Continuation of Christianity debate.

[heavycola]

We then come to your notion of the "survival of the fittest ideas." I would hardly call the evolution of Judasm the "survival of the fittest ideas," as most of the ideas were effectively scupted by outside events.

you mean like natural selection?

This is the reson for the "viagra of the ego" comment. The notion that all tribal religions must be equivalent is roughly the same non argument that all forms of governmetn must be equivalent or that all theories in science must be equivalent.

Obviously, since yahweh doesn't exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent. In terms of their usefulness as instruments of social cohesion and cultural evolution - well, probably not. The tribal religion based on war probably outlives the one based on knitting. But the basic fact here is: i'm an atheist, so I don't believe in gods. You are a xian, so you believe in one more god than me - it just happens to be a tribal desert god from a few thousand years ago. Those Israelites wouldn't have agreed with your monotheism, but as they can't be here to argue we'll need to leave it at that.

[Neoteny]

OK I think we may be arguing word play here. My original point was you dont' go about to attempt to prove a negative, but you go about to attempt to prove a positive. You go about it by attempting to look for the one negative which would disprove it and hopefully you don't.

So if Einstien's general theory of relativity says that an observation should produce a certain result you then check to see if it does. You might say that this is trying to prove a negative, but one could also say it's attempting to disprove a positive.

So let me get back to my original argument. Science attempts to propose theories about something in a positive manner and then attempts to disprove those positive theories. Such theories can never be completely proven, in part because they are almost never completely correct in the first place.

Right. Now I can't remember what your point was...

[tzor]

you mean like natural selection?

No, natural seclection covers what happens long term over environmental changes, like depleting O2 levels and the extinction of the dinosaurs. I'm more thinking of major event management, like the collision of the asteroid and the extinction of the dinosaurs.

There are a lot of events like that, like the destructions of the temple, and periods of exile that cause radical change in basic core elements of the faith. Whole factions are eliminated, new ones spring up.

[tzor]

Right. Now I can't remember what your point was...

I can't remember either. I can speculate. I think I was complaining about the notion that a thing is proven wrong because one cannot prove it true. This is often combined with the notion that all things that are not currently proven wong must be equivalent.

If I cannot prove the resurrection, for example, then you proved it didn't happen.

If I cannot prove the resurrection, same example, then the story of the sacred meat ball and the flying spaghetti monster are in all ways equal and one can discuss either one in any given conversation.

[tzor]

Obviously, since yahweh doesn't exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent.

Speaking of my last post. Here we see the argument in principle.

It seems odd in the name of psudo-science how people can make blatent statements that things are false and not be called to the carpet to prove it.

Obviously, since Shakespeare doesn't exist any more than Robin Hood or King Arthur ...

[rocky mountain]

Born a christian, I came to doubt it because of inconsistencies between the books in the new testament (why could not the holy ghost, allegedly written, the testament do a better job with Mathew?) and complete nonsense in the old testament (such as Noah's ark and the flood)...

what inconsistencies? do a better job with matthew about what? why do you think Noah's Ark and the flood are complete nonsense? it seems perfectly probable to me. here is a link that has "points to ponder about the flood" click

Being a Christian essentially means accepting Nicene Greed. The only part of the creed speaking about the bible is
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets"
Hence, as soon as you believe that the new testament was told by the holy ghost through the evangelists, you can still remain a Christian. Please, note that old testament is essentially not mentioned, let alone any insistence on its being a literal truth. It is even possible to interpret this sentence that evangelists might have misunderstood the Holy Spirit and get a few details wrong, but this will definitely be some kind of heresy

what on earth is the Nicene Greed? (i'm assuming you meant Creed instead of Greed though, but i still haven't heard of it).
you do not need to accept that. i'm a Christian and i haven't a clue what that is.
so you think that the holy ghost/spirit helped wirte the new testament (or was told that)? i believe that may be partly true, but what does that really have to do with anything? i don't really get the sentance you took from the creed. its kindof confusing...
what is the creed anyway?

[tzor]

what on earth is the Nicene Greed? (i'm assuming you meant Creed instead of Greed though, but i still haven't heard of it).
you do not need to accept that. i'm a Christian and i haven't a clue what that is.
so you think that the holy ghost/spirit helped wirte the new testament (or was told that)? i believe that may be partly true, but what does that really have to do with anything? i don't really get the sentance you took from the creed. its kindof confusing...
what is the creed anyway?

