tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post5517758544436965953..comments2024-03-16T02:12:38.325-07:00Comments on God cannot be contained!: Did Jesus Christ affirm that everything in the Old Testament was the word of God?Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-6908506309359488452014-09-12T17:52:37.843-07:002014-09-12T17:52:37.843-07:00Dear Minimalist,
Although you did not address my q...Dear Minimalist,<br />Although you did not address my questions and comments, I will respond to yours. A "true biography" incorporates many different sources into the story it tells about a person. Moreover, it is very often the work of more than one person [i.e. co-author(s), research assistant(s), librarians, editor(s), etc.] <br />Are you suggesting that we should hold these almost two thousand year old documents to our modern standards relative to plagiarism? Isn't it a little unfair to hold people to scholarly standards that didn't exist during their lifetimes? We define plagiarizing as stealing and passing off the words and/or ideas of another as your own without attributing it to the responsible party (Merriam-Webster). If we ignore tradition and consider all of these documents to be the work of anonymous writers, how can we say that anyone is taking credit for someone else's work? The "good news" was about Jesus Christ, his work and the future - it didn't have anything to do with the authors of these accounts or their writing styles and standards.<br />And once again, framing the question as "truth or literary fiction?" IS A FALSE DILEMMA! Can you name a SINGLE biography that has ever been written by anyone that has not contained disputed or discredited information? Moreover, we designate works as being Fiction or Non-fiction; but isn't there usually some truth in most works of Fiction and some falsehood in most works of Non-fiction?Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-58516045799306036932014-09-12T07:05:46.071-07:002014-09-12T07:05:46.071-07:00Gospel means "good news", but it's n...Gospel means "good news", but it's not good news for Christianity if plagiarism is detected in its "divinely inspired" messiah "biographies".<br /><br />Now let's consider the original Gospel (be it Mark or Matthew, doesn't matter): How bad would it be if plagiarism was detected in it? Is it a true biography or did this anonymous writer use other sources - Greek Septuagint, Homeric Epics, Josephus...? Truth or literary fiction? Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-24885518876507830642014-09-12T04:03:28.417-07:002014-09-12T04:03:28.417-07:00I think that it is possible that they did. Are you...I think that it is possible that they did. Are you aware of the fact that some scholars believe that the Gospel of Matthew was based on an earlier account by the actual disciple of that name in Aramaic? Do you think that any of these writings were based on oral traditions? What do you think about the arguments that each of the four accounts has very different objectives and target audiences? If you accept these arguments, do you believe that this accounts for any of the differences between them? And what are your thoughts on the original premise of this post? (Did Christ affirm the contents of the Old Testament?)Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-85409600544528625022014-09-11T23:06:44.390-07:002014-09-11T23:06:44.390-07:00"..most biblical scholars regard Mark as a so..."..most biblical scholars regard Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke.."<br /><br />Do you think Matthew and Luke used Mark?Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-30294706734573142352014-09-11T20:52:27.082-07:002014-09-11T20:52:27.082-07:00You correctly point out that most biblical scholar...You correctly point out that most biblical scholars regard Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke, but most of those same scholars also acknowledge that both authors employed other sources in their accounts (There is obviously information in Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark). With regard to John, it is generally acknowledged that his account is not dependent on any of the other three accounts (and it claims to be an eye witness account of the events it describes). Most of these scholars also believe that people other than the original authors embellished these accounts at a latter date (e.g. Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11). Hence, with that many hands in the mix, I don't think that it's outlandish to be impressed by the degree of harmony that they exhibit (In fact, I think that this is underscored by the differences and contradictions that exist within them).<br />I believe that my quest for truth is both scientific and philosophical in nature. I have not assumed anything about the inspiration of these documents (My studies have led me to an understanding of inspiration that is radically different from the "standard" Christian model). After having my former belief system shattered, I embarked on an intensive study of those beliefs and the book that I once believed to be the source of them. When I began my quest, I still believed HWA's old axiom that there were only two choices vis-à-vis Scripture: Acceptance or Rejection. I reached the conclusion that this line of reasoning represented a False Dilemma - that there was in fact a middle way. As I now reject the Bible as the sole or final authority in matters related to my religious beliefs, I think that your charge that I've made an Appeal to Authority doesn't ring true.<br />The scientific and scholarly pursuit of evidence and answers can (and often does) produce different theses and conclusions. I have not disparaged your pursuit of the truth as being unscientific or lacking in scholarly rigor - Why do you feel the need to characterize my journey as such? I don't have to see things the way that you see them to be scientific or scholarly. I don't think that it works that way.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-72043165144702292032014-09-11T19:31:35.939-07:002014-09-11T19:31:35.939-07:00".. the degree of harmony that is apparent am...".. the degree of harmony that is apparent among these four accounts is very impressive.."<br /><br />Yeah, it's amazing how "harmonious" documents can be when they plagiarized the original one. Scholars/literary analysts have known this for hundreds of years.<br /><br />Your quest for truth is not scientific because you assume miraculous inspiration for belated documentation of "historic lectures/ teachings" of Jesus by some anonymous hacks ~70 years after alleged events. You also make *Appeal to Authority* of said documents. Science/scholarship doesn't work that way. Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-90258897614023826282014-09-11T10:12:03.456-07:002014-09-11T10:12:03.456-07:00I do believe that God had a hand in the preservati...I do believe that God had a hand in the preservation of the writings of the Old and New Testament, but I do not believe that the men who wrote them had perfect recall or were incapable of making mistakes or contradicting each other. However, taking into account that they were composed thirty to fifty years after Christ's death, burial and resurrection, the degree of harmony that is apparent among these four accounts is very impressive to me. Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-35739590239830045942014-09-10T22:48:34.082-07:002014-09-10T22:48:34.082-07:00You believe in the accuracy of these Jesus Gospel...You believe in the accuracy of these Jesus Gospel statements therefore you believe in the divine preservation of these conversations from ~40 to 70 years earlier. That would indeed require a miracle!Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.com