[Rich]

Do you believe humans have rights?

No absolutely not. Or to be more prosaic, I absolutely believe there are no absolute human rights. Of course non absolute rights and non absolute rights rule systems are an incredibly important tool in multiple contexts. In fact rights are endemic and essential to human culture. But this is an incredibly important point that underlies perhaps the majority of our discussions. In absolute moral terms:

You have no right to kill, but you have no right not to be killed. You have no right to put someone else's life at risk to the tiniest degree. You have no right to even once in your life per another humans life at risk to the smallest fraction of a degree. But conversely a people, a tribe, a nation or a religious group have no right not to be completely exterminated. Humanity as a whole has no right to exist. You have no right to kill, eat, harm or use an animal, but animals have no rights either.

You have no right to have slaves, but no right not to be enslaved. You have no right to property, but no right to state services either.

Now this might seem like pointless philosophical nitpicking, but it is not. Its crucially important because every claim to follow or apply a system of absolute morality will always, 100% of the time be self serving (in the broadest psychological sense), inconsistent and hypocritical. All claims to be protecting absolute rights will be self serving, inconsistent and hypercritical. All claims to be punishing people for their violation of others rights will be self serving, inconsistent and hypocritical.

Note in order to break down people's hypocritical moralistic defences, I often use the language of absolute morality. So for example I will talk about the wicked genocide of Caananites by the Israelites. When I do so, I very much enjoy using the most most pompous, self righteous and sanctimonious language of the establishment. Of course I don't really think that the Caananites had any right not to be exterminated. Of course I don't really believe that Caananite mothers had any right not to watch Israelite men plunging swords in to the hearts of their babies. Of course I don't really believe that the little Caananite children had any right not to spend their last moments in terror as they ran screaming through the streets of Jericho running before the Israelite exterminators.

[Pants-of-dog]

@ingliz

Thanks for that PDF, by the way.

[Verv]

Both you and P.O.D. asked for them...

"I am curious, what other sources are out there? ...[It's n]ot a forum where you can simply make whatever unsupported claims you feel like."

Stop whining.

I did read through it and I found that it was not really sixteen pages. The margins were insanely narrow and the content was also interesting but full of assumptions that did not prove the point. However, I did learn a lot from it, so I am grateful that you posted it, and I hope that you continue to post good material like that.

But my confidence in modern academics has really fallen -- the St. Stephen stuff, of course, was great, probably because it all hinged on treatment of primary sources and the likes. But this? I felt the guy did not even try to prove his point or unpack it. When I saw that Ludemann was removed from his professor slot in theology and into historical and classical literature, I was not surprised.

James White really did not exaggerate when he said that much of these revisionist academics base their conclusions on pretty flimsy stuff. Or, perhaps, this guy is just a low tier version of them.

[Verv]

Are you choosing to ignore that some groups have been discriminated against while others have not?

Where did you get that?

(1) is based on the rights to do what one wishes with one's own property as the primary concern (positive liberty), and (2) is based on the rights for people to not be discriminated against (negative liberty, a category rejected by many thinkers).

What marriage? We are discussing why LGBTQ students should not be kicked out of Christian publicly funded schools.

(a) Marriage in general.

(b) It depends on what we are talking about concerning publicly funded. If we are talking about literally receiving $50,000 a year in direct funding, then I can see the case.

However, if we are talking about...

Parents gets $2,000 voucher from the government to send their kids to a private school, and thus the school indirectly receives government funding,

OR

The private school receives a benefit from a tax incentive that all businesses / charities are open to,

then I do not really see the case, because this does not amount to direct funding or specialized funding that would give the government a say, it amounts to the private school being a thrid party resource chosen by a private citizen, or the private school simply participating in a public program that was offered as a benefit.

The collective social position has changed. Too bad.

According to your rules and traditions that you are espousing, I can have several wives, and their consent is meaningless. Fortunately, the collective social position also now excludes most Biblical sexual mores.

If the social position has changed, then that is fine: but you cannot fault us for arguing it back. Our right to change the position or to insist that the position does not change does not vanish.

Actually we do not believe that you should have several wives: we believe in the primacy of the New Testament over the olld because of the progressive revelation of GOd's truth, and that has shaped our norms.

Actually, you do.

For example, if you live in the USA, you cannot get kicked out of your house just because you are black or white or whatever race your landlord hates.

