NationStates Jolt Archive

... Jesus was never at a loss for words, if one can believe what is written of him in the gospels, so why couldn't he have clearly stated what he meant so that we wouldn't have to try to twist his words around and argue the point 2000 years later? If your interpretation is what he really meant, he should have said so, plain and simple.

Jesus often spoke in parables, then explained the actual meaning to His disciples later. Why is it such a stretch to say that Jesus was asking His disciples to choose between God and earthly relationships?


John 15:22: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.


John 15 goes on to say that they could not be absolved of their guilt because all the miracles they had seen Him perform were direct proof of His Godhood. Also, it says that anyone who hates the concept of Jesus hates God.


So there was some nebulous "them" who were without sin until Jesus came and spoke to them, giving them knowledge of good and evil so that now they have no excuse for their sin. I wonder who might have been sinless 2000 years ago until Jesus finally spoke with them? Or do you think that maybe he was referring to some period of time much further back than 2000 years? But wait a minute - Ezekiel does speak of some anointed being who was in the Garden of Eden and who was perfect until iniquity was found in him:

Ezekiel 28:13-15: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Do you think there might be a connection here?

I don't even have to drag out the Bible and find context for this. Obviously this is in reference to the snake in the Garden of Eden, the devil, Satan, Jesus' main opponent. The same dark angel who was cast down from heaven as a meteor in Isaiah. It's not saying Jesus came down and introduced sin.

sorry, but it is hilarious how people will use a bible to answer questions. jesus is just an over-hyped david blane. jesus, hes just a hippy.... that brainwashes little kids.... and then eats em.

will try and keep this to the point. First off, there has been some confusion as to my sex....i'm a female.

And to respond to what you wrote. Thank you for your reply, it was very kind. And you are right when you say that some accept the apology and some will always be unsatisfied. About Christians proselytizing everything. Well, if I were to say that Christianity was not the only way to heaven and to salvation, I would not be adhering to the Word of God and what Jesus said. Jesus said in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me." If I call myself a follower of Christ then i have to follow his commands. And that is one of them.

Now, concerning the 'shoving religion down peoples throat.' You are not the only one who hates that, i certainly do. I try my best to live like Christ did. To have a heart for all those that I meet. To help the needy and the brokenhearted and those in mourning, etc. It is hard because there are so many that are just that. What I don't do (and certainly not in this forum) is walk about saying, "you're going to Hell, you need Jesus......fire....brimstone.....destruction.....alskdjf;aweo....etc." You have heard them on the street corners, pulpits, maybe even TV. They are my brother and sisters and I love them, so....i'm going to try and not stomp on them anymore.

So to all of you who have had Christians shoving their beliefs on you and condeming you and God knows what else.....i'm sorry. I'm sure somewhere in my short lifespan i have been guilty of the same thing.

Jesus never forced anyone to believe in Him. He didn't go around yelling at people because they were going to hell. When he did out rightly rebuke someone, it was one of His own. One being Peter and the religious people of His day (Pharisees, Saducees, Herodians, and .....maybe one other). He rebuked these people because of what they knew, they knew the TANAK (Torah, Neveim, Ketuvim) (sp?)). I'm not sure where this verse and i was doing a search on it....still can't find it as of yet. But somewhere in the Bible (in all it's many many pages....) there is a verse that says something like, A man will be judged by what he knows (paraphrase!). So saying that......The more I learn about the Bible and study it, the more I have to answer for. In Romans it talks about how "man is without excuse." This refers to how nature accounts for God not including the Bible. Sort of like....this. The Bible is called "Special Revelation" and creation is called "General Revelation." This is kind of like....God reveals himself to us 'through special revelation via Bible" and then God reveals himself to us through 'general revelation'. This is one of those thing you learn when you take seminary classes (which i am....)

Here is what Jesus did do. He sat down and hung out with 'sinners'. The so called outcasts of society. The ones that everyone looked down on. He even said to a Pharisee, "I have not come to call the righteous but to seek out the lost. Does a doctor go to those who are healthy? No he goes to help those who are sick."(Paraphrase) I reminded of people who actually did this. Like Mother Theresa, people on the Mercy Ships(look at mercyships.org)
and i'm sure many others. Those nameless, faceless, placeless people who don't care about the fame, the lights, the cameras, and all that jazz. Just serving the people on hand and foot. There are people out there that do this but only when someone screws up is it ever seen.

