Understanding the bible

[Annik]

If you believe in the whole Bible, there's a book of them right there, lol.

[Epimethean]

It is unlikely that Plutarch wrote any part of the bible. Please stop going on as if that is a fact.

I'm really really interested in hearing from people around here why he's not related to the early Christian writings. Sorry for making you bite, but why do you think it's unlikely?
[/quote]

Plutarch makes reference to gods as a plural, refers to Apollo as the greatest of the gods, then later suggests it is Zeus, and allows that demi-gods exist. This alone is sufficient to suggest that he is not in any fundamental way a christian, nor aligned with the christian program of thought; but further, Plutarch never makes reference to christ. At best approximation to christianity, Plutarch is a Platonist, and this, combined with his temporal overlap with the writers of the NT, sees him conflated with their number, but it is not through any set of facts and rather, through that most beloved of christian tools, through the very absence of facts to support the contention.

[FallentoReason]

Since you believe it's subjective maybe it is true God did not see you as a Christian, we could be getting closer to "sure." Though it seems subjective to you it's absolute for me.

I think the greater problem here is simply: what is a Christian? Was me going to Thailand on a missions trip with my own money (while being a broke university student) and having faith in God that he will heal and bless the community not what a Christian would do? Was my 'encounter' where I was left weeping and messed up on the inside not God's doing? I think you might be tempted to somewhat agree on these things and say 'yes, you most probably were a Christian' but because currently I don't call myself one you feel the need to defend your own position by pulling the No True Scotsman fallacy on me.

Sorry if that sounded harsh. I didn't mean it like that, but I'm just stating what I used to feel when someone I knew (whether personally or 'famous') would call it quits on Christianity. It was scary because they were making a direct statement on my beliefs through their life. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with you, but I think the best way of knowing if the possibility of the Holy Spirit being real is if we can determine some things about the Bible; how the manuscripts came to be and who wrote what. The Bible is the only thing that connects the here and now with anything remotely supernatural and eternal, given that it can be shown to be reliable. Until then, it can be said that encounters with God are merely subconscious mind tricks and fluffy feelings... as I saw them and accepted them to be after I enriched myself with a better understanding of Christianity.

---

Plutarch makes reference to gods as a plural, refers to Apollo as the greatest of the gods, then later suggests it is Zeus, and allows that demi-gods exist. This alone is sufficient to suggest that he is not in any fundamental way a christian, nor aligned with the christian program of thought; but further, Plutarch never makes reference to christ. At best approximation to christianity, Plutarch is a Platonist, and this, combined with his temporal overlap with the writers of the NT, sees him conflated with their number, but it is not through any set of facts and rather, through that most beloved of christian tools, through the very absence of facts to support the contention.

I wouldn't say there's an absence of facts. The 'Luke' that scholars describe and the 'Lucius' that historians (and Lucius' own works) describe are almost the same person: well travelled historians who used 'medical' terms but most likely not doctors by profession. Another key piece of the puzzle is given by the start of Luke 1 when he confesses that he has used other sources as the basis of his work. Assuming that Mark was the first written, it can be said that he was referring to Mark.

http://www.carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS4.htm

As it seems, Mark, Matthew and Luke seem to parallel the writings of Joseph ben Matityahu (Matthew) or better known as Josephus. So I think there's some reason to think Plutarch, whose works are similar in style to Luke-Acts, borrowed from Josephus who may also be involved.

This is only the tip of the iceberg though. I'm planning on writing a concise paper on my theory after my university exams are over in 3 weeks.

[Zen Badger]

---

There is no need for Him to go back in time, what He's done is perfect and His will has been done, simple really.

This perfect plan you keep talking about, is that the one that was subverted at the beginning by a talking snake?

Didn't know there was a talking snake in scripture, oh, I guess you must be talking about the serpent. God knew the fall was going to happen, so yes this is part of His plan, would He prefer the fall never happened, yes, but God knew with free will in the plan that the fall would happen.