You cannot get kicked out of your house for being Christian if your landlord hates Christians.

So yes, you do have the right to live in a house if the landlord does not want you to.

We are talking about the abstract concept of rights, not US law.

Neither of us are in America, even!

I understand that it is hard for you to discuss it, though, since you do not actually believe in rights as anything but a legal distinction, if I remember right!

Now that we have covered how you actually do have rights to housing that override the bigotry of your landlords, do you think that other people should be excluded from enjoying the same rights that you already enjoy?

(Not US law)

Do you oppose gay marriage?

I do not believe gay marriage exists.

Do you understand the difference between individual rights and rights that can only be exercised as a couple?

Yes or no?

I do not understand what "rights" are in this context.

Could you tell me what you mean by "rights?" Are we talking about transcendent, human rights?

We aren't talking about US Law, right?

You can disagree with facts. It is still a fact that gay marriage provides society with the same benefits that hetero marriage does.







This is a debate forum.

Not a forum where you can simply make whatever unsupported claims you feel like later ignoring.

Back to the debate, then:

There is no evidence that the Book of Acts was not initially written in Hebrew/Aramaic. There's no evidence that it is. I thought it would likely be the case because the audience would have included the Jerusalem church, who were the primary witnesses to all of the events. I am open also to the idea that Acts was based on what they had initially chronicled, a document that is also lost. I base this on the Jerusalem Church operating in this language and having been the focal point of much of the events of the first decades.

It's not illogical. It's simply not supported by the scant historical evidence that remains of this period.

I forget even why this is super relevant to the discussion.

Do you want to discuss it?

Or do you want to continue avoiding talking about "rights?"

[Verv]

No absolutely not. Or to be more prosaic, I absolutely believe there are no absolute human rights. Of course non absolute rights and non absolute rights rule systems are an incredibly important tool in multiple contexts. In fact rights are endemic and essential to human culture. But this is an incredibly important point that underlies perhaps the majority of our discussions. In absolute moral terms:

You have no right to kill, but you have no right not to be killed. You have no right to put someone else's life at risk to the tiniest degree. You have no right to even once in your life per another humans life at risk to the smallest fraction of a degree. But conversely a people, a tribe, a nation or a religious group have no right not to be completely exterminated. Humanity as a whole has no right to exist. You have no right to kill, eat, harm or use an animal, but animals have no rights either.

You have no right to have slaves, but no right not to be enslaved. You have no right to property, but no right to state services either.

Now this might seem like pointless philosophical nitpicking, but it is not. Its crucially important because every claim to follow or apply a system of absolute morality will always, 100% of the time be self serving (in the broadest psychological sense), inconsistent and hypocritical. All claims to be protecting absolute rights will be self serving, inconsistent and hypercritical. All claims to be punishing people for their violation of others rights will be self serving, inconsistent and hypocritical.

Note in order to break down people's hypocritical moralistic defences, I often use the language of absolute morality. So for example I will talk about the wicked genocide of Caananites by the Israelites. When I do so, I very much enjoy using the most most pompous, self righteous and sanctimonious language of the establishment. Of course I don't really think that the Caananites had any right not to be exterminated. Of course I don't really believe that Caananite mothers had any right not to watch Israelite men plunging swords in to the hearts of their babies. Of course I don't really believe that the little Caananite children had any right not to spend their last moments in terror as they ran screaming through the streets of Jericho running before the Israelite exterminators.

That's an interesting and refreshing perspective.

One that I completely disagree with, but it is very interesting. Thank you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Where did you get that?

(1) is based on the rights to do what one wishes with one's own property as the primary concern (positive liberty), and (2) is based on the rights for people to not be discriminated against (negative liberty, a category rejected by many thinkers).

So yes, you are simply looking at rights ad discrimination from a purely theoretical viewpoint and ignoring historical facts.

It is a historical fact that some groups have been oppressed often and systematically throughout western history (like Jews and LGBTQ people) while others have not been (e.g. Christians).

You can choose to ignore or deny this fact. Doing so does not strengthen your arguments.

(a) Marriage in general.

(b) It depends on what we are talking about concerning publicly funded. If we are talking about literally receiving $50,000 a year in direct funding, then I can see the case.

However, if we are talking about...

