ydoaPs

Paul and Peter had completely different views regarding whether the Law should be follow. One based their views on what Jesus said, and the other didn't. Guess who quoted Jesus. For the confrontation Paul described see Galations 2:11-17. However, I'll type out some passages from texts you probably don't have to give you a fuller sense of their relationship. "For some among the gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations on many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the Law...But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlating continuance. For He said, 'The heavens and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law.'"-Letter of Peter to James 2:3-5 "And if our Jesus appeared to you and became known in a vision and met you as angry and an enemy, yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?...But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles, and do not contend with me, whoa m his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church."-Peter(Clementine Homilies 17:19) It is clear that Paul(even through his own writings) thinks the Law need not be followed. However, it is also clear that Jesus said the exact opposite.

Who's a deconstructionist?

Wrong Clement. The one I mentioned was the companion of Peter and the third Pope. No, I don't; That's why I asked. I provided extensive quotation of Jesus showing that Peter was correct. Peter even used one of the quotes in his letter supporting his view. Who said I disagree with the Bible or Jesus? Here is a great book about various early Christianities and the formation of the current canon.

Why this group of sacred Christian texts rather than an earlier canon? So Peter, who happened to have quoted Jesus(a quote which also appears in Matthew) was wrong? So, Jesus(who I quoted extensively earlier) was wrong about a major doctrinal point? Are you really suggesting Jesus was wrong about Christianity? That's odd to say the least.

You know the Bible isn't one text written by god, but rather an anthology of texts from several people who may or may not have had differing opinions? No, not at all. But I do trust him to write about his views. Here's you're a bit closer to the truth, because I'm not too fond of Paul. He goes directly against what Jesus taught(as in the current case). All people make mistakes. Unless you're seriously suggesting that Peter(the Rock on which Christ wanted the Church founded and whom was THERE when Jesus taught) was completely wrong about a MAJOR doctrinal point, then your point is moot. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sure. As have many groups of early Christians(including the proto-Orthodox[Clement was even a Pope]). Have you studied the history of Christianity much?

I think the spring is supposed to be negligible in this case.

Why, exactly? No, not at all. I'm including texts that were already in it before it was set. I'm including texts written by people who were there. I'm using texts in the current canon. Who said I'm picking and choosing? I'm simply treating it like any other historical source.

I don't wanna! /me hides from teh moo wrath

Are you seriously suggesting that deliberately taking things out of context helps your case? edit: It looks like a peach pit.

Except for the fact that the texts I quoted were read as scripture for centuries. Clement was a companion of Peter, so this was well before our current canon was assembled. To get a better idea of what the Bible actually is, you may wan to participate in this thread. You're also ignoring the fact that Jesus is quoted(in our canon as quoted in an above post) as explicitly teaching that the Law is to be followed until the second coming. Peter even quotes a portion of one such saying of Jesus in the section of his letter to James that I provided.

water≠sky

You need the impulse equations as well. I=Ft and I=mv.