Wiki is you friend. The Catholic Encyclopedia is your old uncle.
Nicene Creed - Wiki
Nicene Creed - Catholic Encyclopedia

I'd post it but then which edition should I use? I don't even want to get into the problems that caused the Orthodox / Catholic schism. So just look it up.

[rocky mountain]

just so you know i am not catholic or orthodox, and don't fully agree with their beliefs. i do believe they are still christians though.
i agree with most of the creed, but not all of it...

[heavycola]

you mean like natural selection?

No, natural seclection covers what happens long term over environmental changes, like depleting O2 levels and the extinction of the dinosaurs. I'm more thinking of major event management, like the collision of the asteroid and the extinction of the dinosaurs.

There are a lot of events like that, like the destructions of the temple, and periods of exile that cause radical change in basic core elements of the faith. Whole factions are eliminated, new ones spring up.

cultural evolution being driven by natural selection, in a sense. External forces shaping the religion...

Obviously, since yahweh doesn't exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent.

Speaking of my last post. Here we see the argument in principle.

It seems odd in the name of psudo-science how people can make blatent statements that things are false and not be called to the carpet to prove it.

Do you preface every prayer with 'assuming you exist...'?

[Snorri1234]

Right. Now I can't remember what your point was...

I can't remember either. I can speculate. I think I was complaining about the notion that a thing is proven wrong because one cannot prove it true. This is often combined with the notion that all things that are not currently proven wong must be equivalent.

If I cannot prove the resurrection, for example, then you proved it didn't happen.

If I cannot prove the resurrection, same example, then the story of the sacred meat ball and the flying spaghetti monster are in all ways equal and one can discuss either one in any given conversation.

This doesn't make much sense.

Surely, the first option is true. (well, as true as it can be without discussing philosophy of science and totally derail the thread.)

The second option however, is not a direct link. If you cannot prove anything about supernatural elements of the bible, then it is fundamentally equal to any other supernatural stuff.

[kletka]

what inconsistencies? do a better job with matthew about what? why do you think Noah's Ark and the flood are complete nonsense? it seems perfectly probable to me. here is a link that has "points to ponder about the flood" click

Maybe, not Mathew. I may have forgotten which is the odd one out of 4 gospels. It seems John's:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm
They cannot be all true, can they?

OK, I understand that the flood is a big issue in creationist geology. There is much more outrageous nonsense. For instance, how does creationist astronomy deal with this bit:

Joshua 10:12-14: It was on the day when the Lord gave up the Amorites into the hands of the children of Israel that Joshua said to the Lord, before the eyes of Israel, Sun, be at rest over Gibeon; and you, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun was at rest and the moon kept its place till the nation had given punishment to their attackers. So the sun kept its place in the middle of the heavens, and was waiting, and did not go down, for the space of a day. And there was no day like that, before it or after it, when the Lord gave ear to the voice of a man; for the Lord was fighting for Israel.

i agree with most of the creed, but not all of it...

Which bit do you disagree with?

The creed was adopted in 325ad to fight against several widespread heresies of the time. Do you understand that not accepting the creed (in one of the versions) very likely makes you a heretic, with all consequences

[kletka]

I don't even want to get into the problems that caused the Orthodox / Catholic schism. So just look it up.

Are you that naive to believe serously that the great schism was caused by the origin of the holy ghost issue ? History is full of bollocks, but this is, by far, one of the biggest Orthodox and Catholics lived with 2 versions for odd 600 years (the difference appeared in 400+ if I remember correctly) but then suddenly fell out over this

It was all dirty politics and money with the pope Leo-(I fogot which number) putting his long nose into Eastern business

[rocky mountain]

They cannot be all true, can they?

why couldn't they all be? they're all pretty much the same thing, its just one person remembered it slightly different than the other.

Joshua 10:12-14: It was on the day when the Lord gave up the Amorites into the hands of the children of Israel that Joshua said to the Lord, before the eyes of Israel, Sun, be at rest over Gibeon; and you, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun was at rest and the moon kept its place till the nation had given punishment to their attackers. So the sun kept its place in the middle of the heavens, and was waiting, and did not go down, for the space of a day. And there was no day like that, before it or after it, when the Lord gave ear to the voice of a man; for the Lord was fighting for Israel.

why is this nonsense? God made the sun, so why wouldn't he be able to control it?

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

the parts in bold i do not totally agree with. italicized are things i'm not sure of....
reasons why i disagree with the things i disagree with:
We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins.- its not baptism that cleanses us from sin.
And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.- i look forward to it, but i don't look for it. they are different. I think Jesus said something about that... not sure though...