Parents gets $2,000 voucher from the government to send their kids to a private school, and thus the school indirectly receives government funding,

OR

The private school receives a benefit from a tax incentive that all businesses / charities are open to,

then I do not really see the case, because this does not amount to direct funding or specialized funding that would give the government a say, it amounts to the private school being a thrid party resource chosen by a private citizen, or the private school simply participating in a public program that was offered as a benefit.

Yes, you are once again presenting your theoretical viewpoints on theoretical situations.

Back to reality, we have LGBTQ students enrolled in (nominally) Christian schools. These schools receive public funding and are, for all intents and purposes, public schools. To argue that students should be expelled from these schools because of religious intolerance of homosexuality is discrimination.

If the social position has changed, then that is fine: but you cannot fault us for arguing it back. Our right to change the position or to insist that the position does not change does not vanish.

Actually we do not believe that you should have several wives: we believe in the primacy of the New Testament over the olld because of the progressive revelation of GOd's truth, and that has shaped our norms.

Yes, we can fault you for arguing to keep traditional sexual mores if those mores create an environment of discrimination targeted at LGBTQ people.

And no, you do not follow New Testament law either. The NT specifically and explicitly forbids divorce, yet most Christians have no trouble with that. Also, the NT does not forbid a homosexual identity or lifestyle, yet Christians oppose this.

We are talking about the abstract concept of rights, not US law.

Neither of us are in America, even!

I understand that it is hard for you to discuss it, though, since you do not actually believe in rights as anything but a legal distinction, if I remember right!

(Not US law)

So we agree that according to the laws of certain countries, you are wrong about being able to stay somewhere even if the landlord foes not want you to.

Now, if you believe that landlords should have the right to kick LGBTQ people out of their homes, you are arguing that you want these people to not enjoy the same rights as others do.

I do not believe gay marriage exists.

You can believe whatever wrong things you want.

I do not understand what "rights" are in this context.

Could you tell me what you mean by "rights?" Are we talking about transcendent, human rights?

We aren't talking about US Law, right?

Your Marital Rights

Marital rights can vary from state to state, however, most states recognize the following spousal rights:

ability to open joint bank accounts
ability to file joint federal and state tax returns
right to receive “marriage” or “family rate” on health, car and/or liability insurance
right to inherit spouse’s property upon death
right to sue for spouse’s wrongful death or loss of consortium, and
right to receive spouse’s Social Security, pension, worker’s compensation, or disability benefits.
In addition, marriage entitles you to a share of all marital property. This includes the right to any property and income accrued by your spouse during the marriage. The particular laws of your state will affect how marital property is divided between you and your spouse in the event of divorce. For example, in community property states like California, both spouses enjoy equal rights (50/50) to property acquired during the marriage. The majority of states follow an equitable division approach, meaning marital property will be divided equitably or fairly between divorcing spouses—though not necessarily equally.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/fami ... erson.html

Back to the debate, then:

There is no evidence that the Book of Acts was not initially written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Actually, there is.

For example, the author of Luke and Acts uses idiomatic Greek, or slang. Thus indicates that he was either a native speaker or incredibly fluent.

If he is the Luke mentioned in Colossians 4, (i.e. the traditional idea of who the author is) then he is also not a Jew.

The first manuscript is written in Greek.

The two books are addressed to “Theophilus”.

There is probably more evidence.

There's no evidence that it is. I thought it would likely be the case because the audience would have included the Jerusalem church, who were the primary witnesses to all of the events.

I do not think that the audience targeted was the Jerusalem church. If the JC was the “120 Christians” you refer to in Acts, then your argument would actually require time travel.

[
I am open also to the idea that Acts was based on what they had initially chronicled, a document that is also lost. I base this on the Jerusalem Church operating in this language and having been the focal point of much of the events of the first decades.

It's not illogical. It's simply not supported by the scant historical evidence that remains of this period.

I can see why you would like to believe that.

I forget even why this is super relevant to the discussion.

Do you want to discuss it?

Or do you want to continue avoiding talking about "rights?"

I find that asking me what “rights” means and what I support and if I want to discuss it, instead of simply addressing my points, is a way of avoiding a discussion on rights.

[Verv]

So yes, you are simply looking at rights ad discrimination from a purely theoretical viewpoint and ignoring historical facts.

It is a historical fact that some groups have been oppressed often and systematically throughout western history (like Jews and LGBTQ people) while others have not been (e.g. Christians).

You can choose to ignore or deny this fact. Doing so does not strengthen your arguments.

