Patron Saint Joseph of Home Sales

[darinhouston]

This line of argumentation is hardly sustainable. Christians believe plenty of things that seem nonsensical to other persons, believing that with G-d such things are possible. Just because it stretches your credulity to imagine these fantastic things taking place does not mean that they cannot transpire. Sheer reasonability does not enter in here as a decisive factor.

Say what? Don't the scriptures count for anything? Where do we see anyone, anywhere, in any book praying to dead people?

I ahve to agree with RND -- there's nothing you would be able to disprove or prove with that approach.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In which of Jesus' other parables does he make use of falsehoods about the universe?

RND wrote:
Who's falsehoods, the Pharisees perhaps, that had adopted the Hellenistic duality of man?

Whomever's. In which of his other parables does he paint a story in terms that do not match up with the actual universe?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Context is why I retained the "a" instead of supplying a "the," as the consonantal text would allow grammatically.

RND wrote:
Either would be proper and neither takes away from the fact that "son of man" refers to "mortal man."

Really? Even in Acts 7:56?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
This line of argumentation is hardly sustainable. Christians believe plenty of things that seem nonsensical to other persons, believing that with G-d such things are possible. Just because it stretches your credulity to imagine these fantastic things taking place does not mean that they cannot transpire. Sheer reasonability does not enter in here as a decisive factor.

RND wrote:
Say what? Don't the scriptures count for anything? Where do we see anyone, anywhere, in any book praying to dead people?

(a) How does your comment here relate to mine?

(b) Different "scriptures" count for different things, and none count for everything.

(c) See my response to darinhouston above.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob weren't buried?

darinhouston wrote:
I suspect you know what I meant -- it refers to the fact that they were alive at one time and not that they were alive after their burial.

You might want to check the context of Jesus' comment again. It is not about the patriarchs having been alive at one time.

darinhouston wrote:
I ahve to agree with RND -- there's nothing you would be able to disprove or prove with that approach.

My point is: having accepted the possibility of the miraculous, you cannot disprove something from a naturalistic perspective. Just because you cannot hear a prayer request from Texas by natural means does not mean that you cannot do so by supernatural means.

[Michelle]

Whomever's. In which of his other parables does he paint a story in terms that do not match up with the actual universe?

Well, mustard seeds don't grow into trees.

And, although I guess it's not strictly a parable, no one in his right mind would have a mountain go skating off into the sea since the path of destruction would be tremendous.

[kaufmannphillips]

Whomever's. In which of his other parables does he paint a story in terms that do not match up with the actual universe?

Well, mustard seeds don't grow into trees.

And, although I guess it's not strictly a parable, no one in his right mind would have a mountain go skating off into the sea since the path of destruction would be tremendous.

Hi, Michelle,

Thank you for your point here.

Your mustard seed reference may be rhetorical hyperbole, or it may be that the semantic range of dendron ("tree") is different from our own. I found a reference in Liddell-Scott to dendron being used for rattan, but not having access to the text itself by Theophrastus, I can't vet that. For the mustard plant itself, Danker indicates that "The precise species cannot be determined, and some may grow to a height of three or more meters." A nine-foot tall plant might fall into the semantic range of dendron; it is easy to see how it would fit into its hyperbolic range. We may have relevant evidence in Herodotus, referring to sesame and millet in the land of Babylonia growing as big as some giant dendron.

This kind of rhetorical hyperbole is perhaps on a different order than constructing an afterlife that doesn't exist.

[RND]

Whomever's. In which of his other parables does he paint a story in terms that do not match up with the actual universe?

If the answer is none would it diminish the point made in Luke 16:19-31 regarding the Pharisees adultery towards the scriptures?

Really? Even in Acts 7:56?

I thought we were referencing Psalms 146. Should I rephrase?

RND wrote:
Say what? Don't the scriptures count for anything? Where do we see anyone, anywhere, in any book praying to dead people?

(a) How does your comment here relate to mine?[/quote]

Well, you seem to be making an argument that what Christians believe is subject to what others may see as nonsensical. That view can't be supported by scripture. You then question the clarity of the scripture by saying, "well, it could happen." Ever watch Wayne's World? "When monkey's......" The scriptures are never wrong and make a reliable source to answer the fantasy of other doctrines. Catholic or otherwise. Hence my question.

(b) Different "scriptures" count for different things, and none count for everything.

Sure, no doubt. That's why context is everything. Hence my question.

(c) See my response to darinhouston above.

This one?

My point is: having accepted the possibility of the miraculous, you cannot disprove something from a naturalistic perspective.

Say what? There's miraculous and then there is fantasy.

Just because you cannot hear a prayer request from Texas by natural means does not mean that you cannot do so by supernatural means.

Would a cell phone count? 25 years ago that would have been considered "supernatural." Now? Hey, as long as the bills paid. But in all honesty it's not for my benefit to hear another's prayer, it's for the benefit of the prayer maker and the God that hears the prayer, without the distraction of dictation from dead "saints."

[Michelle]

Whomever's. In which of his other parables does he paint a story in terms that do not match up with the actual universe?

Well, mustard seeds don't grow into trees.