[kletka]

They cannot be all true, can they?

why couldn't they all be? they're all pretty much the same thing, its just one person remembered it slightly different than the other.

So, you accept that John does not remember the day of the last supper, dont you? How would you reconcile this with "absolute truth" and the fact that the gospels are written by the holy ghost via evangilists. The holy ghost must have remembered the day, mustn't he?

why is this nonsense? God made the sun, so why wouldn't he be able to control it?

I hate when this starts... Let us use Occama's Razor on this one, shall we? The all mighty God created the world and the laws of Physics. What is the most probable:
(1) God breaks these laws for one day because jews are fighting whoever they are fighting;
(2) The person writing the book got it wrong...

Besides, the passage seems to imply that the sun goes around the earth stopping in the heavens. I am sure the holy ghost would have known some basic astronomy as well as precise location of the heavens

We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins.- its not baptism that cleanses us from sin. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.- i look forward to it, but i don't look for it. they are different. I think Jesus said something about that... not sure though...

You are still all right. Just contemplate what it says in plain language. The meaning should something like

I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I expect the resurrection of the dead.

I dont see what your problem with this might be. Actually baptism cleanses from sins but you can sin again after, shall you not ?

[Neutrino]

What doesn't have an explanation? Things don't spontaneously appear into existence...

Ahh, no. I believe you may have missed your classes on a certain advance in theoretical physics earlier last century, initialled QM. I think that's enough hints for you.

It's not called the "quantum foam" for nothing.


Napoleon (and Jenos), you dismissed a scientific explanation far too quickly. Unless either of you has hitherto unknown omniscence and can prove otherwise, it is a perfectly possible that some kind of "multiverse" type thing is going on. Maybe this universe was generated by some quantum mechanical (oops, I think I just gave the game away...) lookalike of the multiverse. Maybe there's an infinite number of universes that simply recreate themselves whenever they get bored. Since humanity has precisely zero experience with this kind of thing, any assumption is as valid as another.
Anyway, it doesn't matter which of the potentially infinite number of possibilities is correct, only that your "One universe only" theory is on the recieving end of a big infinity to one probability.

Point 6 is total bunk, since you have no way of proving that there is only one universe, with no outside to define it. With point 6 goes the entire argument.

[tzor]

Frankly I love all these straw men arguments especially about the Gospels. There are four gospels, three of them generally work off each other (and are based on common sources) and the fourth one stands alone. The fourth one, the Gospel of John was probably the last Gospel to be written by the way. The first reference to the Last Supper, from a chronological perspective are the letters of Paul, who obviously wasn't an eyewitness.

Each Gospel is written to a different target audience and thus they are all designed to make different arguments. None of the Gospels are really detailed and accurate historical accounts, and none of the Gospels would qualify as true journalism in any sense of the matter. So if there are any details, such as was a particular sermon done on the top or the bottom of a hill that might not always be perfectly aligned one needs to take it with the understanding of the purpose of the document.

There is a strange notion that the writers of sacred scripture were receiving heavenly dictation. A better way to look at it is that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and in one sense guided by it, but still were the authors of the documents in every sense of the word. Does any one remember the old Flip Wilson skit where he portrays a dialogue between God and Noah? Clueless old Noah didn't even know what a cubit was.

This is exceptionally true when talking about things like the battle Joshua had and the matter of the sun. I mean it's not like they checked their mechanical clocks to determine exactly how long the battle took and if indeed the sun did stop they wouldn't have any means of timing the event anyway. So what does this mean? "We had this battle, see, and like, we didn't think we could do this in a day, and there was so much shit going on, wars are like that, and shit we were finished before the sun set. We did so much, the sun had to have stopped or something."

Occam's razor would suggest that the writer was describing what he thought was happening and wasn't making detailed scientific observations. Time, as measured by the human mind, is a very relativistic thing, especially when the brain is flushed with adrenaline as it would be in the heat of battle.

Back to John, a ton of letters, three gospels, and what has come to be a weekly remembrance of the event is a pretty good indication you don't need another reminder of an event, especially since you just spent and entire chapter giving more theological foundations for it than the other gospel writers. (John's 10th chapter, but bear in mind that chapters weren't numbered until a thousand years after the last book in the Bible and verse numbers weren't added until the Bible began to be printed on the printing press.)

In that sense John's Gospel is like the baritone part of a barbershop quartet, it's not a refutation, rather than the filling in parts (or notes) that would be otherwise missing, in addition to making specific arguments to the post Revelation churches. (Revelation was written well before the Gospel of John.)