I do not support the oppression of any group. Why would I defend this act?

Yes, you are once again presenting your theoretical viewpoints on theoretical situations.

Back to reality, we have LGBTQ students enrolled in (nominally) Christian schools. These schools receive public funding and are, for all intents and purposes, public schools. To argue that students should be expelled from these schools because of religious intolerance of homosexuality is discrimination.

Oh, would you like to give me an example? I am unfamiliar with these instances.

Yes, we can fault you for arguing to keep traditional sexual mores if those mores create an environment of discrimination targeted at LGBTQ people.

And no, you do not follow New Testament law either. The NT specifically and explicitly forbids divorce, yet most Christians have no trouble with that. Also, the NT does not forbid a homosexual identity or lifestyle, yet Christians oppose this.

It says that one can divorce due to marital infidelity, actually. You are completely wrong.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:9

So we agree that according to the laws of certain countries, you are wrong about being able to stay somewhere even if the landlord foes not want you to.

Now, if you believe that landlords should have the right to kick LGBTQ people out of their homes, you are arguing that you want these people to not enjoy the same rights as others do.

In system (1), the landlord can evict anyone for any reason. There is no special distinction or protection for LGBTQ people, or for anyone.

In system (2), we would all be protected.

Either system makes sense.

Your Marital Rights

Marital rights can vary from state to state, however, most states recognize the following spousal rights:

ability to open joint bank accounts
ability to file joint federal and state tax returns
right to receive “marriage” or “family rate” on health, car and/or liability insurance
right to inherit spouse’s property upon death
right to sue for spouse’s wrongful death or loss of consortium, and
right to receive spouse’s Social Security, pension, worker’s compensation, or disability benefits.
In addition, marriage entitles you to a share of all marital property. This includes the right to any property and income accrued by your spouse during the marriage. The particular laws of your state will affect how marital property is divided between you and your spouse in the event of divorce. For example, in community property states like California, both spouses enjoy equal rights (50/50) to property acquired during the marriage. The majority of states follow an equitable division approach, meaning marital property will be divided equitably or fairly between divorcing spouses—though not necessarily equally.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/fami ... erson.html

These are in relations to financial benefits that I believe should have means to be solved outisde of marriage throgh other legal agreements.

Actually, there is.

For example, the author of Luke and Acts uses idiomatic Greek, or slang. Thus indicates that he was either a native speaker or incredibly fluent.

If he is the Luke mentioned in Colossians 4, (i.e. the traditional idea of who the author is) then he is also not a Jew.

The first manuscript is written in Greek.

The two books are addressed to “Theophilus”.

There is probably more evidence.

In Colossians 4, the Apostle Paul closes his letter by listing the various people who are with him as he writes the epistle, and some of those who are addressed. In these lists Paul makes mention of some who are of “the circumcision” (Col. 4:10-11), and are, therefore, Jews. Although it is not perfectly clear which men are referred to, they are presumably the previous three: Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus called Justus. Paul apparently does not include Tychicus and Onesimus, mentioned before in verses 7-9, as being in the circumcision group.

Later in this same chapter, in verse 14, Paul refers to Luke, the beloved physician. The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.

...

Another argument for the idea that Luke was a Jew is that he showed such an intimate knowledge of the Temple, more than any other of the Gospel writers. When he described the announcement to Zacharias concerning the birth of John the Baptist, Luke went into considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the Levitical priests for service according to their families. He further described the position of the priest before the altar of incense, where the angel appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:8-20).

...

Yet another argument is the striking intimacy that Luke had with the mother of Jesus, Mary. He relates the story of the birth of Jesus primarily from Mary’s point of view, and then said that she hid these things “in her heart” (Luke 2:19, 51). How did Luke, of all the Gospel writers, get so close to Mary that he was able to find out what she had hid in her heart? As close-knit as the Jerusalem church was, and as difficult as it must have been for Gentiles to have gotten to the “inner circle” of the apostolic leadership, it seems highly unlikely that Luke could have gotten that close to Mary if he were a Gentile.

Actually, it appears that Luke might have served Mary for a time as her personal physician. This is speculation, but how else could he have had such a close relationship with her, so that he could draw from her the details she had hid in her heart, and had discussed with few others? Luke would have had the opportunity to consult with Mary on the occasions when Paul made his reporting trips to Jerusalem, and especially while Paul was in prison in Caesarea for two years. Such access to the Jerusalem inner circle of believers would have been quite understandable if Luke were a Jew, but would have been most unlikely if he were a Gentile.

