Forum Addiction (F.A)

In October 2006, I joined ‘Theology Web Campus’. My intention was to explore the doctrine of ‘Atonement’ as per the Christian sacred texts. After engaging in numerous discussions-arguments-debates on the general forum, I finally began addressing my questions to the scholarly community in ”Biblical Languages 301.’ In a sense, I got lost in the discussions-arguments-debates, but as I began asking for Greek & Hebrew interpretations of particular passages, I found my way back to my initial question, and in the process answered a number of questions, that I did not realize I had begged. ( Why am I not a King James Onlyist … anymore? & Why am I not an Orthodox Preterist yet ? , and ‘The Relationship Factor (A&O)’ < my last post. )
In the process I developed an addiction, I shall simply refer to as F.A. (Forum Addiction). It was so intense, that I could not break the habit, and asked to be permanently 'banned'. The truth is, I have been given and referred to so many excellent books & commentaries that answer my own questions, that I just did not have the time to read them, so it was a case of stay and remain dumb, or get wise and leave to study. I chose the latter. I am glad with my choice.

Biblical Languages 301 @ Theology Web Campus

From time to time, I am going to place up choice posts from Biblical Languages 301. You are welcome to comment here, but it would probably be better to read the post @ BL301, and enter the d-a-d — if you dig. ( but watch out for F.A. huh? ) So basically this is merely an archive of sorts, that saves me having to post up the post, plus any subsequent comments on the forum.

Willilam Blake – The Number of the Beast is 666 – Philadelphia Rosebach Museum & Library

A. JESUS AND THE ANTICHRIST MYTH ( John Reece )

Jesus’ teaching and prophetic vision extended all the way to (a) the Final Judgment by the Son of Man (Matthew 25:31-46) and (b) the end of the age (Matthew 28:16-20 ).

Why, then, did Jesus not envision any yet-to-be-revealed “Antichrist” appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

Please stay on topic, which is Jesus’ teaching and prophetic vision as presented by his biographers in the four Gospels vis-à-vis the Antichrist myth.

To read this post, and subsquent comments, please click here: Jesus and the Antichrist Myth

+)(+

B. JESUS NEITHER GOD NOR MAN – Reviewed by GakuseiDon, Jan 2011

This is from the Apologetics Forum @ Theology Web Campus. Just prior to leaving Theology Web Campus, I spent some time reading discussions between GakuseiDon and others, regarding related matters. After a brief chat with him, he directed me to his recent review, which is a summary of what has now been published to Theology Web. (18.01.2011) As it is certainly a pertinent subject, and what with the numerous challenges from so many liberal scholars regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ etcetera, I thought it would be well worth the read. Thanks GuskeiDon!

I’ve posted a review of Earl Doherty’s “Jesus: Neither God Nor Man” on my website. The first page can be found here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/JNGNM_Review1.html

The review is over four webpages. The first page is the review. The other three pages go into issues raised by Doherty’s theories.

My conclusion: There is a lot of material there on issues surrounding the historicity of Jesus, but this is not a good book. Doherty only presents one side of the story. A more complete analysis of the literature than Doherty provided would show that the evidence is against his theories. The book’s audience appears to be those people who have little knowledge of how people thought back then.

Contents of the four webpages in my review:
1. Review Summary (where I give my overall impression of the book)
2. Early Christian Writings (including the strange silence on a historical Jesus)
3. Paul and Paul’s Jesus
4. World of Myth (your controversial views on pagan mythology)

To read this post, and subsquent comments, please click here: My review of Doherty’s “Jesus: Neither God Nor Man”

Also featured on my blog: Beyond The Big Bang: ‘Doherty only presents one side of the story’

+)(+

C. PILGRIM’S REDRESS (Christian Considers Evolution) – This entry was posted on January 24, 2011.

Pilgrim’s Redress ( Christian Considers Evolution)
by Eric J. Sawyer

In this post, I would like to share 4 discussions that I had with the members of Theology Web Campus, in an effort to understand the apparent conflict between Science and Religion, with particular focus on the subject of Evolution.
Rather than weigh down this post with details of my own journey, I wish to present you with the 4 discussions, as they happened between August the 21st, and September the 27th, 2010.

1. Evolution vs Intelligent Design ( August 21st 2010 10:25 AM ) < the link will take you to post #31 … where I provided a brief summary of my confusion, and some useful comments from others. The rest of the discussions seem to be a lot easier going.
2. EVOLUTION, Creationism and Intelligent Design ? ( August 23rd 2010 03:30 PM )
3. The Blind Watchmaker and … ? ( August 27th 2010 06:00 AM )
4. Coming to Peace with Science ( September 27th 2010 12:19 PM )
I might bring out some of the details mentioned in these four discussions, but for now it is enough to read and consider.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer
(headheart is my alias – I asked to be banned, due to a serious case of F.A. – Forum Addiction)
Link: Pilgrim’s Redress (Christian Considers Evolution)

+)(+

D. Dean Burgon demolishes Westcott and Hort textual theories …

This discussion started out with a challenge from a t-webber who seldom posts, but to argue a bit and then run. After being suitably challenged by RonC and John Reece, on page 1, I thought the thread had gone to sleep, but it looks like a ‘newbie’ has began to argue …. until RBerman posted up the following reply: (on page 2 )

…..in response to this question:

Do you believe that the Scriptures are inspired? Do you consider the King James Bible, the Scriptures?