And then went so badly wrong that god regretted what he had done and decided to start again.

Man's fall was so horrible that God in His love for man was sorrowful that He created man, He knew this would also happen and that He would have to destroy most of His creation. His love for man was so great that He did keep on going with His plan. Do not think God was starting over, He knew man would fall this far, and knew He would need to destroy the world, this also was in His plan because of free will.

And had to be rejigged yet again with the supposed "sacrifice" of his son.
And to date still hasn't worked properly.

Yes this was the crowning moment of His plan, the redemption of man. It has worked, all the believers world wide is proof, oh I know it's not proof to you, but then God's plan never depended on what you consider proof. God's plan does include you, it all depends on how you use your free will as to the way you will fit into the plan.

That one?

Yes it's the one I described.

And BTW, what was gods original plan?

The one that he had in mind before the snake fucked it up.

The one scripture describes.

---

So if everything that has happened is part of gods "perfect plan" why does he then regret what he's done

Genesis6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Generally when a plan I've conceived comes out exactly as I've planned it I don't regret it.

[Minimalist]

Nor does anyone.

[Godscreated]

Since you believe it's subjective maybe it is true God did not see you as a Christian, we could be getting closer to "sure." Though it seems subjective to you it's absolute for me.

I think the greater problem here is simply: what is a Christian? Was me going to Thailand on a missions trip with my own money (while being a broke university student) and having faith in God that he will heal and bless the community not what a Christian would do? Was my 'encounter' where I was left weeping and messed up on the inside not God's doing? I think you might be tempted to somewhat agree on these things and say 'yes, you most probably were a Christian' but because currently I don't call myself one you feel the need to defend your own position by pulling the No True Scotsman fallacy on me.

Sorry if that sounded harsh. I didn't mean it like that, but I'm just stating what I used to feel when someone I knew (whether personally or 'famous') would call it quits on Christianity. It was scary because they were making a direct statement on my beliefs through their life. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with you, but I think the best way of knowing if the possibility of the Holy Spirit being real is if we can determine some things about the Bible; how the manuscripts came to be and who wrote what. The Bible is the only thing that connects the here and now with anything remotely supernatural and eternal, given that it can be shown to be reliable. Until then, it can be said that encounters with God are merely subconscious mind tricks and fluffy feelings... as I saw them and accepted them to be after I enriched myself with a better understanding of Christianity.

I'm no fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy, I see it as a way out of a debate when one side runs out of explanations. Just because some do not have insight into a matter doesn't mean another doesn't have insight into said matter. When it comes to something like Christianity, NTS is used far to much to ignore a debatable point, beliefs of faith fall to this to often because the opposing side can not understand spiritual matters.

OK enough of that, here's the way I see things when it comes to those who eventually leave Christianity. I do believe there are those who leave and were Christians, however I can not see that they can deny God, Satan does not deny God, these that leave, reject God and His plan for mankind.
Those who leave and deny God's existence never really believed, and as you stated, actually had an experience with the Holy Spirit. When one has experienced the Holy Spirit working in their lives it is something unforgettable and undeniable. Now I'm not talking about a lightning strike kind of moment, but a peaceful experience of revelation. The scripture come alive and you see truths revealed that only Christians can understand, unbelievers can not, you understand things which happen in your life are not coincidental, they are God lead. When active in the church one will find God puts one into positions that are not necessarily comfortable, so God can show one that He is working in one's life. God will show one that He can work His will through one, and that person reaps the joy of what is done. People who experience the Holy Spirit can see God and His wonders through the scriptures, and things He does in their lives

---

---

Didn't know there was a talking snake in scripture, oh, I guess you must be talking about the serpent. God knew the fall was going to happen, so yes this is part of His plan, would He prefer the fall never happened, yes, but God knew with free will in the plan that the fall would happen.