Dr. Woodhead

I do not think that the audience targeted was the Jerusalem church. If the JC was the “120 Christians” you refer to in Acts, then your argument would actually require time travel.

Why not?

I find that asking me what “rights” means and what I support and if I want to discuss it, instead of simply addressing my points, is a way of avoiding a discussion on rights.

So, now that we reached the end of this exchange, do you want to explain to us more about what you think about "rights?"

You've been talking about them, after all.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not support the oppression of any group. Why would I defend this act?

I am not discussing what you would or would not defend. That is your business.

I was pointing out that your analysis of rights ignores historical facts.

Oh, would you like to give me an example? I am unfamiliar with these instances.

You can look it up if you want.

Anyway, that is how LGBTQ can and are discriminated against by Christians.

It says that one can divorce due to marital infidelity, actually. You are completely wrong.

No.

That does not contradict my claim at all.

Again, if a woman commits sexual immorality back in those days, she would be killed. He would then no longer be married to her.

In system (1), the landlord can evict anyone for any reason. There is no special distinction or protection for LGBTQ people, or for anyone.

In system (2), we would all be protected.

Either system makes sense.

I am not discussing your imaginary situations. I am discussing what actually happens in real life.

These are in relations to financial benefits that I believe should have means to be solved outisde of marriage throgh other legal agreements.

Sure.

Anyway, these are some of the rights that Christians want gay people to not have when they want to ban gay marriage.

Later in this same chapter, in verse 14, Paul refers to Luke, the beloved physician. The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.

The person you are quoting is inserting his own words. Paul never says that he is only discussing the Jewish workers involved in preaching. Paul just talks about “fellow workers”.

Another argument for the idea that Luke was a Jew is that he showed such an intimate knowledge of the Temple, more than any other of the Gospel writers. When he described the announcement to Zacharias concerning the birth of John the Baptist, Luke went into considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the Levitical priests for service according to their families. He further described the position of the priest before the altar of incense, where the angel appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:8-20).

This fervor with detail could also suggest he was a recent convert.

Yet another argument is the striking intimacy that Luke had with the mother of Jesus, Mary. He relates the story of the birth of Jesus primarily from Mary’s point of view, and then said that she hid these things “in her heart” (Luke 2:19, 51). How did Luke, of all the Gospel writers, get so close to Mary that he was able to find out what she had hid in her heart? As close-knit as the Jerusalem church was, and as difficult as it must have been for Gentiles to have gotten to the “inner circle” of the apostolic leadership, it seems highly unlikely that Luke could have gotten that close to Mary if he were a Gentile.

Actually, it appears that Luke might have served Mary for a time as her personal physician. This is speculation, but how else could he have had such a close relationship with her, so that he could draw from her the details she had hid in her heart, and had discussed with few others? Luke would have had the opportunity to consult with Mary on the occasions when Paul made his reporting trips to Jerusalem, and especially while Paul was in prison in Caesarea for two years. Such access to the Jerusalem inner circle of believers would have been quite understandable if Luke were a Jew, but would have been most unlikely if he were a Gentile.

If Luke was Mary’s physician (or even close to her) , then he would have been about 75 years old when he wrote Acts and Luke. This is extremely unlikely since even the healthiest people at the time lived until 55 or 60.

Why not?

Because he was writing for a Roman and Gentile audience.

So, now that we reached the end of this exchange, do you want to explain to us more about what you think about "rights?"

You've been talking about them, after all.

I am using the standard definition.

[ingliz]

Ludemann was removed from his professor slot in theology

Wrong.

He is still a professor of theology appointed by the state and the university confirmed his membership in the theological faculty.

into historical and classical literature

Wrong.

It was renamed a chair in "History and Literature of Early Christianity."

The history of exegesis is the history of readers interpreting different forms of the text, since throughout this history, virtually no one read the NT in its original form. Thus it is important for the historian of Christianity to know which form of the text was available to Christians in different times and places.

B. D. Ehrman The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity in: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research.

modern academics

The question you should be asking (and are studiously avoiding) is do the theological faculties of German state universities serve only the church, or do they also serve the broader needs of a pluralistic culture? Surely, the role of a theology faculty in a university is to research and inform, not reveal and preach.