Anyway, there is alot of legalism out there. And certainly rules are good but some are too much. Hence why Jesus talked about the Tradition of the Elders. The Pharisees were getting so wrapped up in the law instead of "loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and then love thy neighbor." Christianity is supposed to be about Jesus, not all the mumbo jumbo. There is the word that is thrown around alot but it is true. It is about a relationship with God not a religion.

Okay, i think i have said enough for one day, thank you all for reading


first of all....BLESS YOU!!! I have never heard such...sureness i guess. u should write a book/.

For all those ppl, i dont think dates and languages, all that technical stuff about the bible really matters in the end.
I know the bible is true because in my heart, i can feel Christ. when u get saved, u feel a certain weightless, like nothing else matters. it wont matter if u dont succeed at this world. We dont need proof of the bible. we already hav faith. If u dont believe in christ, thats okay, jesus didnt demand ppl to believe in him so i wont either. but what do u hav to lose if u do chose to be a part of Christ.

if christianity turns out to be a hoax, fine..u lose. its done
but if its all true, then u will be enjoying eternal life in paradise with your savior and maker.

i know in the past, christians have made dumb mistakes...like prohibiting ppl from reading the bible, only reserving it to priests, the mindless crusades, etc. but thats the past.
i know christians look like hypocrites or may be one, but we're human like everyone else, we make mistakes. but should that be any reason to attack our faith?

and..Christ did not say to hate your family, he said that Christ comes before your family. Abraham was required to sacrifice his only son Isaac. even though Abraham loved him a lot, he put God before family. And look what happened. God kept his promise and made his descendents numberless, made him the father of all generations.

To the person who started this thread:

I found it interesting that u were so into christianity, normally, other ppl would want nothing to do with it. i got the feeling that Christ is desprately trying to reach u, but its just a feeling..what do i know..

i used wonder what motivated rich, respected, ppl that lived in luxorisous manisons to give up their life, money, comfort to preach in a AIDS-infested village in Africa for the rest of his life, or christians that were tortured, burned, skinned-alive, decapitated, etc. to not give up their faith in other countries ( like Afganistan, China, Cuba, etc.). i realized it was Christ. Is there anything in this world that could motivate one of u to do these things?

this is how i know Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God.
it was a little longer than i expected..

Originally posted by Mir Town
i dont think dates and languages, all that technical stuff about the bible really matters in the end.
I know the bible is true because in my heart, i can feel Christ. when u get saved, u feel a certain weightless, like nothing else matters.

. . . also . . .

We dont need proof of the bible. we already hav faith.

"Unthinking faith is a curious gift to give the Creator of the human mind." ~Hutchinson

Could not have said it better myself.

In your defense, the message of Jesus being the Christ and Messiah who saves from sin are not based on language interpretation. That message has remained somewhat clear in Scripture.

*HOWEVER* (COMMA) Many things must be looked at from the original language and whatnot because there are so many cultural differences that to try to read the Bible using our modern cultural ideologies is ridiculous. Have you ever read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? It is a story about a man from Connecticut going back in time to the days of King Arthur. Most of the story has to do with the differences in culture and language (mainly slang and casual speech). Now, imagine going back even further, to an even more different culture than that, where they do not even speak a language of the people. Your only interpreter was someone from both a different time and a different culture from both the one in the Bible and your own. He happens to speak a language similar to yours, but there are words that mean much different things now than they did then.

In order to study much of the Bible, it takes actual STUDY, which requires more than a first level (Bloom's Taxonomy) regurgitation of words on a page. It involves a sixth level comprehension and understanding of what was written.

This is actually a problem with Christianity today: We have given up on trying to understand the Bible for why it was written and we just decide that it takes less work if we just read our centuries-removed translations and use our modern culture to interpret them. "What the verse means to me." That makes as much sense as you writing me a letter and me deciding that you meant something totally different than what you meant because of the way I interpreted what you said. It doesn't matter what it means to each person. Otherwise, those who can say that the Bible contradicts itself are right. Those who say that God was evil are right. The Bible is not subjective. It is not here to fit our mold.

I know that our post-modern culture trains us to think that way, with individualistic nuances ringing all the way. It is our job as Christians to know God's Word, not just be able to recite it.

I know the bible is true because in my heart, i can feel Christ.

Literally? You can feel something in your physical heart? That is funny, because there is no thinking or feeling done in your heart. It is vital to life, but all it does is pump blood. If you feel something in there, I would get it checked out.

