Bible is totally true but not exhaustively true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    For example, the statement itself only appears in Matthew, but not in the other Gospels. As that statement has been used to justify anti-Semitism,
    Yet Matthew was the most Jewish of the Gospels; all were written by Jews, including Luke, but Matthew was written to Jews. I've pointed out before:

    The NT was written by Jews, and its prosemitism is evident. Jesus’ first priority was to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt. 10:6, 15:24), and says, ‘… for salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22, a book Spong singles out for his charge of antisemitism!). Paul always evangelised Jews first in every city he visited (Acts 13:4–5, 14, 14:1, 16:11–13, 17:1–2, 10, 16-17, 18:1–4, 19, 19:1,8). Paul wrote to the church at Rome:

    • For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16).
    • I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1).

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    and God would presumably have foreseen this, it is hard to believe that God inspired its inclusion.
    Why? Abuse of a text is the fault of the abusers, not the text. First, as I've explained, the statement is not inspired per se, just recorded accurately, so it is not binding, unlike "Forgive them Father, for they don't know what they're doing." Also, at most it would be just the speakers and their children, and something bad did happen 40 years later: Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Nothing was said about an ongoing curse on Jews, who after all wrote all the New Testament after this statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Just leaving out the final phrase ("and on our children") could have helped to avoid a lot of suffering.
    Antisemites don't need much pretext. Both Nazis and Muslims have invoked other excuses for their Jew-hatred, as does Antichrist today. In fact, there are plenty of statements in the Old Testament that could be twisted far easier for antisemitic purposes, since it calls Israelites: ‘stiffnecked people … rebellious from the day I knew you’, another thunders: ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity …’, yet another despairs: ‘Refuse silver shall men call them, because the LORD has rejected them,’ (Deut. 9:6, 24; Is. 1:4; Jer. 6:30)
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 24-03-2015 at 02:12 AM.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Elliott Renzies View Post
    Viewers of the particular movie have found the dual depiction of satan (as mother and child) following Jesus on the way to the Cross as most disturbing. I found the scene grotesque and unbecoming since no reference of such incident exists in the Holy Scriptures!
    I agree with you on that.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Why? Abuse of a text is the fault of the abusers, not the text. First, as I've explained, the statement is not inspired per se, just recorded accurately, so it is not binding, unlike "Forgive them Father, for they don't know what they're doing." Also, at most it would be just the speakers and their children, and something bad did happen 40 years later: Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Nothing was said about an ongoing curse on Jews, who after all wrote all the New Testament after this statement.
    But it's not strictly true that the use of a text to justify violence is not the fault of the author. If the violence is foreseeable, then the author must bear some responsibility. If the Author is God, He knew exactly what was going to happen.

    And, as you say, the statement is not binding - it could easily have been left out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Antisemites don't need much pretext. Both Nazis and Muslims have invoked other excuses for their Jew-hatred, as does Antichrist today. In fact, there are plenty of statements in the Old Testament that could be twisted far easier for antisemitic purposes, since it calls Israelites: ‘stiffnecked people … rebellious from the day I knew you’, another thunders: ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity …’, yet another despairs: ‘Refuse silver shall men call them, because the LORD has rejected them,’ (Deut. 9:6, 24; Is. 1:4; Jer. 6:30)
    But that passage has been one of the worst, and it isn't even necessary:
    Furthermore, it can be said without fear of exaggeration that the devastation imposed and inflicted on the Jewish people by the Church’s anti-Jewish reading of Matthew 27:25 has shed oceans of Jewish blood issuing into a ceaseless stream of misery and desolation that horribly culminated in Hitler’s Holocaust.

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    But it's not strictly true that the use of a text to justify violence is not the fault of the author. If the violence is foreseeable, then the author must bear some responsibility. If the Author is God, He knew exactly what was going to happen.
    That's bizarre. The fault is with the sinful twisting, not the historically accurate passage. Plenty of good statements have been twisted for evil, and the fault is not with the statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And, as you say, the statement is not binding - it could easily have been left out.
    Since it is not binding, there was nothing wrong with it, so stop bellyaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    But that passage has been one of the worst, and it isn't even necessary:
    Furthermore, it can be said without fear of exaggeration that the devastation imposed and inflicted on the Jewish people by the Church’s anti-Jewish reading of Matthew 27:25 has shed oceans of Jewish blood issuing into a ceaseless stream of misery and desolation that horribly culminated in Hitler’s Holocaust.
    Did you bother to read your own source?

    Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. … The true meaning of Matthew 27:25, like any other Bible verse, is found within the context in which it is written. When looking at the context of Matthew’s Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. … From the context of Matthew 26–27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.

    The meaning of “children” in the cry of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 does not mean all the subsequent descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ in Matthew 26 and 27. The word in the Greek text of Matthew can also mean a child of parents. In the context of verse 25 it refers to the offspring of the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem who shouted for Christ to be crucified. This at once limits the meaning to only one generation and corresponds with the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

    To read the cry of Matthew 27:25 as an eternal curse on the Jewish people is therefore to press the language beyond its Biblical context. Jewish guilt for the death of Christ in Matthew rested upon a small number of the nation who were there, and to read into these words a curse on all Jews forever is ludicrous (after all, Matthew and his fellow apostles were Jews). Like everyone else in the present age of grace, Jews will not be judged corporately, but judged individually on the sole basis of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Lord (John 3:36).