James White

The Calvinist with the fake doctorate?

perhaps, this guy is just a low tier version of them.

He is a scholar of international renown. His monographs on Simon Magus 1, the chronology of Paul 2, and anti-Paulinism 3 in early Christianity, and a commentary on the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles 4, are evidence of this and have brought him international recognition.

1. Gerd Lüdemann, Untersuchungen zur simonianischen Gnosis, GTA 1, 1975; cf. id., The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis, New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 420-26; id. (with Martina Janssen), Suppressed Prayers. Gnostic Spirituality in Early Christianity.

2. Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, Studies in Chronology.

3. Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paui in Jewish Christianity.

4. Gerd Lüdemann, EarIy Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts. A Commentary.

[Verv]

Wrong.

He is still a professor of theology appointed by the state and the university confirmed his membership in the theological faculty.

I misremembered it from when I read it two days ago.

Although the call for his dismissal was rejected by the state government of Lower Saxony, the members of the faculty, under pressure from the Church, complained to the University President that Professor Lüdemann had "fundamentally put in question the intrinsic soundness of Protestant theology at the University". As a result, a search for a new Chair of New Testament Studies was instituted, and Lüdemann was "assigned to the field of 'History and Literature of Early Christianity'." [2] His research funding was cut. All his courses were thereafter "explicitly identified as 'outside of the programs of study required for the training of future ministers of the Church'." [2] Lüdemann complained that 'most of my colleagues have long since left the principles of the Church behind them yet still seek to attach themselves to this tradition by symbolic interpretation and by other interpretative skills'.[1]

Wikipedia

Regardless, the guy lost his existing position and was shuffled, put into classes that are no longer even required for graduation.

Wrong.

It was renamed a chair in "History and Literature of Early Christianity."

Because they did not want to even have him as a requisite professor to endure for teaching New Testament material.

And, judging by the paper you shared, not a bad move.

The history of exegesis is the history of readers interpreting different forms of the text, since throughout this history, virtually no one read the NT in its original form. Thus it is important for the historian of Christianity to know which form of the text was available to Christians in different times and places.

B. D. Ehrman The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity in: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research.


The question you should be asking (and are studiously avoiding) is do the theological faculties of German state universities serve only the church, or do they also serve the broader needs of a pluralistic culture? Surely, the role of a theology faculty in a university is to research and inform, not reveal and preach.

I do not believe that theology serve any purpose other than the Church or the theological field more broadly, and any such value as a pluralistic society is somehting I am absolutely disinterested in.

The world has become a much smaller place -- the Internet is my pluralistic society. I don't need the Uni Marxists pushing out conservative scholars in the name of making theology departments resemble Reddit more.

The Calvinist with the fake doctorate?

Oh, do you listen to his stuff, too?

I do not think his doctorate is fake, but I am aware of the claim, and, moreover, I am aware of the freakshow going on at once prestigious theological seminaries like the Union Theological Seminary.

I listen to James White because I enjoy his delivery and analysis, and it is a peak into Protestantism today for me.

He is a scholar of international renown. His monographs on Simon Magus 1, the chronology of Paul 2, and anti-Paulinism 3 in early Christianity, and a commentary on the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles 4, are evidence of this and have brought him international recognition.

1. Gerd Lüdemann, Untersuchungen zur simonianischen Gnosis, GTA 1, 1975; cf. id., The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis, New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 420-26; id. (with Martina Janssen), Suppressed Prayers. Gnostic Spirituality in Early Christianity.

2. Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, Studies in Chronology.

3. Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paui in Jewish Christianity.

4. Gerd Lüdemann, EarIy Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts. A Commentary.

Then why did you post such a weak paper?

I will gladly read more of him as the opportunities present themselves because it is important to be familiar with this stuff.

And, just as James White said, a familiarity with what these people are saying reveals just how speculative and unfounded so much of it is.

[Verv]

POD, this has been our most productive exchange, probably ever, but I am going to start cutting things out and maybe only guarantee you another response or two. I am getting more busy with other projects and this has taken up too much time. I also feel we have drifted considerably from the original topic, and I would like to interact with other content more.

Barring some interesting new lines that breath new life into this, I'll probably be finished here soon.

Thanks for your fun posts!

Again, if a woman commits sexual immorality back in those days, she would be killed. He would then no longer be married to her.

... Do you think Christians believe in stoning adulteresses?

