Raf

I find the Jesus-Myth theory entertaining, and it makes some rock solid points. But ultimately, I think it fails to answer more questions than the alternative (minimal historicity, which holds that there was a historical figure in there, but his biography grew in the telling).

TLC, no one has a problem drawing Wierwille apologists out. There is no need to resort to tricks. The only real challenge is getting them to shut up.

I was wondering if anyone could think of things we were taught in TWI that actually count as wisdom even now, regardless of theological agreement or disagreement. I can think of one off the top of my head: "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth." I think that is one of the most profound statements I have ever encountered. Any others?

I haven't looked at the videos here, but I've seen similar videos in the past. William Lane Craig is a frustrating debater, not because he's so good, but because his arguments contain so many fallacies and incorrect assumptions that it takes much longer than the time alloted to deconstruct his nonsense and refute it. The empty tomb, for example, is not evidence. It is a claim. The book of Acts is not evidence. It is a claim. The martyrdom of the saints is not evidence. It is a claim. But Craig does such an effective job of fallacy building that he appears to be making sense when he actually is not. We have a tendency to approach Acts as an accurate account of things that actually happened. But even when you do something as simple as compare Acts' testimony of Paul's life with Paul's own testimony of the same events in his life, you will see a conflict between story and history. Somebody's fibbing. Thousands of converts to Christianity in one day? Probably not. Not saying it's impossible, but that would be very much like all of us showing up at the Rock of Ages in 1977 and, after hearing one speech from one zealot, converting to Islam. Not bloody likely, no matter how many neat tricks the zealot performed.

So. Anyone? Anything?

By way of example: Long ago, I came to the conclusion that Wierwille was wrong to blame Job's fear for the calamity that befell him and his family. I won't go into too much detail. Wierwille cited the verse that has Job saying "The thing that I greatly feared has come upon me," and he uses that verse to assert that fear is believing in reverse, and just as we receive what we believe, we receive also what we fear. I'm summarizing. After studying the verse, along with the rest of the book of Job, I came to the conclusion that Wierwille was drawing conclusions from the text that were not to be found in the text itself. Job was a parent who had just lost his whole family. His was a cry of despair, not a presentation of doctrine. Wierwille went on to say that Job, as described in the first chapter of the book that bears his name, was fearful when he offered sacrifices just in case his children had sinned. The Bible presents Job's sacrifices as evidence of his righteousness, not evidence of his fear. After a while, I became convinced that Wierwille had simply misrepresented Job. Period. The more time passed, the less I was willing to entertain Wierwille's interpretation of the book. We argued about it on more than one thread (GSers, not anyone in particular). To death. To the point that now, I'm just not going to participate in another argument about it. After a while, you just let go of the false and you move on. I say all this not to pick on Wierwille, but to demonstrate that after you feel you've argued your position to death, it's time to move on. My position is that "tongues" in the Bible are normal human languages. I went through every verse in the Bible, checked the usage, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. I even tackled the "difficult" verses about tongues of angels and "no man understands." There is nothing Biblical to argue against tongues as normal human languages. I've argued it to death. It's time for me to move on. You guys can continue to review anything you want. If you think it will persuade me, by all means, try. If you don't, then by all means, carry on without me. Nothing about this conversation demands my participation. Steve, I agree with your last post, but I don't see where MY beating a dead horse advances your observation one whit. I do think this has been a productive chat. I don't think my continued participation will produce anything it has not already produced. Now, if you were to produce a language... ;)

I think it's hard to get around hell Biblically. The only thing you can do is argue whether it's literal or metaphorical. I think the case for a metaphorical hell is Biblically stronger than a literal one, but that's just my opinion.

I just thought it was amusing. Look, we disagree. I'm good with that. Show me Biblically why I'm wrong and I'll reconsider, if you even want me to. You don't owe me that.

Understood

Well, considering that I'm not claiming spirituality, it's hard to take that as an insult. I do find it amusing that if I were to agree with you, the accusation of intellectualism and egotism would probably vanish. It's a safe way to dismiss an opposing position. Call it vain and unspiritual. Meanwhile, I've taken the vain and unspiritual position of showing exactly what the Bible says and nothing more. What you can't do is call my position unbliblical. Well, you can do that. But you can't demonstrate it. My position remains quite Biblically sound. And "new perspectives" that cover the same old ground are not "new" at all, in my opinion. So please, have fun exploring more. I look forward to what you can come up with (which, I will repeat, you would not be doing if you produced a language as the Bible promises).