In a recent thread, there was a comment that seemed to imply belief that the Bible has no contractions. I, however, see no reason why that would be the case. It's a collection of texts from different authors living in different places in different times; they're likely to have slightly differing beliefs on some things and they're likely to have heard slightly different versions of the stories. Many people think that the existence of contradictions means that the Bible is wrong or that it can't be trusted at all(much like the YEC's 'If you can't believe the beginning, why believe the end?'), but I also don't see any justification for that view. Not being inerrant does not imply worthlessness(unless you expect us to disregard every post you ever made). All it means is that instead of treating it like absolute truth, we should treat it like various recounting of the stories(like witnesses in a trial, but, in this case, they're not witnesses). I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I think there is much to gain in reading the gospels how they were meant to be read-as individual documents by different authors(who may or may not have differing opinions about God just as different posters here may or may not have differing opinions about God) writing to different audiences. It really makes sense; would you try to understand what one poster here thinks by what a different poster writes? Reading the Bible in this manner lets us see what each author was trying to get across rather than a muddled mish-mash of opinions trying to be forced into one coherent view. A good example is the book of Matthew. There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point. In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies. Other things about 7:14. The word 'virgin' is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes. From a Christian book(Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis): The other bit of scriptural evidence comes from Paul. It's evident that Paul didn't believe the virgin birth(and is perhaps even unaware of it in Romans). "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"-Romans 1:1-4 That is Paul quite explicitly saying that Joseph(line of David) is Jesus's biological father(made of the seed.....according to the flesh). In another of Paul's letters we see him encountering the story of the virgin birth. Unfortunately, it's not positively; Paul warns against it as irrelevant(or even dangerous) to the faith. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope; Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do]."-1 Timothy 1: 1-4 Another example is the massacre of the innocents. There is no historical record of this event outside of Matthew. Does that alone mean it didn't happen? No. Did it happen? Probably not. Does it really matter if it happened if the gospel of Matthew is midrashic? No; what matters is the meaning. Now, you might be wondering why I said it probably didn't happen. There are a few reasons: 1)Josephus goes through the trouble of a detailed chronicling the various atrocities of Herod. On the massacre, he is silent. It would be very unlikely for Josephus to leave it out. 2)By human nature(especially of the people of antiquity), numbers get exaggerated(think of the fisherman recounting the prize catch of the day and the fish gets bigger with each telling). People involved tell other people and exaggerate a little bit. They tell others and exaggerate a little bit, etc. The event would likely be recorded by someone. 3)The author of Matthew has other places that point to a tendency toward midrash. 4)The story greatly parallels that of Moses(which is a great indicator that it's likely midrashic) Now, the last point is really of interest, as it allows us to start to see why this story was added. To the author of Matthew, Jesus was a son of God, just like David(Psalm 2:7); he was the chosen one, just like Moses. As such, the author of Matthew makes several parallels between Jesus and Moses. The first one is the massacre of the innocents. The second is Jesus being brought out of Egypt afterward. We can see that the massacre of the innocents, like the virgin birth, are added to make Jesus special; to make him the chosen one. They may or may not be true, but they are clearly there for meaning, rather than history. There's just so much about the birth stories that one could write a book just about them! Matthews version: Joseph and Mary are living in Bethlehem and are engaged to be married until Joseph finds out that Mary is pregnant and wants to secretly get out of the marriage to avoid any shame. An angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary is a virgin and the baby is a miracle. Joseph then decides to marry Mary anyway. Some wise men from the east find out and ask Herod where the baby is. Herod is all sorts of pissed off that a baby 'King of the Jews' has been born because that's HIS title. So Herod tricks them to go find the baby and report back so he can go pay tribute as well. The wise men then follow a star to Joseph's house where they give baby Jesus gifts. An angel appears to the wise men warning of Herod's intentions so they go home instead of back to Herod. This REALLY ticks Herod off, so he arranges for a massacre of all the infants 2 and under in the area. Joseph is yet again tipped off my an angel in a dream, so they flee to Egypt until Herod dies. After Herod dies, Joseph meets with the Angel in another dream where he is told of Herod's death. Joseph fears that Archelaus(one of Herod's sons) might still want Jesus dead, so he moves to Nazareth instead of moving back home to Bethlehem. Luke's version: A bunch of hooplah about John the Baptist's miraculous birth(his parents were old and infertile, but God fixed that[John is 6 months older than Jesus]). An angel appears to Mary and tells her of her impending virginal pregnancy. Caesar Augustus decrees that a census of the whole Roman empire must be made. So, while Quirinius is governor of Syria for the first time, a census is made. Joseph and Mary then leave their Nazareth home to go to Bethlehem to register for the census since Joseph is of David's lineage. Mary has Jesus while they are in Bethlehem, but there is no room in the Inn, so they put Jesus in a manger(trough, for those that don't know) instead of a crib. An angel appears to some shepherds and tell them all about it, so they go to see for themselves. They stay in Bethlehem until all of Jesus's birth stuff is done, then they move back to Nazareth. Even a surface reading of this passage gives the impression that the stories are very different(the only thing that seems constant is that there is a virgin birth in Bethlehem). Looking a little deeper, we can see that the setting isn't quite the same either; Matthew has the family originally from Bethlehem while Luke has them from Nazareth. A rough familiarization with history shows the settings are even more different than that as the stories are at least 10 years apart. Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacements was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control(it was previously only a client kingdom), it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area(it wasn't a census of the entire empire nor were residents required to go to the ancestral home). This puts us in a bit of a bind, since Jesus was at least almost two BEFORE Herod dies(in 4BC). The soldiers carrying out the massacre would know the difference between a week old baby and a two year old(massacre was of all two and under). It is also assumed that the stay in Egypt lasted longer than a week or so as well unless one posits supernatural help in the death of Herod. Luke, however, has Jesus being born AFTER Quirinius comes into power in 6AD. This is a real concern since the census is a direct result of Herod's death(along with his son being a poor ruler). Now we have a discrepancy of at least 10 years. That's a pretty big hole if this is supposed to be the same story. Perhaps this is just a difference in the story each author heard, or maybe the difference was due to meaning. I happen to think that Matthew wrote his emphasizing Jesus as the saviour of the Jewish people(like Moses[see above]) and Luke wrote emphasizing the connection between Jesus and John the Baptist showing how they're messages are similar and John brought the way for Jesus.