Hey, you said you 'felt' something.

and..Christ did not say to hate your family, he said that Christ comes before your family.

Luke 14:26 ~ "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Guess again. It is actually more likely (as a result of the rest of his teachings) that he was speaking of a contentment with the things and relationships in life. If those are all sufficient, then there is no desire to be redeemed, but if one realizes that there is a relationship that he is compelled to have because of his knowledge of overwhelming need for something more in his life, then that is when there can be discipleship.

Abraham was required to sacrifice his only son Isaac. even though Abraham loved him a lot, he put God before family.

True, but not definitively related to the passage in Luke.

but its just a feeling..what do i know..

Bingo! You just hit a home run with that statement. I surely hope you were not being sarcastic, because I could kiss you for pointing this out! (Not really. My stance has already been set on one of the many gay topics. ;) )

Feelings are subjective. My faith is concrete. You cannot build something solid on a not-so-solid base. Feelings change based on our moods, experiences, stresses, fallenness, and a variety of other things. Why, then, allow something that is supposed to be unmoving as a rock be on a foundation that is tossed in the wind like chaff? It is like the man that built his house on the sand, but then, I am sure you know what happened to him.

i used wonder what motivated rich, respected, ppl that lived in luxorisous manisons to give up their life, money, comfort to preach in a AIDS-infested village in Africa for the rest of his life, or christians that were tortured, burned, skinned-alive, decapitated, etc. to not give up their faith in other countries ( like Afganistan, China, Cuba, etc.). i realized it was Christ. Is there anything in this world that could motivate one of u to do these things?

Allah and Mohammed do for the Muslims. The difference is that the FIRST Christians had this happening. If it was all a hoax, I doubt they would be willing to die for something they made up.

Originally posted by Free Realms
sorry, but it is hilarious how people will use a bible to answer questions. jesus is just an over-hyped david blane. jesus, hes just a hippy.... that brainwashes little kids.... and then eats em.

Sorry, but it is hilarious that anyone thinks you have any answers to any questions. You are just a primitive ape. You, you're just a moron . . . that sodomizes cats . . . and then eats them.

Hey, if you can make outrageous, absurd, somewhat disturbing claims with no evidence to back it up, so can I. My assertions about you were just as valid as your assertions about Jesus.

*NOTICE* I know better than to think the things I said were true. I was just pointing out that my claim has as much validity as yours: none.

Originally Posted by Pterodonia
... Jesus was never at a loss for words, if one can believe what is written of him in the gospels, so why couldn't he have clearly stated what he meant so that we wouldn't have to try to twist his words around and argue the point 2000 years later? If your interpretation is what he really meant, he should have said so, plain and simple.

He did. In his own culture, that wording was easily understandable. This is a perfect example of why context and background is so important. Again, though, Pterodonia, you are bringing up valid issues of which even more Christians ought to be aware.

For the record, TWA (scary acronym), this wasn't a parable, but you are right in that he did speak in parables. For those around him, "earthlings," to understand things not of the world, it would be almost impossible for any understanding to be had if he had not used parables. Good idea, though.

John 15:22: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Actually, within the context, this seems to be a good argument for progressive revelation. As John writes in chapter three:

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

Jesus said that he was the light of the world. This, then, would support the idea that without Jesus coming, the evil deeds would be covered by the ignorance of darkness, making man not sinful. What made Adam pure was his unwilled ignorance. He wasn't attempting to be ignorant. He couldn't help it. God had not revealed the law to him, making no plum line to which his life would be compared. Makes sense? Ignorance because of a lack of revelation to all of humanity is the true definition of innocense. Ignorance, dispite a revealed law is not innocense, even if it seems that way sometimes. The reasoning behind this is that we see life through the lenses that a post-modern culture has given us: one of individualism. When Christ died, he sought to save humanity. Humanity was looked at as a unit, rather than a mass group of individuals. Therefore, once humanity had the revelation of the law, humanity was responsible to that law.

Side note: The nebulous "them" can easily be defined as all who are of "the world" (not redeemed) when looking at the verses that precede this individual verse.

In other words, you hit the nail in the middle of its head when you correlated two passages, just the wrong two. Furthermore, in the very beginning of John, John writes, "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What I will point out is that the 'Word' is Christ, meaning that he simply was before the earth.

