Why be good?

[Randy Carson]

I'm not sure what YOU are arguing about.

Clearly.

But not the fiction that science can explain everything.

Feel free to demonstrate this. Can you link to one single post where I made such an asinine assertion? When have I ever asserted, here or on any other forum (google "Thumpalumpacus" for the majority of my Internet history) and link to one single post where I avow that science can explain everything.  Go on, do it.

You're talking to a writer and musician, dumbass.  Science cannot explain æsthetics, as anyone with half-a-brain knows.

You really shouldn't be so presumptuous. You're an idiot whose prime fault is that you don't know how to shut up and listen, and this causes you to misgauge your audience, misunderstand what is being said to you (see the first exchange in this post for an example), and it retards your learning -- a fact which has been obvious to everyone here but you for quite some time now.

As a writer, I'm surprised you did not have more appreciation for the obvious play on words in what I wrote. C'mon...it was clever.

But seriously, as for whether you have PERSONALLY asserted that science can explain everything, I have no idea, Parkers. I'm completely outnumbered here, and I can't keep every post from ALL of you straight. So, if you have never made such an assertion, then I commend you as being one for whom there might still be hope.

And I apologize to you for any offense. It was an unintended consequence of my attempt at humor. Please forgive me.

[abaris]

And I apologize to you for any offense. It was an unintended consequence of my attempt at humor. Please forgive me.

Since you obviously believe in demons interfering with humans, it's actually hard to tell if you're joking or serious.

The borders aren't very clear from our perspective.

[Randy Carson]

So we agree that people thought there had been such a Peter, over a hundred years before any of that was written...

Ignatius wrote within 50 years of that...not 100.

How come there's no other record of him at Rome... say... by some roman contemporary record-keeper?

There is. Read on.

First, Peter says in 1 Peter 5:13, "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark." “Babylon” was an early Christian reference for “Rome,” so Peter and Mark are sending their greetings from Rome (not from the ancient city of Babylon).

Second, this is also the testimony of the Church Fathers, who testify that Mark is Peter's disciple and interpreter in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., says:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Eusebius says the same thing, as does St. Jerome:

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon "She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son." So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.

This makes Mark's Gospel all the more powerful: he's declaring that Jesus, not Caesar, is the true Son of God, and he is doing this from the heart of the Roman Empire.

Now consider this: Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, was a Christian living in Rome. So was Simon's wife. We know this from a seemingly throwaway line in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,  "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too." (Rom. 16:13)

This explains why Mark would choose to mention that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus and Alexander: those wouldn't have been random names to his original readers, but actual people that they knew. This detail is significant for several reasons.

First, it's another indication of the historicity of the Gospel: anyone doubting the veracity of Mark's account could go ask Rufus and Alexander.

Second, it shows unintended internal evidence for historical reliability of the New Testament accounts: by comparing multiple sources (Mark and Paul), a more coherent picture emerges. IOW, the writers are unintentionally supporting the overall gospel story because their stories frequently dovetail like this.

Finally, it points to something momentous and beautiful: Simon of Cyrene's encounter with Jesus the Cross brought about his conversion and the conversion of his whole family.

[abaris]

First, it's another indication of the historicity of the Gospel: anyone doubting the veracity of Mark's account could go ask Rufus and Alexander.

Bold claim, since you couldn't drop Rufus and Alexander an email at the time in question. And travelling wasn't that easy in the old world. The majority of people, especially if the weren't well off, traders or in the legions, never left the spread of land they were born on.

[Randy Carson]

I think I'm going to respond to your frequent "God-of-the-gaps" objection in a new thread.  

Why not just respond here.  Why is it that anything we can't explains means there is a god? Before answering please consider that gods have previously been used to explain phenomenon that we now understand.

Two reasons:

1. This would be off-topic, and
2. We're nearing 1,000 posts.

In my home forum, ALL threads are closed at 1,000 posts (that's not going to happen here, but I think there are some advantages), and the mods there trim threads and/or move posts to new threads when they are off-topic (this keeps the discussions more focused).

So, I'm doing it voluntarily because I think it is better.

[Jenny A]

Yep, spoken like anyone trying to win a doctrinal war.  Don't listen to them, listen to us.  We are the largest group, and we took upon ourselves the winning name.  So?

I've never yet met a cathy-lick who could be convinced that the teachings of the church can be boiled down to the consensus of the winners and that it has nothing to do with the reality of the teachings.

So? So, that's not completely true.

In fact, at one point in church history, Jenny, the Arian heresy threatened to overwhelm the Church, and the number of Arian bishops outnumbered the orthodox bishops. Eventually, however, Arianism was defeated not because it wasn't the largest group but because its doctrine was simply wrong.