[rocky mountain]

They cannot be all true, can they?

why couldn't they all be? they're all pretty much the same thing, its just one person remembered it slightly different than the other.

So, you accept that John does not remember the day of the last supper, dont you? How would you reconcile this with "absolute truth" and the fact that the gospels are written by the holy ghost via evangilists. The holy ghost must have remembered the day, mustn't he? i don't think that the Holy Ghost directly told them what to write. it was from their memory. John just forgot the date of the last supper. we forget things, he forgot things, we're all human!

why is this nonsense? God made the sun, so why wouldn't he be able to control it?

I hate when this starts... Let us use Occama's Razor on this one, shall we? The all mighty God created the world and the laws of Physics. What is the most probable:
(1) God breaks these laws for one day because jews are fighting whoever they are fighting;
(2) The person writing the book got it wrong...
why isn't number one probable? if you're saying that the Holy Ghost inspired them, then number one makes more sense. either way, number one is still highly probable in my opinion.

Besides, the passage seems to imply that the sun goes around the earth stopping in the heavens. I am sure the holy ghost would have known some basic astronomy as well as precise location of the heavens

We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins.- its not baptism that cleanses us from sin. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.- i look forward to it, but i don't look for it. they are different. I think Jesus said something about that... not sure though...

You are still all right. Just contemplate what it says in plain language. The meaning should something like

I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I still don't agree with it.
I expect the resurrection of the dead. thats not really what its saying. I know its coming, but we shouldn't look for it.

I dont see what your problem with this might be. Actually baptism cleanses from sins but you can sin again after, shall you not ? baptism is not what cleanses the sins. There are Christians who have not been baptized. i believe baptism is basically a public announcement of your faith/that you follow Jesus. you asking for forgiveness and God forgiving you is what cleanses you.

[kletka]

I hate when this starts... Let us use Occama's Razor on this one, shall we? The all mighty God created the world and the laws of Physics. What is the most probable:
(1) God breaks these laws for one day because jews are fighting whoever they are fighting;
(2) The person writing the book got it wrong...

why isn't number one probable? if you're saying that the Holy Ghost inspired them, then number one makes more sense. either way, number one is still highly probable in my opinion.

(2) uses less assumptions, hence, must be chosen if you use Occama's Razor. The razor is not universal, hence you should indeed consider other circumstances. Stopping rotation of the Earth is no monkey business , I am sure God would have prevented huricanes, flood, landslides and earhtquakes that should follow such event. Moreover, staging such an astronomical event would really show the divine authority to the whole world. Why would not God choose to do it in one of the historical battles? Doesn't it loo untypical of his behaviour?

Finally, you admit that John got things wrong in the much more important part in the gospel. Hence, the whole bible is not absolute truth. Maybe, whoever wrote that bit slighty exaggerated some other astronomical event such as eclipse.

I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I still don't agree with it.
I expect the resurrection of the dead. thats not really what its saying. I know its coming, but we shouldn't look for it.

I have looked at (2) in various versions in 3 different languages and insist that my interpretation is acceptable. From (1), I can conclude only that you are a Jehovah's witness, are you not? As far as I understand, they are the only major group that dont consider baptisim as a first necessary step for the forgiveness of sins....

[rocky mountain]

Finally, you admit that John got things wrong in the much more important part in the gospel. Hence, the whole bible is not absolute truth. Maybe, whoever wrote that bit slighty exaggerated some other astronomical event such as eclipse.

actually, i just used the example you used from John, i didn't really look it up, just said what you said. i don't actually think that every word is 100% true. its pretty just the gospels that i believe that. the stories are the same, its just the wording is different, but thats not really what matters as much. one of them is probably more accurate than the others, but they're all basically true. its not like one is way off, and the other is 100% true...

I have looked at (2) in various versions in 3 different languages and insist that my interpretation is acceptable. From (1), I can conclude only that you are a Jehovah's witness, are you not? As far as I understand, they are the only major group that dont consider baptisim as a first necessary step for the forgiveness of sins....

ok then (2) is fine now. as for (1), no, i am not Jehovah's witness. they are not the only ones who don't believe baptism is the only thing that cleanses your sins. i am protestant.

[silvanricky]

There are four gospels, three of them generally work off each other (and are based on common sources) and the fourth one stands alone. The fourth one, the Gospel of John was probably the last Gospel to be written by the way.

I'm not a biblical scholar at all but I thought Luke would be the one to be different than the others because he was a gentile and the other 3 were Jews.