The following continues TLC's post #356 So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response): But then comes this concession: Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else. So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post: And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post: But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon: So I try this approach:: Which you immediately cast aside: And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this: So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post: (part 3, continues in next post...)

I don't know why the formatting didn't work on your post to me, TLC, but it doesn't appear to be something I can fix even with my modhat. So, on to substance: The "new perspective" you claim to be offering is old. We've been through it. And we'll go through it again, I suppose. But you'll be doing it without me. I fail to see the relevance of the serpent's conversation with Eve. Some of WW's criticism did not appear to be aimed at you. I think you missed that. Some of it was. You can call me "proud" all you want, but I note that you still have not offered a Biblical refutation of my position. You don't have to bow out. I already have. I'm responding because you addressed your post to me specifically. I promise, if you offer something that causes me to reconsider, I will do so. But saying "What about the serpent's conversation with Eve?" does not qualify, in my opinion. I think I figured out how to fix your formatting. Let's see if it works...

I suppose. Does it matter when Jesus taught the story of the Prodigal Son that the story he told probably never took place? He was illustrating forgiveness and the father's desire to have his son come home. So what if the story never actually happened. Now, if someone were to say The Prodigal Son was Jim Smith, and this proves Jim Smith had the favor of his dad over his brother, then we're talking about a different use of the story. Then it MATTERS whether it actually took place. But for the purpose of what Jesus taught, it doesn't matter. Make sense?

Maybe I'm soft, but I don't see a problem with inventing anecdotes to demonstrate a point. It's only a problem if you somehow assert the veracity of the anecdote to prove something demonstrably false.

Two ways to approach this topic. 1. When the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead, is it a literal claim or a metaphorical one? 2. Regardless of the Bible's claim, is the resurrection of Jesus a historical fact? That is, did it actually happen, literally? The first approach belongs in doctrinal. The second belongs in Questioning Faith. The selection of videos to illustrate the question seems to indicate, to me, that the second question is the intended question. Accordingly, this thread will be moved.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't re: policing "on topic" posts. Either I'm persnickety and legalistic or I'm letting the conversation drift because I'm a mod. Tell me how to win when I'm wrong no matter what I do. So I chose to err on the side of flexibility and allow the conversation to flow naturally. And I was explicit about it. And I still caught flack about it (from someone who clearly had not read what I said about it). This thread is about what the Bible teaches about SIT. It is not about challenging the practice. There's a thread in About the Way that challenges the practice. Waysider's question about Paul and the validity of Corinthian SIT probably belongs in questioning faith, since it does not necessarily accept the Bible's answer as authoritative. Now, I can blow up all these issues and make them separate threads, or just let the conversation flow freely here. I choose the latter, by apparent consensus. But I won't lose sleep if another mod jumps in. I'm not requesting it, and neither has anyone else.

MRAP, there appears to be a thinly disguised criticism from you aimed at me for going off topic. I agree with you. I appear to be the only one concerned about it, until you came along. So here's the deal. If you have a problem with a post, hit report and the mods will deal with it. That's the grown up way to handle it. The juvenile way to handle it is to come along and thank the people who stayed on topic, ignoring the fact that the off-topic digression was openly discussed, BY ME, and no one who actively participated in the thread objected.

My apologies, chockfull. My statement was in response to an accusation of myopia, not intended to pick fights with those who agree to disagree.

Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.

Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement. There. Said it AGAIN. Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?

You think this is a bar room brawl? Hahahahaha!

I'm just going to inject one thought. To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly. In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.

Clarification: my "coach" and does not remember saying the words I attributed to him the first time I spoke in tongues. We agree that either he or I can be mistaken. So I present it as memory that may be flawed, not as fact.

The correct thing to do when you have never heard of a term is look it up, not dismiss it. There is more evidence for "spiritual anuse" than there is for spirits.

I think my ability to keep my cool is just about at a non-functional level, so I will be bowing out for the time being. If it's temporary (I AM exhausted), I'll be back soon. Otherwise, see you when you've documented a language. Djbp!