Man's fall was so horrible that God in His love for man was sorrowful that He created man, He knew this would also happen and that He would have to destroy most of His creation. His love for man was so great that He did keep on going with His plan. Do not think God was starting over, He knew man would fall this far, and knew He would need to destroy the world, this also was in His plan because of free will.


Yes this was the crowning moment of His plan, the redemption of man. It has worked, all the believers world wide is proof, oh I know it's not proof to you, but then God's plan never depended on what you consider proof. God's plan does include you, it all depends on how you use your free will as to the way you will fit into the plan.


Yes it's the one I described.


The one scripture describes.

---

So if everything that has happened is part of gods "perfect plan" why does he then regret what he's done

Genesis6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Generally when a plan I've conceived comes out exactly as I've planned it I don't regret it.

Repenteth means sorrow or sadness, not regret. God was saddened by the depth of man's fall, His love was so great for man and man had left their creator. Yes He knew this great fall was coming, but like I said God's love was so great it still saddened Him, this is how terrible man had become.

[FallentoReason]

OK enough of that, here's the way I see things when it comes to those who eventually leave Christianity. I do believe there are those who leave and were Christians, however I can not see that they can deny God, Satan does not deny God, these that leave, reject God and His plan for mankind.

I don't think it's possible for someone to deconvert while still accepting that God is real. I'm not saying that they go from believing to claiming that he, a deity, doesn't exist at all, but rather that the Christian deity can't be shown to be real.

I don't know of any cases myself where the unbeliever still holds the belief that a particular deity is real. That's an oxymoron.

Those who leave and deny God's existence never really believed, and as you stated, actually had an experience with the Holy Spirit. When one has experienced the Holy Spirit working in their lives it is something unforgettable and undeniable. Now I'm not talking about a lightning strike kind of moment, but a peaceful experience of revelation.

This is what I meant by subjective. Your experience will be different to mine. Not only that, but only you know what you have experienced and how you experienced it, no one else. So with that being said, how can we even begin to establish a way of knowing if someone was ever (or even is) a Christian? My experience was unforgettable because literature has never made me weep before, yet there I was Bible in one hand and wiping tears with the other. But as I said, it's all subjective so there's no concrete way of knowing for sure if e.g. I was a Christian. Isn't it most logical to just leave it up to the individual to determine that?

The scripture come alive and you see truths revealed that only Christians can understand, unbelievers can not, you understand things which happen in your life are not coincidental, they are God lead. When active in the church one will find God puts one into positions that are not necessarily comfortable, so God can show one that He is working in one's life. God will show one that He can work His will through one, and that person reaps the joy of what is done. People who experience the Holy Spirit can see God and His wonders through the scriptures, and things He does in their lives

I can see why believers would testify to all this, but I guess my problem with it all (or rather the unsolved problem within Christians themselves) is the never ending debates over the right interpretation. This is definitely a problem because in the eyes of some Christians certain experiences of other Christians have to be discredited as being from God and therefore it's mere nonsense, or as my church calls it 'religious baggage'. A big one of these is speaking in tongues. I've had Christians friends persuade me either for or against speaking in tongues as being 'legit'.

So I guess the greater picture here is that if we don't have a crystal clear definition of Christianity itself, then people's claims of God working through them can go either way as being genuine or false, because there's no real way of comparing it to the Bible.

[Brian37]

Repenteth means sorrow or sadness, not regret. God was saddened by the depth of man's fall, His love was so great for man and man had left their creator. Yes He knew this great fall was coming, but like I said God's love was so great it still saddened Him, this is how terrible man had become.

I had a debate about "interpretation" with another Christian a long time ago about Malichi 2:3 "Behold I will corrupt your seed and spread dung on your faces". He claimed I was reading the wrong version and that it was "refuse", meaning trash.