And, although I guess it's not strictly a parable, no one in his right mind would have a mountain go skating off into the sea since the path of destruction would be tremendous.

Hi, Michelle,

Thank you for your point here.

Your mustard seed reference may be rhetorical hyperbole, or it may be that the semantic range of dendron ("tree") is different from our own. I found a reference in Liddell-Scott to dendron being used for rattan, but not having access to the text itself by Theophrastus, I can't vet that. For the mustard plant itself, Danker indicates that "The precise species cannot be determined, and some may grow to a height of three or more meters." A nine-foot tall plant might fall into the semantic range of dendron; it is easy to see how it would fit into its hyperbolic range. We may have relevant evidence in Herodotus, referring to sesame and millet in the land of Babylonia growing as big as some giant dendron.

This kind of rhetorical hyperbole is perhaps on a different order than constructing an afterlife that doesn't exist.

Perhaps Jesus used the full arsenal of rhetorical devices to make his points, and we should be more concerned about getting those points than creating doctrines from the incidental details which were just a means to arrive there?

[darinhouston]

You might want to check the context of Jesus' comment again. It is not about the patriarchs having been alive at one time.

You're quite right there -- clearly, I wasn't thinking. However, after now re-reading, I recall that it is still taken out of context by the Roman Catholic. The passage is dealing with the reality of the resurrection, which was rejected by the Sadducees.

I believe the bible is clear that until the dead are resurrected at the last trumpet, they will remain in the grave, corrupt and decayed. Only then will they put on incorruption and immortality.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Whomever's. In which of his other parables does he paint a story in terms that do not match up with the actual universe?

RND wrote:
If the answer is none would it diminish the point made in Luke 16:19-31 regarding the Pharisees adultery towards the scriptures?

The major theme in Luke 16 is the Pharisees' materialism and their scoffing. Your point about their "adultery" toward the scriptures is creative, but overwrought. Verses 16-18 may be seen as addressing the content of Pharisaic scoffing, which is otherwise unspecified in this chapter.

Jesus may have been utilizing a popular myth as a rhetorical device, for discussion of which please see my forthcoming response to Michelle below. But it is also possible that this is a more or less secondary item that was glommed on to Jesus in the process of oral tradition.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Really? Even in Acts 7:56?

RND wrote:
I thought we were referencing Psalms 146. Should I rephrase?

If "son of man" is understood as referencing an immortal being in Acts 7, then barring an ironic use, there is not a universal sense of mortality attached to the phrase. But of course, the phrase is a common circumlocution for "human being" in biblical literature. On one hand, the phrase can connote some humbleness; on another hand, it is a serviceable device within the poetic forms of Hebrew parallelism. But there is no reason to construe it as a marker of mortality in particular. Generally speaking, an immortal human would still be a "son of man" - derivative in their existence.

RND wrote:
Well, you seem to be making an argument that what Christians believe is subject to what others may see as nonsensical. That view can't be supported by scripture. You then question the clarity of the scripture by saying, "well, it could happen." Ever watch Wayne's World? "When monkey's......" The scriptures are never wrong and make a reliable source to answer the fantasy of other doctrines. Catholic or otherwise. Hence my question.

This is where it would be worthwhile to read the comment that I was responding to. darinhouston was not arguing from scripture, but from reasonable sensibility: Even if they were in the next room from me, they couldn't hear my prayers unless I shouted. Even if my prayer could cross the "great divide" and they could hear it, that doesn't explain how they hear everyone's at the same time. Christians cannot argue from reasonable sensibility in such a fashion, when they believe that the miraculous can overcome obstacles set by reasonable sensibility.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(c) See my response to darinhouston above.

RND wrote:
This one?

This one, maybe:

darinhouston wrote:
The fact that they may continue to be "related" to us doesn't say anything about them being alive or conscious or able to hear our prayers. That's just fabricated out of whole cloth. If they could exegete SOMETHING -- ANYTHING other than conjecture I could respect their view -- I respect a lot of views I differ on -- this is one that just can't be taught from Scripture.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church, of course, does not feel constrained to prove all of its dogmas from scripture.

[kaufmannphillips]

Michelle wrote:
Perhaps Jesus used the full arsenal of rhetorical devices to make his points, and we should be more concerned about getting those points than creating doctrines from the incidental details which were just a means to arrive there?

It is possible that Jesus used a rhetorical device here, though I will mention the possibility that this is a secondary layer from oral tradition, and that Jesus may not be directly responsible for this story. But if Jesus were directly responsible, Luke does not provide the full context of the story's delivery. Did Jesus make other comments to his disciples, near that time or at other times, that would have made it clear to them that this was merely a device? Or did he tell the story in a tone that played up its fanciful nature? Without such context, we may find it challenging to distinguish or demonstrate the difference between trustworthy material and "incidental details which were just a means" and are not to be clung to. (This is where I direct to the mystical dimension of proper interpretation, without which our minds may be stranded or may wander astray.)

Alternately, did Jesus himself buy into the premise of the story? As a Jew in the Second Temple period, it is not inconceivable that he may have held some inaccurate ideas that were a part of his milieu. Did Jesus think the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa?

And alternately, did Jesus buy into the story because it was basically accurate?