Also, John 8:56-58 is evidence that he was known to the earth before his physical birth, as Jesus says that "father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" and "before Abraham was, I am." That is, I think, the idea. I am not convinced that Jesus was saying that he brought sin, but instead, since he brought them the picture of the ideal life, their sin was no longer out of ignorance, and they were then subject to the law revealed in their loss of ignorance. Jesus also states that he is the fulfillment (or completion, depending on context) of the Law, implying that there is a correlation between Jesus' life and the spirit of the Law of Moses. That, however was not around during Abraham's time, so I suppose it is a moot point if he was already known before such time.

1 Corinthians 1:23,24: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Reading the surrounding verses to determine context, I can safely say that this is in regards to why Christianity is not readily accepted by the Jews. In the preceding verse, it states that the Jews require signs, and that "Christ crucified" is not a sign, but a message. The stumblingblock, then, results from the Jew's requirement of signs. The message of that was a commonplace act and not a bewildering defiance of the natural law, known as a sign or miracle. This was, I am most certain, the stumbling block.

There is no scripture clearer on the point that Jesus was not to be worshipped as God than John 3:14, at least, if one knows the entire story of Moses and the serpent he held up in the wilderness:

John 3:14: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

This is an obvious reference to the brass serpent Moses made and put on a pole so that the people would be healed of their snake bites when they looked at it:

I am honestly not quite sure how you obtained such a conclusion. I do agree with the obvious reference, but the knowledge of that story is that the serpent of brass was the salvation of those who were being bitten by the snakes.

Similarly, in the next large chunk of the gospel, John asserts that Jesus WAS the Son of God. He calls Jesus such in that very same chapter you quoted. He refers to Jesus as the Christ all throughout chapter one. The reference was one obviously connected to the similarity that Jesus is the one saving those who look to him, just as the brass serpent was the one to which the Israelites were to look to be saved from the serpent bites. He was comparing Jesus to the brass serpent in that they both were the salvation from death, just in different terms.

As follows, you will see the context of the passage (14-18):

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is not to compare Jesus to the serpent in every respect. You have to read how John compared the two. The difference between the two, obviously, is that one was alive and one was not. The Israelites were worshipping the one which was not alive, thus making it an idol. The analogy does not carry on to this stage because this brass snake would have been destroyed even if this correlation was never drawn, because the Israelites broke a command.

The best judgment of the analogy is the message that John was seemingly trying to present. If you read through the entire book of John, he is actually the one gospel writer that does emphasize Jesus as God (Mark, Jesus was a servant, I believe; Matthew, he was a brilliant teacher; Luke, h was human; and John, he was God; They all represent him as the one who was crucified and resurrected.). You have carried the analogy past its intended correlation. Nevertheless, it was a good point to bring up.

Grave n idle, I knew I would have to be responding to you! ;)

It's okay, it's only 4:41 AM, and it is my day off. Sleep will be my realm later.

Originally posted by Grave n idle
Actually - there is one fundamental flaw in the "Three Options" argument.

The average christian believes that the Bible is the absolute word of god... fair enough.

The average Muslim believes that the Koran is the absolute word of god... which starts to present something of a problem.

EVERY religion thinks it has the divinely inspired, perfect scripture... but many of them are utterly exclusive... which is the crux of the matter.

Damn, Grave, you had me worried when I started to read that beginning.

It's okay, though. I hope I don't disappoint.

I have already posted, on this topic (Post on Valid Data Supporting Sound Scripture (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8450685&postcount=218)), the interestingly coincidental history of the Bible: written in 3 languages by 40-41 diverse authors (depending on what you do with Hebrews) over 40 generations (or 1500 years, whichever you prefer) on three continents, surviving persecution, criticism, and time. Somehow, it manages to maintain no contradictions other than absurdly trivial ones. From such different sources, in such distant places, speaking unfamiliar languages, you would think that writings would conflict on major issues somewhere. This is not the case.

There are those that would say it could have been exaggerated by the writers. Is that possible? I suppose. However, most of the writers of the New Testament were contemporaries of Jesus (Paul is the glaring exception, though he was not far removed) and killed for their claims (John is the glaring exception, as he died of old age while exiled to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the book of Revelation). This would seem like a stretch, for someone to die for something they intentionally exaggerated or conjured up, though they saw the events occur, many with their own eyes.