I am not discussing your imaginary situations. I am discussing what actually happens in real life.

So your argument would be something like let's only discuss US law and invoke US precedents because this is a framework in which I have an upper hand.

My ideal society is not the US. The last time I lived in the US, George W. Bush was President and gays couldn't marry.

If Luke was Mary’s physician (or even close to her) , then he would have been about 75 years old when he wrote Acts and Luke. This is extremely unlikely since even the healthiest people at the time lived until 55 or 60.

We traditionally believe that the Dormition of the Theotokos was in the year 41 (Wikipedia).

St. Luke dies in the year 84.

There's plenty of time for all of these things to happen.

I am using the standard definition.

Which is what?

I do not think there is a standard definition for this at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

POD, this has been our most productive exchange, probably ever, but I am going to start cutting things out and maybe only guarantee you another response or two. I am getting more busy with other projects and this has taken up too much time. I also feel we have drifted considerably from the original topic, and I would like to interact with other content more.

Barring some interesting new lines that breath new life into this, I'll probably be finished here soon.

Thanks for your fun posts!



... Do you think Christians believe in stoning adulteresses?

I think that this was the social position at the time that Jesus preached and the NT was written.

So your argument would be something like let's only discuss US law and invoke US precedents because this is a framework in which I have an upper hand.

My ideal society is not the US. The last time I lived in the US, George W. Bush was President and gays couldn't marry.

Would you like to discuss South Korea, then?

Does the average South Korean have the right to serve in the military, provided he or she passes all the required tests, training, et cetera?

We traditionally believe that the Dormition of the Theotokos was in the year 41 (Wikipedia).

St. Luke dies in the year 84.

There's plenty of time for all of these things to happen.

Yes, and he would have to have been 75 or so when he wrote the books and then died right after. Possible, but not likely.

Which is what?

I do not think there is a standard definition for this at all.

I am going to simply copy and paste the first few paragraphs of the Wiki article on civil rights.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_a ... cal_rights

[ingliz]

I do not believe that theology serve any purpose other than the Church

Serving the Church...

Even you must see that presenting a historical truth did not serve the Church - The historical Jesus was much too mortal, too much the Jew, to appeal to the gentiles.

theology

The four gospels are also theology in narrative form. If one reads them with a critical eye, it is clear that their divergences do not stem from the random vagaries of memory and recall but from the coherent and consistent theologies of the individual texts (Crossan). Furthermore, the four gospels do not represent all the early gospels available nor even a random sample within them but are instead a calculated collection of texts theologically acceptable to the Church (as is all the NT).

Thinking to find in them or Christian apologetics anything more than a mythical Jesus that serves the needs of the Church is foolishness.

Example: The honourable burial

There would be no rock hewn tomb empty or not for the women to visit, only an unmarked grave, if Jesus had been crucified.

In Jewish law there is no precedent for a crucified criminal being given anything like honour in death. The Jews considered the crucified cursed by God (Deut. 21:22-23). He would have been drugged to make him insensible to pain (Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xiii. 2; Sanh. 43a) before being stoned (Mishnah Sanh. iii. 4; Sifre, iii. 221) and the corpse suspended on a specially made gallows (Sanhedrin vi. 4) for a day before being buried in ground well away from the righteous, hands bound, the 'cross' buried with his body (Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xv. 9).

Under Roman law?

The Romans are no help either. The lex Puteolana (at II.13) states that the Romans had burial pits reserved for criminals and others buried without honour. Worse, the Roman historians Tactitus and Livy both note that the crucified, criminals convicted of the highest crimes, were barred from being buried. The bodies being kept suspended on the gallows and guarded until the carrion eaters had done there worst, the left overs thrown into a ditch.

The idea he had an 'honourable burial', though a theological necessity, is a very silly.

[Verv]

Serving the Church...

Even you must see that presenting a historical truth did not serve the Church - The historical Jesus was much too mortal, too much the Jew, to appeal to the gentiles.

Haha, no, I do not actually see that at all. Your arguments are unpersuasive and you have failed to prove your point at all.

It only makes sense with the assumption that there was some secret effort to expand Christ's ministry to non-Jews, but that was never the case, and the historical prophecies attest to this being a vision for the future.