The original manuscripts of the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were inspired by God, yes. They were inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. They are also unavailable. The King James Bible is one in a long line of many attempts to translate copies of those original manuscripts. It was a fine translation effort, but not one in which God supernaturally intervented to ensure the absence of error, so I would not consider the translation to be “inspired.” The three main problems with KJV are (1) we now know that it did not use the best manuscripts of the original languages; (2) It did not always choose the best English word of its day to translate the original words; and (3) Many English words have changed their meaning in the intervening 400 years, so that it doesn’t read to us in the way that its translators would have wanted.In summary, the King James Bible is a fallible human translation of the inspired Scriptures. To the extent that it was done well, it is the Word of God. But KJV’s translators did not call it “inspired” or “perfect” but only “more exact” than its predecessors, even admitting that it “some imperfections and blemishes may be noted” in their work, explicitly denying that they were inspired in the way that the Apostles were. Do you disagree with the translators of KJV who said that their work was imperfect? If so, on what grounds?

To read page 2

+)(+

E. UNFORGIVABLE SKEPTICISM

Though the early part of this discussion-argument-debate at T.W.C started off on somewhat of a comical note, I have been particularly interested in the exchange at the taking place on the page 13, which has been a tug-of-war between a t-webber by the name of Tassman, and RBerman. (RBerman’s comments are bold)

I am going to post up the last comment by RBerman, as a marker. Basically to just give an idea of where the argument is going, and where it has been headed for most of the discussion.

Originally posted by Tassman
Yes, I think so. As evolved social creatures we have a sense of our place in the social order and a sense of reciprocity plus knowledge of expected rules of behavior within the community. We absorb these at our mother’s knee and from the surrounding community and are genetically predisposed to observe them – as with ALL social creatures. It is instinctive. Our survival as a species depends on it.

But if you’re going to define ethics in terms of what’s universally accepted, your own definition is far from universally accepted. Almost every culture in world history believes that ethics are inviolable universal norms which ought to be extended onto all cultures.

So you are arguing that it was not part of an absolute moral code and only applied to the specific circumstances in a particular age. But this is precisely what I am arguing, namely that moral codes are culturally specific and belong to a particular stage of civilization’s development. The moral code of a different age is different to the moral code of today and this is the point. But, you said in #170 that “God defines what is good, and I compare everything else to him” and that “God is my standard of good”. What exactly is this standard when what god defined as good for the ancient Israelites no longer applies today?

The Hebrews were given exactly the instructions that were good for them in that situation (which instructions, by the way, they did not follow most of the time). God endorsed their campaign on grounds that he was using them as an agent of justice against the Canaanite peoples, just as God later used Babylon as an agent of justice against Israel. It would never be tenable to say, “Anything God ever told anyone to do is exactly what each of us is supposed to do” since many of God’s commands were in the context of unique circumstances. The study of ethics is thus the study of theology, understanding what overriding principles obtain when one eliminates the peculiarities of some particular circumstance.

From – Unforgivable Skepticism ( post #183 )

F. INTERNET SO-CALLED EXPERTS , COMPARING DEMON POSSESSION AND MENTAL ILLNESSES

I’ve been watching a discussion on T.W.C. titled : God’s percieved moral agency revealed through fMRI. I actually opened up the discussion on page 9 … Where ‘Sparko’ (a moderator is replying to two Atheists – Jacep and Plantasm )

Reply 1: ( Post 130 )

Originally posted by Jaecp
Natural doubt to have when demonic possessions look identical to mental illness

how do you know it looks identical to mental illness? Have you seen demonic possession? The description in the bible is not all that detailed. What is your actual experience and expertise with mental illnesses?

Reply 2: ( Post 132 )

Originally posted by Plantasm
Have you read the account of the gadarene demoniac?

Mark 5?

yep.

The guy could break chains and he knew who Jesus was. Doesn’t sound like any mental illness I ever heard of. Other than that, it doesn’t describe much about him at all other than he cut himself. Never saw a cutter who could break chains and fetters. But then I am not an expert on mental illnesses. Are you?

—–

Having engaged both Jaecp and Plantasm in the past, I can pretty much tell you that they have had no experience in this field. I will be more intersted to see if they admit to a lack of knowledge in this matter, and step back or continue to engage ‘Sparko’, who though admittedly not an ‘expert’, is certainly well able to present very strong arguments.

—–
Update: The following question addressed to Plantasm by Teulog, seems like a good one.

Originally posted by Plantasm
Both accounts say he was naked and howled as he cut himself repeatedly. Both accounts say he was not in his right mind. All these behaviors are classic symptoms of serious mental illness.

Is it classical behaviour for a mental illness to transfer from someone into each individual pig in a herd of swine by simply commanding it to do so?

Refer: Post 140 –

————–
Based on Teulog’s solid apologetic arguments, and reading his signature for the first time, I’d say this one is pretty much tied up, or would that be ‘cast out’

Teulog’s signature:

“There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’ (I Tim. 1:7).” – Father Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

The discussion link: God’s perceived moral agency revealed through fMRI

+)(+

G. ….. (whatevah, whenevah…)