Since some of these writers were even disciples, they were close to Jesus. They knew him. Does it stand to reason that they would die for a lie they knew was a lie, about a man who they knew so well? I am very doubtful. I can believe that those who after them would die whether or not it was a lie, because they believe the original apostles, who would've known Jesus personally. These who received the "second-hand gospel" may have the same mentality as those who die for any other religion. It is the persecution, torture, and execution of the original writers and leaders of the church that would lead me to believe that the authors wrote what they witnessed to be true, as I doubt they would die for a useless lie, such as a conjured up Messiah.

Then, there are those who would claim that the Bible was likely changed as time elapsed. There is difficulty with this view as well. I will address it from two points.

I was recently able to go to Europe and I made a trip to the museam where there was an exhibit of the Jesuit legacy. I loved the architecture and the history. The guide was telling us about the monastic movements of the Jesuits, who were just one order of monks, granted. They were hellatious at keeping every dot on an 'i' identical from the previous copy. I would take you through the process, but it was to the point of ridiculously tedious and careful (wrote letter by letter), though thankfully, now I can take assurance that they did not make negligent mistakes.

As I talked to the woman, I learned that she did not follow the Bible because she did not like that someone should have moral authority over a responsible adult. Interesting woman. Unthinking theology (See? It's not just us Christians that are willfully ignorant! ;) )



In addition, you will find (not including the Latin Vulgate) 14,000 original copies of the new testament, all of which are in agreement. This would not only negate the idea that there were casual or intentional mistakes, as the differences would be different from area to area, but it would also negate the danger of a "telephone effect" for the same reason. As all of these are from different places and from different times, it is interesting to see how accurate to each other that they are.

Also, for those that would say that there was a time after the Bible was written and before it was copied down and the "telephone effect" took place prior to that copying of the letters, gospels, etc., the book of Revelation was finished circa AD 100. The oldest copy found was one written in AD 125. This span of only twenty-five years leaves little room for that.

After all that evidence (Notice that I didn't say proof.), is there a slight possibility that it could be a fluke? Yes, but I can't imagine that being a very realistic odd. That is where my faith comes in.

God is a rational God. He created a world of order. It would be ludicrous to assume that God does not witness to Himself through rational thought. This is where the idea of faith is misrepresented. If faith is flat out, across-the-board, blind belief, then nobody would ever become anything (Christian or otherwise) that requires it, because they would have no reason to do so. Telling an "unbeliever" that it takes blind belief to support a view is vanity . . . pointless . . . absurd.

I didn't need as much evidence as I was given. There is more that was needed. I say that because you can be less "educated" than anyone on this forum or you could be the most intelligent person on this forum and still believe. It would take faith, yes. There is quite a substantial mound of evidence, however.

I do like the fact that you pointed out that some religions are "utterly exclusive." This would not sit well with those that like to think that everyone is right. To logically prove the flaw in that:

An evangelical believes that Jesus is the Messiah.

A Jew believes Jesus was not the Messiah.

According to one of the three laws of logic, the Law of Excluded Middle, something either is or it is not. There is no middle ground.

As Jesus was no exception, there is no way for the survival of the idea that both of these people can be correct.

To the christian - EVERY other religious text must be flawed (at best), or just a fiction.

Eh, not true. The Jewish writings may all be true and those in the Talmud and such that are not in the Christian Old Testament may be true as far as stories go. I have honestly never read the Talmud, so forgive me if I have unknowingly misspoken. The difference is that we believe the book was not inspired. Maybe you meant that, and if so, it's just symantics.

Aeruillin, I do believe I addressed the idea of things being added in. It is possible, but highly unlikely that the Bible was tampered with, as we have very early copies (only twenty-five years removed are some of them; I explain the significant briefness of that little time in the link to the post I made before, regarding some widely accepted literature that has less empirical evidence for its validity than the Bible.) of the individual books of the New Testament and they are not different from the later copies that have been found.

Good to know someone else knows their church history! :D Yes, Arius was dealt with trice by councils, this time claiming that Jesus was of a similar substance as God (homoiousious). One letter makes a huge difference, I guess ;) .

There, I think I addressed everyone. After all that, I am just going to have a little fun, here. I think I've earned it after that post, which kicked my ass.

Me in my dorm back in college (one year at Akron University in Ohio) trying to study while some "extra-curriculars" are going on next door:

:headbang: :fluffle:

Jesus often spoke in parables, then explained the actual meaning to His disciples later. Why is it such a stretch to say that Jesus was asking His disciples to choose between God and earthly relationships?

