(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 9:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

Well said.  I would be interested in looking at those further.  Feel free to share them with me.

Duh, but N-S didn't specify version of the Bible. I mean what are the chances that you're both the same Christian denomination? And doesn't every Christian denomination has it's own "right" version of the Bible? Certainly any self respecting Catholic won't read protestant Bibles and vice versa, so if you're implementing this sophisticated way of reading the Bible that N-S uses it certainly can't work on any version of the Bible? Or maybe it does? Does the same way also work on Koran?

and what of the Joseph Smith version of the bible even modern era Mormons won't touch ?
Joe even recorded a revelation from GOD commanding his church to publish it.  180 years later (m/l) and they still haven't done it.

I wonder if our house theists would agree that arguments for atheism are -from the perspective of atheists- mostly for the purpose of helping to persuade others of our own point of view? Do you guys see why we say we don't require argumentation to live a life devoid of gods so long as no reason emerges which we find compelling to entertain the possibility of their existence?

(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Does the same way also work on Koran?

The Quran is not set up in a time linear fashion. It is ordered from longest book to shortest. So, while you could compare uses of words or phrases, reading it from end to beginning won't change much.

(March 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Noari Wrote:

(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Does the same way also work on Koran?

The Quran is not set up in a time linear fashion. It is ordered from longest book to shortest. So, while you could compare uses of words or phrases, reading it from end to beginning won't change much.

Who cares what order the Koran or Bible or Jewish OT were written they were all written in an age of ignorance by humans who didn't know any better.

(March 16, 2017 at 2:11 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 15, 2017 at 11:06 am)Whateverist Wrote: Limp Rik: Yeah, that would be like trying to clean out a chimney using yoga.  I'm sure people would fail again and again there too.  So is there anything at all that yoga is good for apart from keeping limber?  Nope.

I once tried tiling a kitchen using interpretive dance. It went about as well as you'd expect.

Something like....

(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 9:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

Well said.  I would be interested in looking at those further.  Feel free to share them with me.

I'd start here. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. If he develops his thoughts on Mark demonstrating (contrary to received opinion) a high christology further it will surely have a profound effect on NT scholarship.

Reading Backwards

(March 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Well said.  I would be interested in looking at those further.  Feel free to share them with me.

Duh, but N-S didn't specify version of the Bible. I mean what are the chances that you're both the same Christian denomination? And doesn't every Christian denomination has it's own "right" version of the Bible? Certainly any self respecting Catholic won't read protestant Bibles and vice versa, so if you're implementing this sophisticated way of reading the Bible that N-S uses it certainly can't work on any version of the Bible? Or maybe it does? Does the same way also work on Koran?

I do not subscribe to any denomination of Christianity. Neither did Christ, He was Jewish. I don't attend church either, haven't in closing on a decade now. I would prefer to stick to the King James or HCSB.

---

(March 17, 2017 at 3:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Well said.  I would be interested in looking at those further.  Feel free to share them with me.

I'd start here. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. If he develops his thoughts on Mark demonstrating (contrary to received opinion) a high christology further it will surely have a profound effect on NT scholarship.

Reading Backwards

Excellent. Thank you in advance.

(March 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Duh, but N-S didn't specify version of the Bible. I mean what are the chances that you're both the same Christian denomination? And doesn't every Christian denomination has it's own "right" version of the Bible?

First, there is no right translation. I know there are some KJV only advocates but they are a distinct minority. Other than that they all have their strengths and weaknesses. When doing textual studies, the important thing is going to the Greek and Hebrew sources. I mainly use the NASB to match up with the concordance I use.

As for me personally, I don't subscribe to any particular denomination. I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, loving God, and treating my neighbors as myself. Anyone who believes that is Christian enough for me regardless of their thoughts about the tribulation, eternal conscious torment, infant baptism, total depravity, predestination and all those other issues. I cannot say that my ideas about those doctrines are fixed.

(March 17, 2017 at 3:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 17, 2017 at 9:48 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Well said.  I would be interested in looking at those further.  Feel free to share them with me.

I'd start here. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. If he develops his thoughts on Mark demonstrating (contrary to received opinion) a high christology further it will surely have a profound effect on NT scholarship.

Reading Backwards

There is no "NT scholorship" anymore than being an expert on Star Wars makes Yoda real. Theologians are apologists nothing more. 

"Reading Backwards" yea so what? The first 3 original Star Wars movies ended up being prequels to which the following new movies were written after the fact to be stories BEFORE the original 3. 

There is no evidence that a man named Jesus existed outside the bible's claims to confirm he existed. The oldest gospel was written way after the alleged death of the Jesus Character. Josephus does not count and also was not an "eyewitness". The first compiled completed book didn't get voted on until 329 at the Council of Nicea. It took over 1,000 years from the OT to the first VOTED ON completed bible and over 40 authors with books left out. It seems inefficient to me to have an alleged "all powerful" god take all that time and use flawed humans to complete it with even further revisions and newer versions since. Not to mention in that 1700 years since the first completed version even among Christian sects humans have been arguing and even murdering over those different interpretations. 

But lets pretend he did exist, he didn't, but lets pretend he did. He would not have been a god or the "son of a god". He would have simply been a man who looked at the current surrounding religions and decided to start a new one. Just like L Ron Hubbard, a si fi writer conned people so much Scientology was started. Nobody magically is born without a second set of DNA. Nobody survives the act of torture the death story would have you believe. 

The way the NT is written reads like people trying to score political points using a popular name of that era trying to compete to create a new movement. It is far more likely during the alleged time that a legend was created over a movement to which a minority group stood up to authority. Much like Plato's Apology is a story not a real account of Socrates challenge to authority. Everyone likes an underdog story.

It does not matter to me one bit if he existed, there is no evidence he did. It still would not make men with magic super powers real. It would merely mean a person managed to split off from the social norms of the time and start a new business. No different than when Coke and Pepsi compete. No different than saying Yuengling beer is much older than Budweiser but both are still beer, and even today you have aspiring brewers making beer in their homes hoping to make it big.

There is no such thing as a magic baby with super powers and nobody survives rigor mortis. There are just humans whom market claims, some truly believe what they claim, and some are flat out con artists and don't care.