I said fine "trash or shit" would God spread it on your face. So when he got called out on that he copped out to metaphor.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT SADNESS OR REGRET. It still doesn't change the stupidity of the argument that God is all powerful and allows things to happen that he says he doesn't want happening. He would still only have himself to blame for being sad. If he didn't want to be sad he shouldn't have let it happen in the first place.

You simply don't want the buck to stop at him, so you play mental gymnastics to justify your crap.

IF YOU CLAIM HE IS ALL POWERFUL THEN HE ONLY HAS HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR BEING SAD

You merely want a super hero to exist, which is why you are stuck in very bad logic and will do anything to dodge the blatant contradictions of a very bad concept and bad logic.

We are not arguing this as if your god is real. We are taking your words and simply saying with your words why this concept as a claim is broken.

[Epimethean]

Plutarch makes reference to gods as a plural, refers to Apollo as the greatest of the gods, then later suggests it is Zeus, and allows that demi-gods exist. This alone is sufficient to suggest that he is not in any fundamental way a christian, nor aligned with the christian program of thought; but further, Plutarch never makes reference to christ. At best approximation to christianity, Plutarch is a Platonist, and this, combined with his temporal overlap with the writers of the NT, sees him conflated with their number, but it is not through any set of facts and rather, through that most beloved of christian tools, through the very absence of facts to support the contention.

I wouldn't say there's an absence of facts. The 'Luke' that scholars describe and the 'Lucius' that historians (and Lucius' own works) describe are almost the same person: well travelled historians who used 'medical' terms but most likely not doctors by profession. Another key piece of the puzzle is given by the start of Luke 1 when he confesses that he has used other sources as the basis of his work. Assuming that Mark was the first written, it can be said that he was referring to Mark.

http://www.carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS4.htm

As it seems, Mark, Matthew and Luke seem to parallel the writings of Joseph ben Matityahu (Matthew) or better known as Josephus. So I think there's some reason to think Plutarch, whose works are similar in style to Luke-Acts, borrowed from Josephus who may also be involved.

This is only the tip of the iceberg though. I'm planning on writing a concise paper on my theory after my university exams are over in 3 weeks.

Good luck with that. You'll need to be able to read Greek (or use drich's whizbang set of concordances), and will need a Classics and history background as well as a solid grounding in theology, and then, the best you'll do is what Gott's already done, which is piece together parts of a puzzle with blank cardstock and a sharpie. I think you are looking for things that are not there, and the evidence points away from Plutarch, who, as a priest of Apollo and someone truly steeped in the Greco-Roman traditions, reveres the Greco-Roman ideals of what the gods were. Your biggest problem is motivation: Plutarch would have had no motivation to write such stuff. By the way, Plutarch does not describe himself in any detail. Your contention that the author of Luke admits to using other sources means nothing by way of pointing to Plutarch, and only suggests that the author borrowed from other work. By the way, Plutarch is not much of a historian but rather a biased biographer.

[FallentoReason]

Good luck with that. You'll need to be able to read Greek (or use drich's whizbang set of concordances), and will need a Classics and history background as well as a solid grounding in theology, and then, the best you'll do is what Gott's already done, which is piece together parts of a puzzle with blank cardstock and a sharpie. I think you are looking for things that are not there, and the evidence points away from Plutarch, who, as a priest of Apollo and someone truly steeped in the Greco-Roman traditions, reveres the Greco-Roman ideals of what the gods were. Your biggest problem is motivation: Plutarch would have had no motivation to write such stuff. By the way, Plutarch does not describe himself in any detail. Your contention that the author of Luke admits to using other sources means nothing by way of pointing to Plutarch, and only suggests that the author borrowed from other work. By the way, Plutarch is not much of a historian but rather a biased biographer.

I have to admit, I'd like to be able to see how Plutarch is connected to the Gospels (if at all). I'm not going to fool myself though. What little I've posted on these forums is what I've gathered from doing some light reading. As I said though, I'll try and write a paper with my best case in favour and see how far I can get.

Would you say that Gott isn't a good source at all then?