The four gospels are also theology in narrative form. If one reads them with a critical eye, it is clear that their divergences do not stem from the random vagaries of memory and recall but from the coherent and consistent theologies of the individual texts (Crossan). Furthermore, the four gospels do not represent all the early gospels available nor even a random sample within them but are instead a calculated collection of texts theologically acceptable to the Church (as is all the NT).

What are the other gospels that are available that should have been included?

This sounds liek quite the conspiracy.

Thinking to find in them or Christian apologetics anything more than a mythical Jesus that serves the needs of the Church is foolishness.

Example: The honourable burial

There would be no rock hewn tomb empty or not for the women to visit, only an unmarked grave, if Jesus had been crucified.

In Jewish law there is no precedent for a crucified criminal being given anything like honour in death. The Jews considered the crucified cursed by God (Deut. 21:22-23). He would have been drugged to make him insensible to pain (Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xiii. 2; Sanh. 43a) before being stoned (Mishnah Sanh. iii. 4; Sifre, iii. 221) and the corpse suspended on a specially made gallows (Sanhedrin vi. 4) for a day before being buried in ground well away from the righteous, hands bound, the 'cross' buried with his body (Maimonides, "Yad," Sanh. xv. 9)

Under Roman law?

The Romans are no help either. The lex Puteolana (at II.13) states that the Romans had burial pits reserved for criminals and others buried without honour. Worse, the Roman historians Tactitus and Livy both note that the crucified, criminals convicted of the highest crimes, were barred from being buried. The bodies being kept suspended on the gallows and guarded until the carrion eaters had done there worst, the left overs thrown into a ditch.

The idea he had an 'honourable burial', though a theological necessity, is a very silly.

Of course there is no precedent for that -- no one would ever dispute that. You are coming up with some point you believe is controversial, as if Christianity is advancing that it is tradition to have honorable burials for criminals, but in John 19 it is explained.

But, I guess, this all has to be invalid because we are to assume that the Jews & the Romans in every single instance saw to the very end every corpse and were incorruptible in how the handling of corpses, as you know people traditionally are.

[Verv]

Would you like to discuss South Korea, then?

Does the average South Korean have the right to serve in the military, provided he or she passes all the required tests, training, et cetera?

I have not heard of it described as a right.

I also believe that, previously, Koreans of mixed race were not called upon to serve in the military, and may have even been barred. I am also aware that, until recently, tattoo'd people were barred from service.

I am going to simply copy and paste the first few paragraphs of the Wiki article on civil rights.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_a ... cal_rights

What's the basis of this? It's some sort of legal theory?

Or, are humans entitled to these rights on some more primal basis?

[ingliz]

there was some secret effort to expand Christ's ministry to non-Jews

Not so secret - The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

?

List of Gospels

[Pants-of-dog]

I have not heard of it described as a right.

I also believe that, previously, Koreans of mixed race were not called upon to serve in the military, and may have even been barred. I am also aware that, until recently, tattoo'd people were barred from service.

So yes, straight people can serve in the military.

Since LGBTQ people cannot, this is discrimination.

What's the basis of this? It's some sort of legal theory?

Or, are humans entitled to these rights on some more primal basis?

Neither.

Rights come about because of historical events, and because people fought for them because of said events.

[Verv]

Not so secret - The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

... I thought you said that this was likely fabricated? This is the conspiracy, right? The actual Christ, according to you, is just a Jewish rabbi with opinions specific to Jewish issues..?

Or did I mistake your position?

List of Gospels

When I bring it up, I am curious if you can make an actual case that there is a legitimate Gospel that you can make a case for as having been wrongfully excluded.

I was not actually interested in an unfiltered list largely comprised of things that people do not consider to be anywhere near to legitimate within the Christian tradition.

[Verv]

So yes, straight people can serve in the military.

Since LGBTQ people cannot, this is discrimination.

It's not seen as a right; it's seen as a mandatory duty, and those who make a career of the military are not that common.

Neither.

Rights come about because of historical events, and because people fought for them because of said events.

So, if rights are a legal construct that comes form historical events and because "people fought for them," how would anyone be "oppressed" for not having them?

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not seen as a right; it's seen as a mandatory duty, and those who make a career of the military are not that common.

It is still discrimination no matter how people see it.

So, if rights are a legal construct that comes form historical events and because "people fought for them," how would anyone be "oppressed" for not having them?

Because they can not enjoy the same rights that other people can. Rights come from historical struggles where people who do not enjoy these opportunities fight and make sure that society gives them that respect.