Now, if your "largest group" argument was true, then Arianism would have won and taken the name "Catholic Church".

And similarly, at MANY points in history, the four Eastern patriarchs were all in heresy of one flavor or another; time and again, it was the lone Bishop of Rome who led them back to the true faith.

Might has not always made right. Truth, however, has.

It seems to me that there is rather more support for the Arian point of view in the Bible than the trinity.

For example:

When John baptizes Jesus:

"At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3:16-17

A rather odd thing to say about your ever existing co-self.

Not to mention "take this cup away."  What did he mean?  I don't want to do this to myself?

"My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me."  If they are coequal why call him god as if he's higher?

But most of all

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."  John 14:28

Trinity support is rather slim on the ground.

The problem is that these "witnesses" you keep claiming were people writing stories told, and retold, and reinvented.  No surprisingly the story is not consistent.

That aside, we don't have much arian lit left and the Catholics tend to burn what they don't like.    

[Cato]

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."  John 14:28

This is the only rational reply:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

[abaris]

1. This would be off-topic, and

Looking at the thread title, looking at the posts, having a good laugh about worrying about getting off topic.

[pocaracas]

So we agree that people thought there had been such a Peter, over a hundred years before any of that was written...

Ignatius wrote within 50 years of that...not 100.

Do we have those writings, properly dated?
Or do we have an account of that Ignatius' wrote, hundreds of years after the fact?

also, there's this guy: http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-for...-250AD.htm

How come there's no other record of him at Rome... say... by some roman contemporary record-keeper?

There is. Read on.

First, Peter says in 1 Peter 5:13, "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark." “Babylon” was an early Christian reference for “Rome,” so Peter and Mark are sending their greetings from Rome (not from the ancient city of Babylon).

Wait, Randy... Babylon is the other way... South-East from Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

Second, this is also the testimony of the Church Fathers, who testify that Mark is Peter's disciple and interpreter in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., says:

Back to over a hundred years after the fact, huh?

Eusebius says the same thing, as does St. Jerome:

Two hundred years after the fact.

Now consider this: Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, was a Christian living in Rome. So was Simon's wife. We know this from a seemingly throwaway line in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,  "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too." (Rom. 16:13)

Where was this Paul writing from?
How did he know this Rufus?
How many other Rufus were there in Rome?

This explains why Mark would choose to mention that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus and Alexander: those wouldn't have been random names to his original readers, but actual people that they knew. This detail is significant for several reasons.

Wait a minute...
Paul talks about a Rufus.
Mark talks about a Rufus, son of Simon of Cyrene.

Are those two the same Rufus?

First, it's another indication of the historicity of the Gospel: anyone doubting the veracity of Mark's account could go ask Rufus and Alexander.

Sure... way back then they had investigative reporters like news reporters, nowadays, who follow up on tons of alleged UFO sightings.
People claim they saw something. It's true that they did see something... but did they really see an ET spaceship?

Second, it shows unintended internal evidence for historical reliability of the New Testament accounts: by comparing multiple sources (Mark and Paul), a more coherent picture emerges. IOW, the writers are unintentionally supporting the overall gospel story because their stories frequently dovetail like this.

Or one built on the previous knowledge of the other.
Like fanfic.

Finally, it points to something momentous and beautiful: Simon of Cyrene's encounter with Jesus the Cross brought about his conversion and the conversion of his whole family.

Wait a minute, wasn't this Simon of Cyrene in Rome?
And what did he convert to? He saw a dying (or already dead) man nailed to a cross. There was no christianity, then...

I feel like I keep going back and forth into and out of the fairy tale.

Are there curious nuggets in the gospels? yes.
Could they have been put in there unintentionally and, by chance provide a great tale? yes.
Could they have been added intentionally so as to provide the impression of a great tale? yes.

At the end of the day, we can't be sure of anything.
If only there was an actual real-life god who could settle this for once and for everybody...

[Thumpalumpacus]

As a writer, I'm surprised you did not have more appreciation for the obvious play on words in what I wrote. C'mon...it was clever.

Yeah ... no.

But seriously, as for whether you have PERSONALLY asserted that science can explain everything, I have no idea, Parkers. I'm completely outnumbered here, and I can't keep every post from ALL of you straight. So, if you have never made such an assertion, then I commend you as being one for whom there might still be hope.

Translation: You all look the same to me, but I don't have the aptitude to actually discern or respond to what you've written so I'll throw a broad swipe in, and to top it all off, let me add a dollop of condescension.

Hey, go fuck yourself. If you are quoting me, then you'd goddamned well better be answering me. If you are not answering my points, do not quote me.

And I apologize to you for any offense. It was an unintended consequence of my attempt at humor. Please forgive me.

Have you considered a career in farming dental floss?