For the confrontation Paul described see Galations 2:11-17. However, I'll type out some passages from texts you probably don't have to give you a fuller sense of their relationship. "For some among the gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations on many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the Law...But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlating continuance. For He said, 'The heavens and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law.'"-Letter of Peter to James 2:3-5 "And if our Jesus appeared to you and became known in a vision and met you as angry and an enemy, yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?...But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles, and do not contend with me, whoa m his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church."-Peter(Clementine Homilies 17:19) Perhaps. It could be that 'Luke' once again failed to get his facts straight. It could also be that, at some point, Peter changed his mind. Perhaps Peter responded like that for another reason(he's been known to lie for self preservation such as when he 'denied' Christ). Jab? It's a very reasonable explanation. Contrary to the beliefs of some groups, the Bible is not an infallible text. There are contradictions between texts, but then, why shouldn't there be? The differences between texts are just like those between any texts. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedGetting back on topic, I present more evidence for my nomination for godhood:

Really? How so? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I see no reason such a picture would be completely out of the range of human imagination at the time. They DO look a lot like meteors(especially the one on the left). Maybe. I haven't met any. Not as humans.

Let's see. The human neurological tendency to anthropomorphize leads us to the 'men in the sky' from ancient times. What else could meteors be but the men traveling? Artists then put men in meteors. Not at all out of reach of Medieval men. If there were little green men with rocket packs shooting ray guns, you might have a case. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Especially since no one has really presented a reason why it would be a UFO other than that they want it to be.

I know of NOTHING in the birth story about UFOs. Perhaps the shiny blob in the upper right is the guiding star. Even if you're right about aliens inspiring religion, THEY didn't know it was aliens, and would paint alien angels as angels rather than aliens.

Really? Large fiery rocks waited until AFTER that painting to appear in the sky? For realzies? For serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia And if it is a UFO, why is it in the painting? You should at least get 'copy image url'.

Oh? You have pieces of a UFO? It's a dark blur with highlighted edges. It could be any number of things. It could be an asteroid. It could be a representation of God(similar to that used on SMBC). I'm not an expert on Renaissance art, but I don't see any reason to suspect it's an alien craft. Grab the link to the pic(view picture) and encapsulate it in the [/img] tags.

I don't see any technology in that photo. How about you post images(using [/img] tags) that you think show technology. There's nothing, imo, on that page that is outside the realm of imagination of Medieval man.

What technology? I didn't see any in those photos(aside from chariots, etc).

Indeed. Probably used by humans as tools or discarded in trash heaps. I wonder if we've found any dragon bones. Yet non-understood lights in the sky along with a neurological tendency to anthropomorphize things isn't 'evidence available to nearly all cultures of antiquity'? What about stories and artwork all over the globe of humans interacting with dragons? It's widespread culturally, so it HAS to be true!

Dragons are in cultures all over the globe. Does that mean they're real too?

That might literally make it take forever for me to load a page at work. It already takes me several minutes to load each page. It takes a long time to post. Imagine dialup on wifi with 10 tabs open. Then halve the speed. Ugh. That's why I rarely ever post while out to sea.

How about that these creation stories aren't THAT similar and the ways in which they ARE are not very hard to imagine independantly.