[dewey316]

Yes, Lukes Gospel is writen with gentiles in mind. This is why the genealogy of Christ only goes back to Abraham in Matthew (showing the connection to the covanent with Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him, and also the connection to the line of David, and the promise to David). Luke was writen to the gentiles, and thus connects the genealogy to Adam, showing the connection to all people.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the synoptic gospels, and are more historical accounts. John is a little diffrent, it generaly complements the others. Instead of having the same stories, you instead get "the rest" of the story from John. In the example someone else through out, the last supper. The other Gospels record the last supper. In fact John does also, but he tells a diffrent part of it. While the other gospels tell about the meal and what Jesus says, John tells about the washing of the feet. My guess, John is sharing the stuff that he remebers about Jesus, that wasn't already writen down.

Liken it to this, you can read a history book know the events of WWII, but when you talk to someone who is over there, they will tell you the story's about their friends, and make connections that you just don't get in a history book. This is what John is to the gospels. You are getting a story of Jesus as told through a friend, and he focuses on the stuff that he remebers about his friend, and tells the story's that show the charactor of his friend.

--John

[kletka]

they are not the only ones who don't believe baptism is the only thing that cleanses your sins. i am protestant.

Who said baptism is the only thing? There are other things such as prayer, confession, holy communion as well as general good behaviour. However, the baptism is particularly important according to the Creed as this is a physical act of joining the church.

i just used the example you used from John, i didn't really look it up, ju

I never quoted John. I quoted Joshua 10:12-14. Are you saying that I misquoted something or that you are too lazy to check my quote?

Liken it to this, you can read a history book know the events of WWII, but when you talk to someone who is over there, they will tell you the story's about their friends, and make connections that you just don't get in a history book. This is what John is to the gospels.

The comparison is dangerous. There are history books on WW-II full of utter nonsense, such as holocaust denial. And none of them claim to be inspired/written by the holy ghost. All I claimed initially that there were inconsistencies between gospels, and all you did was to justify them

There is a strange notion that the writers of sacred scripture were receiving heavenly dictation.

It was not me who came up with it. I have learned this from a baptist preacher with whom I shared a compartment on a train in Russia. He actually gave me the two most amazing creationist books I have ever read!! It was not just the usual nonsense that knights fighting dragons meant "humans lived with dinosaurs before the flood". They were full of cosmology, thermodynamics, string theory etc.

Occam's razor would suggest that the writer was describing what he thought was happening and wasn't making detailed scientific observations. Time, as measured by the human mind, is a very relativistic thing, especially when the brain is flushed with adrenaline as it would be in the heat of battle.

Precisely Or, whoever copied this to the bible first, misunderstood his original sources. As far as I understand, it is a common view among Christians that the book of Joshua was written not by Joshua but 200-300 years later...

[dewey316]

Liken it to this, you can read a history book know the events of WWII, but when you talk to someone who is over there, they will tell you the story's about their friends, and make connections that you just don't get in a history book. This is what John is to the gospels.

The comparison is dangerous. There are history books on WW-II full of utter nonsense, such as holocaust denial. And none of them claim to be inspired/written by the holy ghost. All I claimed initially that there were inconsistencies between gospels, and all you did was to justify them

That is a bit of a stretch of what I said, and I think you may have missed the point. The point is, that John was not meant to be like the other gospels. As was using an example, of how one could liken to be more like a history book, and that John's gospel is more like somenoe writing down the stories they remeber of their friend. All I am saying, is the people who think that John is inconsitant, are not looking at what John's gospel is. That is all. His lack of what was recorded about the last supper, is not a lack. He wrote down the part that stuck out in his mind, that was not recorded in the others. He shows the humility of Christ that night, and complements the other gospels very well.

[joecoolfrog]

Frankly I love all these straw men arguments especially about the Gospels. There are four gospels, three of them generally work off each other (and are based on common sources) and the fourth one stands alone. The fourth one, the Gospel of John was probably the last Gospel to be written by the way. The first reference to the Last Supper, from a chronological perspective are the letters of Paul, who obviously wasn't an eyewitness.

Each Gospel is written to a different target audience and thus they are all designed to make different arguments. None of the Gospels are really detailed and accurate historical accounts, and none of the Gospels would qualify as true journalism in any sense of the matter. So if there are any details, such as was a particular sermon done on the top or the bottom of a hill that might not always be perfectly aligned one needs to take it with the understanding of the purpose of the document.