    If indeed Matthew 27:25 meant the Jews are in fact condemned as a race for killing Christ, should not the Italian descendants of the ancient Romans also be condemned for nailing Jesus to the cross? Those within the Church who have favored the anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 would do well to at least be consistent with their racist interpretation. The reason they are not is because they are exclusively biased against the Jewish people.

    The anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 is simply false because it plainly contradicts the general teaching of Scripture regarding the present and future reality of the Jews being God’s Chosen People (Romans 9–11).
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    That's bizarre. The fault is with the sinful twisting, not the historically accurate passage. Plenty of good statements have been twisted for evil, and the fault is not with the statement.
    So if a person in a crowded theatre sees a fire on the movie screen and shouts "Fire!", he has no responsibility if people are killed in the ensuing riot? He could argue that his statement was completely accurate, and all the deaths were only due to people misinterpreting what he said. However he should have foreseen what would happen, so I would consider him partly responsible.

    And if a statement is made by an omniscient being, he should definitely be able to foresee the results of his actions. So if that statement is the Word of God, then I would consider God partly responsible for any deaths caused by it, even by people who have misinterpreted it.

  9. #39
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Indeed denying Pilate as a historical person is difficult. But again offer the historicists to present the evidence that Jesus was a historical person so that it might be scrutinised.
    From post #11 above. Still no takers...
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #40
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    From post #11 above. Still no takers...
    I always thought that that stuff about King Herring was a little fishy!
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  11. #41
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,119
    Professor Francesca

    meep meep

  12. #42
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Professor Francesca

    One of my favorite scholars.

    She did a piece on Eden for the BBC that was the best I ever saw, but for some reason, the BBC pulled it.

    The church likely exerted pressure and a weak management did their bidding.

    Regards
    DL

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    So if a person in a crowded theatre sees a fire on the movie screen and shouts "Fire!", he has no responsibility if people are killed in the ensuing riot? He could argue that his statement was completely accurate, and all the deaths were only due to people misinterpreting what he said. However he should have foreseen what would happen, so I would consider him partly responsible.
    Now the above village atheist is getting desperate. An interpretation that a shout of "fire" means that there really is a fire is a reasonable interpretation. So yes, if there was no real fire, then the shouter really is responsible for the riot, whether negligence or malice. Also, the hearers have good reason to believe that no one would shout it without good reason, i.e. a credible source.

    But it is a totally unreasonable interpretation that "his blood be on us and our children" is a binding command, coming as it does from a demonstrably unreliable source: the mob who bayed for Jesus' crucifixion. It is also an unreasonable understanding that this has anything to do with all Jews throughout eternity, since this has nothing to do with the meaning of the words. After all, they were recorded by Jews, and the entire New Testament was written by Jews, and elsewhere explicitly condemns antisemitism, so obviously there is no intent to impute racial guilt on Jews, any more than there is on Italians although Jesus was sentenced by a Roman governor and killed on a Roman cross by Roman soldiers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And if a statement is made by an omniscient being, he should definitely be able to foresee the results of his actions. So if that statement is the Word of God, then I would consider God partly responsible for any deaths caused by it, even by people who have misinterpreted it.
    Not at all: God truthfully recorded a statement; any deaths are solely the fault of the sinfully unreasonable twisting of that statement and its utterers. But evidently the above thinks we should not record any historical action if it might be twisted later.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Is there no evidence that Jesus even existed? Part 1 Part 2 Part 3.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  15. #45
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Is there no evidence that Jesus even existed? Part 1 Part 2 Part 3.
    Of the three articles linked here the only one of any value is Part 3 and it deals with Tacitus and Josephus exclusively. The author of that blog post takes a very Jesus-friendly line claiming the only additions to to the critical Testimonium Flavianum were the obvious Christian insertions. However in is more likely that the Christian embellishments go deeper than the sections that blogger excises from the text. Given the brevity of the Testimonium and the lack of background information on the character of Jesus it is likely the Testimonium is entirely a fiction. The other evidence for it's late insertion is that church father Origen (2nd/3rd century) knew Josephus and quoted from it often but never quoted the Testimonium Flavianum even in texts where quoting from it would strengthen his argument. No writer talks about Josephus explicitly citing Jesus until Eusibius of Caesarea writing in the late 3rd early 4th century. So it seemed the corruption to Josephus was likely 4th century in origin with perhaps later embellishment.

    The James passage is more likely a simple and perhaps even accidental corruption. Likewise Tacitus is a simple corruption and perhaps was accidental with the insertion of the execution of Christus under Pilate and the hypercorrection of Chrestus to Christus.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. historical consistency sf. 2010 chess goals
    By Santa in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27-11-2011, 07:51 PM
  2. Who do you say that Jesus is?
    By EGOR in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 21-09-2007, 03:57 PM
  3. Historical Reference Question: Smyslov v Polugaevsky
    By Phil Bourke in forum Chess Training
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14-12-2005, 07:01 PM
  4. Sex Better Than Jesus
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-07-2005, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •