InesQor:

Of course he is an authority as long as his work is being accepted in that field.

K, cool!


#Nice arguments by the way from everyone!

InesQor:
No. MOST (if not ALL) of the NT books were written by respected scholars. Point at one that wasn't. Unlearned men like Peter traditionally used ghostwriting services of learned Jewish scholars.

No? What are you saying here? That the disciples were not authourities in Christian Teaching? Because i did ask if they became authourities on OT teaching (which Christians accept them as) and I did not say a word about what they wrote or if they wrote it or how.

And as I explained to Mazaje, reference is INDEED had to the Jewish understanding. The differences, if any, are in Rabbinical personal interpretations. EVEN among the Rabbis, they do not agree on these interpretations and differences. Each one has their own school of thought, so in fact there may be more division among them THAN between Judaism and Christianity.

No two people agree on everything, so this is a non-issue, otherwise then we will say that each man is an authourity for himself as far as these teachings are concerned, and that sleight of hand will end the discussion for everyone.

The point is about what and who can be considered authouritative in matters of the scripture of a given people and faith. We are at a conscensus that it is the said people of that faith that will form that which is authourity and assert that which is authouritative. The problem remains that Christianity leans on the scripture of Judaism and Islam leans on the scripture of both.

You said yourself and I quote your very words: "How can there be an authoritative Christian understanding of a Muslim religious text?"

Those were your words, not mine, and they seal the discussion.

There is a difference. Muslims have accepted Mohammed's authority AND AS SUCH accepted the Quran's authority. Mohammed had a personal understanding of a Christian religious text; and this version ONLY becomes an authority to them BECAUSE Muslims have accepted HIS authority.
Can you not see the difference?

Going by this rule, anybody anywhere can become an authourity on any other person's teaching, so long as he has a following, no?

InesQor:

I am an engineer. Say I randomly happen on some medical breakthrough, no matter the origin or procedure I used, if it is not accepted in the medical world then I cannot be considered a medical authority worth listening to.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot Inesqor. Look at the above. It is a perfect case.

Going by the above, only such as is accepted in the Jewish world, will constitute authority for Judaic Texts! - Just as you indicated that if your writing is not accepted in the medical world, it cannot constitute authority in medical matters!

mazaje: Whose view of the old testament should be considered authoritative, that of the christians or jew? I say this because the two religions have very different views of the old testament.For example, the jews see the garden of eden story as man’s elevation to a moral sense and awareness, while christians on the other hand see the eden story as the fall of man. Jews do not recognize and believe the original sin hypothesis while christians do and that is a great difference since both of them read from the same book.

I notice that jews do not completely regard the whole old testament as historical, they have no problem stating that some of the stories are allegories and not historical, but christians don't usually share that view. . .

Whose interpretation should be authoritative and hold precedence? That of the jews or Christians?

these are mere issues underlying the difference. The main issue that differentiate the Christians from the Jews belief order is the messianic fullfilment by Jesus of the Tora. While authorities in the Jewish belief system flatly denies anyone like Jesus ever existed let alone be the messiah the Tora talked about, many hold the views that he may have existed but not as A god in human skin. Neither was he the expected Messiah as Jesus does not meat any of the requirements of the messiah.
-the messiah must be a jew by dafault of the father's side, the Jewish system does not recognize matriachal geneology.
-he had to be from the davidic order, a royalty, a king that will rule isreal and establish a great kingdom strong enough to conquer Rome. Jesus was not a king, just a jobless religious fanatic going about with a handful of largely illiterate men with no work to do.
- the prophetic messiah of the jewish tora is to be born by like any other child, no divine conception whatso ever.
-finally hom getting killed was not part of the prophesies the messiah was to fulfil.

@ Deep Sight:
First, find and replace authourity with authority. At first I thought it was a typo but that has been your consistent spelling on this thread

Deep Sight:
No two people agree on everything, so this is a non-issue, otherwise then we will say that each man is an authourity for himself as far as these teachings are concerned, and that sleight of hand will end the discussion for everyone.

Of course. Which is why I am saying the topic is a non-issue.

Deep Sight:
The point is about what and who can be considered authouritative in matters of the scripture of a given people and faith. We are at a conscensus that it is the said people of that faith that will form that which is authourity and assert that which is authouritative. The problem remains that Christianity leans on the scripture of Judaism and Islam leans on the scripture of both.

You said yourself and I quote your very words: "How can there be an authoritative Christian understanding of a Muslim religious text?"

Those were your words, not mine, and they seal the discussion.

Nah men. Islam came after Christianity, so if Mohammed had an understanding of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, his personal authority to Muslims will be conferred on his followers. Any Christian like me can look into the preceding Islam and derive my own scriptures. I would then be an authority unto myself and whoever decides to follow me.

Deep Sight:
Going by this rule, anybody anywhere can become an authourity on any other person's teaching, so long as he has a following, no?

Ah now he gets it! The acceptance (by a following or the other) is what confers authority explicitly within the scope of those accepting it.

Deep Sight:

You keep shooting yourself in the foot Inesqor. Look at the above. It is a perfect case.

Going by the above, only such as is accepted in the Jewish world, will constitute authority for Judaic Texts! - Just as you indicated that if your writing is not accepted in the medical world, it cannot constitute authority in medical matters!

Wow. For real?

Of course what is accepted in the Jewish world is authority for... JEWS who accept it!
Just as medical research is authoritative to those in the medical field who accept it!
And Christian scriptures (including the root Torah) are authoritative to Christians who accept it.
And Islamic scriptures (including Mohammed's interpretations of the Judeo-Christian content) is authoritative to Muslims who accept it.

This reasoning is ineluctable unless you're attempting to split hairs.

InesQor: @ Deep Sight:
First, find and replace authourity with authority. At first I thought it was a typo but that has been your consistent spelling on this thread

My dear forget it, i don't think I will ever consistently type that word correctly. I have tried for years. You will notice I keep shifting from one to the other. Its just a thing, i don't know. There are other words I have the same fixed but wrong spelling for.

Of course. Which is why I am saying the topic is a non-issue.


Nah men. Islam came after Christianity, so if Mohammed had an understanding of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, his personal authority to Muslims will be conferred on his followers. Any Christian like me can look into the preceding Islam and derive my own scriptures. I would then be an authority unto myself and whoever decides to follow me.


Ah now he gets it! The acceptance (by a following or the other) is what confers authority explicitly within the scope of those accepting it.

No, your position is still quite wrong and contradictory as your very own words disclose.

- You wondered how there can be a Christian autho[u!]rity on Islamic religious texts.

- You acceded that only acceptance within the world specific to a discipline, confers authority: and the OT is definitely a Judaic work and text and as such, authority can only be conferred by Judaic acceptance of its interpretation.

Deep Sight:
My dear forget it, i don't think I will ever consistently type that word correctly. I have tried for years. You will notice I keep shifting from one to the other. Its just a thing, i don't know. There are other words I have the same fixed but wrong spelling for.

Hahaha I know that kind of thing.

Deep Sight:
No, your position is still quite wrong and contradictory as your very own words disclose.

- You wondered how there can be a Christian autho[u!]rity on Islamic religious texts.

- You acceded that only acceptance within the world specific to a discipline, confers authority: and the OT is definitely a Judaic work and text and as such, authority can only be conferred by Judaic acceptance of its interpretation.

Yes, the OT is a Judaic scripture. BUT those who began the Christian branch of this Judaic stock, were also Jews! And being Jews, they likewise had their own interpretations. AND now their followers walk in their authority. This was my point.

InesQor:

Wow. For real?

Of course what is accepted in the Jewish world is authority for... JEWS who accept it!
Just as medical research is authoritative to those in the medical field who accept it!
And Christian scriptures (including the root Torah) are authoritative to Christians who accept it.
And Islamic scriptures (including Mohammed's interpretations of the Judeo-Christian content) is authoritative to Muslims who accept it.

This reasoning is ineluctable unless you're attempting to split hairs.

So back to your analogy, are you suggesting that a work accepted within the medical community as medical science will only be authoritative to doctors?

Is it not rather the case, that when laymen of all other walks of life are seeking authourity on medical matters, they will go to the doctors?

Therefore it stands to reason that when people of all other religious persuasions are seeking authourity on the OT, they must revert to that which is accepted in Judaism!

InesQor:
BUT those who began the Christian branch of this Judaic stock, were also Jews!

I don't know why this is relevant. I gave you my analogy of stating that I am the returned Christ. That I am Christian does not render me NT authority, just because some people then follow me. Has it not occurred to you that there are muslims who converted to Christianity? Such people can interprete teh Quoran as they please, and once followed, become authorities on it, no?

But my biggest issue is that you are using the word "Authority" here, in a way that robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view. Your use of the word makes anybody and anything an authority, and that simply is not a nuanced understanding of what authourity refers to here.

Deep Sight:

So back to your analogy, are you suggesting that a work accepted within the medical community as medical science will only be authoritative to doctors?

Is it not rather the case, that when laymen of all other walks of life are seeking authourity on medical matters, they will go to the doctors?

Therefore it stands to reason that when people of all other religious persuasions are seeking authourity on the OT, they must revert to that which is accepted in Judaism!

The main problem with this is that even medical science is proven wrong sometimes by related fields, or by medical science itself after a few years.

For example, for almost 2000 years bloodletting was the standard medical and surgical procedure to cure illnesses. Medicine knows different now.

So if medical science in antiquity is proven wrong by related fields that are BASED on that antique medical science, why can't it be that the initial Jewish stock was considered "wrong" - for their own purposes of understanding - by Christ and the first Christians? Thus establishing their own basis for future reference of authority?

@InesQor

Nitpicking spot of bother

I used to have, until a few moments ago, seeing your nitpicking down there, which made me realise actually it is unfounded, the thought that you and Deep Sight are one.

That he was was your alter ego and you were playing both sides of the fence with InesQor and Deep Sight IDs

Phew, what a relief to an unnecessary anxiety.

@Deep Sight:

Thus saying that any followerses MUST revert to the initial authority is like saying there will never be any progression in research or interpretation. This makes no sense in the sciences and social sciences.

Deep Sight:
But my biggest issue is that you are using the word "Authority" here, in a way that robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view. Your use of the word makes anybody and anything an authority, and that simply is not a nuanced understanding of what authourity refers to here.

Na wa o.

Wikipedia:
The word authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.

Can you see all those boldened words? Authority is advice, opinion, influence or command (or even an INVENTION). It depends on who accepts and receives it, shikena.

InesQor:
The main problem with this is that even medical science is proven wrong sometimes by related fields, or by medical science itself after a few years.

For example, for almost 2000 years bloodletting was the standard medical and surgical procedure to cure illnesses. Medicine knows different now.

So if medical science in antiquity is proven wrong by related fields that are BASED on that antique medical science, why can't it be that the initial Jewish stock was considered "wrong" - for their own purposes of understanding - by Christ and the first Christians? Thus establishing their own basis for future reference of authority?

That is a good example, but in that event, every difference of opinion is fresh authourity. Besides the medical example was your example: note that medicine is an empirical field of scientific study; prophecy and religion are not. Bad medicine can be objectively proven to be so; not so with prophecy, doctrine and religion.

This is my problem with your concept of authority as it relates to this discussion.

As I said - my biggest issue is that you are using the word "Authority" here, in a way that robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view. Your use of the word makes anybody and anything an authority, and that simply is not a nuanced understanding of what authourity refers to here.

Deep Sight:

That is a good example, but in that event, every difference of opinion is fresh authourity. Besides the medical example was your example: note that medicine is an empirical field of scientific study; prophecy and religion are not. Bad medicine can be objectively proven to be so; not so with prophecy, doctrine and religion.

This is my problem with your concept of authority as it relates to this discussion.

Well since there is no empiricism in religion, but it is rather faith-based, every major difference of opinion is a fresh authority. This is why we have so many religions, plus their denominations, offshoots and syncretized versions. As long as there is an organized following, that following has an authority.

Objectivity or empiricism does not take away from my descriptions of authority and acceptance in the analogy, though. I was just showing you how it applies to my analogy that you re-used. For us to enter into the objectivity or empiricism of religion and prophecy, we will have to open a new thread. Howbeit we both know religion is mostly faith-based.

Deep Sight:
As I said - my biggest issue is that you are using the word "Authority" here, in a way that robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view. Your use of the word makes anybody and anything an authority, and that simply is not a nuanced understanding of what authourity refers to here.

And as I said:

Wikipedia:
The word authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.

Can you see all those boldened words? Authority is advice, opinion, influence or command (or even an INVENTION). It depends on who accepts and receives it, shikena

InesQor: @Deep Sight:

Thus saying that any followerses MUST revert to the initial authority is like saying there will never be any progression in research or interpretation. This makes no sense in the sciences and social sciences.

Note that as I said above, there can be objective and provable advancement in sciences such as medicine: not so in matters such as interpretation of prophecy.

Now that this comes up, there is a post up there by rhymz -

rhymz: these are mere issues underlying the difference. The main issue that differentiate the Christians from the Jews belief order is the messianic fullfilment by Jesus of the Tora. While authorities in the Jewish belief system flatly denies anyone like Jesus ever existed let alone be the messiah the Tora talked about, many hold the views that he may have existed but not as A god in human skin. Neither was he the expected Messiah as Jesus does not meat any of the requirements of the messiah.
-the messiah must be a jew by dafault of the father's side, the Jewish system does not recognize matriachal geneology.
-he had to be from the davidic order, a royalty, a king that will rule isreal and establish a great kingdom strong enough to conquer Rome. Jesus was not a king, just a jobless religious fanatic going about with a handful of largely illiterate men with no work to do.
- the prophetic messiah of the jewish tora is to be born by like any other child, no divine conception whatso ever.
-finally hom getting killed was not part of the prophesies the messiah was to fulfil.

Where he contends as you can see, that as a matter of fact, Jesus did not meet the prophetic indices required to consider him the prophesied Messiah. It is very very difficult for me to look at a situation whereby, the Jews, by scripture and their prophecies, had been expecting a messiah in their midst, and someone comes along from among them who does not meet their scriptural and prophetic indices, and then that person becomes an authourity on the self same Jewish Scriptures - effectively changing them by some of his commands and new teachings. This cannot square with my understanding of authority in the least.

Deep Sight:

Note that as I said above, there can be objective and provable advancement in sciences such as medicine: not so in matters such as interpretation of prophecy.

Now that this comes up, there is a post up there by rhymz -

Where he contends as you can see, that as a matter of fact, Jesus did not meet the prophetic indices required to consider him the prophesied Messiah. It is very very difficult for me to look at a situation whereby, the Jews, by scripture and their prophecies, had been expecting a messiah in their midst, and someone comes along from among them who does not meet their scriptural and prophetic indices, and then that person becomes an authourity on the self same Jewish Scriptures - effectively changing them by some of his commands and new teachings. This cannot square with my understanding of authority in the least.

Well understood. Which is why I said this topic is abstruse. Like I told Mazaje earlier on, there is no evidence that the first Judeo-Christians were wrong while the ones in antiquity were right, or vice versa.

Authority uses opinion to influence ideals, so each one has its own authority.

EDIT: There is no such thing as global authority, when the subject matter is not objective.

@InesQor

Brother, are you becoming Mr Anony?. . . . . .Just kidding man


Deep Sight you have nailed it completely man. . .

InesQor:

And as I said:

Wikipedia:
The word authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.

Can you see all those boldened words? Authority is advice, opinion, influence or command (or even an INVENTION). It depends on who accepts and receives it, shikena

I don't care for these definitions because I know very well that there is a nuanced meaning of the word which properly applies to this discussion: just as we have a nuanced meaning of the word in law by which we draw on legal precedents as authourities, and just as every discipline has its concept of authority. As far as I am concerned, the definitions you have laid out above, while grammatically correct, do not represent the nuanced shade of the concept of authority in this discussion.

InesQor:

Well since there is no empiricism in religion, but it is rather faith-based, every major difference of opinion is a fresh authority. This is why we have so many religions, plus their denominations, offshoots and syncretized versions. As long as there is an organized following, that following has an authority.

Objectivity or empiricism does not take away from my descriptions of authority and acceptance in the analogy, though. I was just showing you how it applies to my analogy that you re-used. For us to enter into the objectivity or empiricism of religion and prophecy, we will have to open a new thread. Howbeit we both know religion is mostly faith-based.

You see, the problem, for the umpteenth time, is simply that the OT is the Holy Scripture of a religion which predates either Christianity or Islam: Judaism. You cannot become the authority on their Holy Scripture, especially where you teach something contrary to it! Simple!

This is just the way the Islamists have hijacked the Comforter Spoken of in the NT and called him Mohammed! Is that authouritative NT understanding?

@amdatam

My apologies. But calm your nerves, we're not the same. I've never met him sef.

I think I nitpick because
(i) the world is not usually in black and white, [insert lawyer joke here ]
(ii) and one size generally does not fit all

Two things most people always seem to forget. Especially in religious discussions.

Deep Sight:
I don't care for these definitions because I know very well that there is a nuanced meaning of the word which properly applies to this discussion: just as we have a nuanced meaning of the word in law by which we draw on legal precedents as authourities, and just as every discipline has its concept of authority. As far as I am concerned, the definitions you have laid out above, while grammatically correct, do not represent the nuanced shade of the concept of authority in this discussion.

It is amusing that you do not care for the definition, right after you claimed that my usage "robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view", and I provided a reference with a scholastic POV. Make up your mind, brother.

Deep Sight:
You see, the problem, for the umpteenth time, is simply that the OT is the Holy Scripture of a religion which predates either Christianity or Islam: Judaism. You cannot become the authority on their Holy Scripture, especially where you teach something contrary to it! Simple!

This is just the way the Islamists have hijacked the Comforter Spoken of in the NT and called him Mohammed! Is that authouritative NT understanding?

As long as there is no empiricism, the Muslims/Christians are free to believe in the authority that they have chosen to follow.

Same way Muslims are free to believe Mohammed is the comforter that was promised, Christians are free to believe that Jesus is the Messiah that they have accepted. To each their own.

mazaje: @InesQor

Brother, are you becoming Mr Anony?. . . . . .Just kidding man

Hahahahaha. I don tire sef. See you guys on another topic.

^^^ Let us go back to the Chess days. I still have to prove to you that I am not as poor as that time o!

What's the website again?

InesQor:

@amdatam

My apologies. But calm your nerves, we're not the same. I've never met him sef.

I think I nitpick because
(i) the world is not usually in black and white, [insert lawyer joke here ]
(ii) and one size generally does not fit all

Two things most people always seem to forget. Especially in religious discussions.

@InesQor

Well, yeah, except for meeting to play online chess

Don't mind me, I knew you weren't the same, guess my paranoia is to blame for that.

# Nitpicking is OK. I, sometimes, love nitpicking, especially when some make out they don't s.hit or fart, and that, even if they do, the s.hit or fart wont or doesn't smell

# At one stage, I thought you were logging in using different devices to simultaneously used the IDs. Well

@Deep Sight: chess.com My new handle is InesQor (I lost the login to the mavenbox handle). This is yours (in case you've forgotten) Yeah we can play sometime, though I must tell you my strength has reduced for lack of recent practice.

@amdatam: LOL In the past have been guilty of that crime using different browsers or devices , but no not in this case.

Double post

Double post

InesQor:
It is amusing that you do not care for the definition, right after you claimed that my usage "robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view", and I provided a reference with a scholastic POV. Make up your mind, brother.

Yes, I have made up my mind. And yes, again, I do emphasize scholastic and historical. You merely gave me the literal definition of the word as well as could have been taken from a disctionary.

By scholastic and historical: I mean that which squares with historical and cultural scholarship with reference to tracing the development of a people, culture and faith.

I will show you what I mean by describing the nuanced authority that I speak of below.

As long as there is no empiricism, the Muslims/Christians are free to believe in the authority that they have chosen to follow.

Same way Muslims are free to believe Mohammed is the comforter that was promised, Christians are free to believe that Jesus is the Messiah that they have accepted. To each their own.

Not with my understanding of authority as defined above. Everyone is of course free to believe whatever he wants, as is the case anyway, but no one is free to command himself and his religion as an authority on the understanding of a pre-existing religion which already had very well and deeply entrenched understanding of its own meaning and intent.

It is also as simple as saying that you cannot be an authority on matters that occurred in your absence. Just as a witness cannot testify on matters that he only knows by hearsay, and did not witness himself. In this correct sense then, he cannot be an authourity. In the specific sense in which the word applies to this discussion, no person or group can be considered an authority on the understanding of that which they did not witness.

Also I should add that those closest to the event, such as those who witnessed from witnesses and perhaps could witness about the effect on the event on the witnesses, are to be better considered as authorities than those further removed in time and space from the event. This is why new scriptures are not being admitted today - because of the distance and removal from the events. Otherwise, surely, God could still inspire anyone to write scripture, no?

By way of analogy I once read somewhere a parable of a church and a cat. The Priest of the church noticed rodents in the church and so bought a cat. He sent the cat into the church before every service to kill the rodents. This soon became standard practice in the church. Many years passed and the priest died. As the decades rolled on, the practice of sending the cat into the church before every service continued: and even became a hallowed part of the church's ritual - even when there was no one in the church who knew any more the origin of the practice.

If the Priest had written about the practice - that would be authoritative. If people around him at the time had recorded the reasons for the practice, that would also be authoritative. However if a future member of the church, far removed from the practice, decades on, claims that such authority is wrong, and that there is a different connotation for the cat in the church, such a person's interpretation is not authoritative.

@Deep Sight:

LOL I am confident that you have made up your mind, since you had to say it thrice

Me I don give up on this discussion sha

InesQor: @Deep Sight:

LOL I am confident that you have made up your mind, since you had to say it thrice

Me I don give up on this discussion sha

Mtchew.


This guy, Ihedinobi and Anony are the same. The same dubious nonsense. They will never accept that they have inferior arguments. They will restate their flawed arguments in the face of numerous rebuttals.

Anyways good that you gave up