There is a strange notion that the writers of sacred scripture were receiving heavenly dictation. A better way to look at it is that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and in one sense guided by it, but still were the authors of the documents in every sense of the word. Does any one remember the old Flip Wilson skit where he portrays a dialogue between God and Noah? Clueless old Noah didn't even know what a cubit was.

This is exceptionally true when talking about things like the battle Joshua had and the matter of the sun. I mean it's not like they checked their mechanical clocks to determine exactly how long the battle took and if indeed the sun did stop they wouldn't have any means of timing the event anyway. So what does this mean? "We had this battle, see, and like, we didn't think we could do this in a day, and there was so much shit going on, wars are like that, and shit we were finished before the sun set. We did so much, the sun had to have stopped or something."

Occam's razor would suggest that the writer was describing what he thought was happening and wasn't making detailed scientific observations. Time, as measured by the human mind, is a very relativistic thing, especially when the brain is flushed with adrenaline as it would be in the heat of battle.

Back to John, a ton of letters, three gospels, and what has come to be a weekly remembrance of the event is a pretty good indication you don't need another reminder of an event, especially since you just spent and entire chapter giving more theological foundations for it than the other gospel writers. (John's 10th chapter, but bear in mind that chapters weren't numbered until a thousand years after the last book in the Bible and verse numbers weren't added until the Bible began to be printed on the printing press.)

In that sense John's Gospel is like the baritone part of a barbershop quartet, it's not a refutation, rather than the filling in parts (or notes) that would be otherwise missing, in addition to making specific arguments to the post Revelation churches. (Revelation was written well before the Gospel of John.)

There were actually an awful lot more than 4 Gospels though were there not ?
The church cobbled together the Gospels that best fitted and supressed the others, heretics questioned the validity of this from the begining and were roundly persecuted for their trouble. The Holy Roman Church did what it felt best but no true scholar would consider the 4 existing Gospels to be definitive, they are part of the picture at best.

[tzor]

I never quoted John. I quoted Joshua 10:12-14. Are you saying that I misquoted something or that you are too lazy to check my quote?

The problem with the Joshua quote is that it is an observation made at the heat of battle. The observation is made only to mention how they believed they won the battle. There are a lot of war "miracles" military men write about all the time. Are they true? Perhaps, from a certain perspective. Are they scientific observations that count as valid measurements? Absolutely not. Take the famous battle when Moses held the staff in mid air. Was there an independent comission taking accurate estimates for how the battle was progressing and comparing it constantly to Moses' arm locations? Don't think so. No that was just a symbol about recognizing a symbol and doing ones best to support that symbol, just like lots of military men would do in more modern times to prevent at all costs a symbolic rag from falling to the ground.

There is a strange notion that the writers of sacred scripture were receiving heavenly dictation.

It was not me who came up with it. I have learned this from a baptist preacher with whom I shared a compartment on a train in Russia. He actually gave me the two most amazing creationist books I have ever read!! It was not just the usual nonsense that knights fighting dragons meant "humans lived with dinosaurs before the flood". They were full of cosmology, thermodynamics, string theory etc.

Well let's just say that we Catholics have a few disagreements with some Baptists. Annoying really since it's really our book, we had it longer. We have been asking for it back but they won't return it to us. Let's not forget the old joke about some believing that the King James translation is actually the original edition and that Jesus and Moses actually spoke King james English.

Occam's razor would suggest that the writer was describing what he thought was happening and wasn't making detailed scientific observations. Time, as measured by the human mind, is a very relativistic thing, especially when the brain is flushed with adrenaline as it would be in the heat of battle.

Precisely Or, whoever copied this to the bible first, misunderstood his original sources. As far as I understand, it is a common view among Christians that the book of Joshua was written not by Joshua but 200-300 years later...

First of all there are a lot of famous mis-translations over the course of history, (I think the most famous one is a passage about people who poison others which got translated into "witches." The second most famous one was in an obscure translation where Jesus' "suffer the little ones to come to me" wound up as "kill the children." ) but the biggest problem is taking passages and making them to be either what they are not or trying to get more out of them than was originally intended.

I remember a Protestant pracher on the radio who said it best, text, without context is no text at all. And make no mistake about this, if someone says "I believe in every literal word in the Bible," throw John 6:53-58 at then and watch them suddenly mention "symblolism." Apparently everything is literal except when the Catholic Church takes it literally and then it is symbolic.

(I think I mentioned this already. John's 6th chapter sets up the last supper and the perpetual comeration of the last supper far better than a simple rendition of the event.)