I think he was asking his disciples to choose between him and their family relationships - just like any other cult leader would do. And no, I do not believe Jesus was God.

Jesus admitted that he spoke in parables so that many people would not understand his message and would therefore not be saved. When he explained the darker meaning of his parables, he (at least sometimes) did it only in secret after sending the rest of the audience away. This tells me that his ultimate mission was to seduce people away from God (which he began with by first separating them from their families).


Also, it says that anyone who hates the concept of Jesus hates God.

Really? Please show me where Jesus uses the word "God" anywhere in John 15. Actually, the reference he makes is to his "Father," who Christians have obviously decided is God. I am simply allowing for the possibility that his true "Father" had a different identity (e.g., Satan, the god of this world, prince of the power of the air, etc.). If that is the case, then since he also said that he and his Father are One - it logically follows that Jesus is Satan.


I don't even have to drag out the Bible and find context for this. Obviously this is in reference to the snake in the Garden of Eden, the devil, Satan, Jesus' main opponent. The same dark angel who was cast down from heaven as a meteor in Isaiah. It's not saying Jesus came down and introduced sin.

And if it turns out that Jesus and Satan are one and the same, as I have been suggesting all along?

My contention is that there are clues scattered all throughout the bible revealing that this may very well be the case: Jesus came to earth from heaven - just as Satan allegedly did; Jesus is called the Morning Star (and so is Lucifer); Jesus matches the description given of Lucifer (aka, the King of Babylon) in Isaiah 14 - almost to a "T"; Jesus also matches the description of the fallen "anointed cherub" (aka, King of Tyrus) in Ezekiel 28 - almost to a "T"; Jesus was said to have been in the Garden of Eden (which is used by Christians to explain the "us" in Genesis 3:22, when God said "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"); some New Testament accounts of Jesus indicate that he wanted to be worshipped as God - so did Satan; Jesus was compared to a serpent in John 3:14, which had been destroyed because the people started worshipping it; Jesus was destroyed for implying he was God and/or the Son of God; Jesus is said to hold the keys to hell and death - so does Satan (see Rev. 9:1); and John 15:22 reveals that Jesus brought knowledge of sin, just as the Serpent in the Garden supposedly did. Conclusion? Same guy, different name.

If Jesus didn't resurrect himself, then why would so many people who lived with and knew him go to horrible deaths and still not deny that he did resurrect?

Not too likely so many can have the same story and die for something that wasnt true is it?

If Jesus didn't resurrect himself, then why would so many people who lived with and knew him go to horrible deaths and still not deny that he did resurrect?

Not too likely so many can have the same story and die for something that wasnt true is it?

I'm just wondering...do you (or does anyone else here) know of any contemporary and independent sources - i.e., outside of the bible - that confirm that any of the followers of Jesus actually died these horrible deaths?

My question is not intended to imply that no such sources exist - I just can't seem to recall any that do, and I would appreciate any comments from those who may know more than me on this subject. Thanks.

I'm just wondering...do you (or does anyone else here) know of any contemporary and independent sources - i.e., outside of the bible - that confirm that any of the followers of Jesus actually died these horrible deaths?

My question is not intended to imply that no such sources exist - I just can't seem to recall any that do, and I would appreciate any comments from those who may know more than me on this subject. Thanks.

Foxes Book of Martyrs.
Quo Vadis (fiction, but you should watch it anyway)

As for all your other comments on Jesus vs. Satan. I just don't know how to respond to that. It's clear to me personally that saying Jesus=Satan is blasphemy. But everything you quote to support your beliefs has been changed around in your mind a half dozen times before you typed it out.

I fail to see why I should waste any more effort posting verses if you're going to work so hard to spin an evil meaning into them.

Prophet.

If Jesus didn't resurrect himself, then why would so many people who lived with and knew him go to horrible deaths and still not deny that he did resurrect?

Not too likely so many can have the same story and die for something that wasnt true is it?

suicide bombers make their religious ideas true?

Buddist monks who set themselves on fire?

Crazy cults who all commit suicide together?

No, because people will always follow other people, even if it is a load of contradictory brainwashing gibberish

I'm just wondering...do you (or does anyone else here) know of any contemporary and independent sources - i.e., outside of the bible - that confirm that any of the followers of Jesus actually died these horrible deaths?

My question is not intended to imply that no such sources exist - I just can't seem to recall any that do, and I would appreciate any comments from those who may know more than me on this subject. Thanks.

A good book for you to read is the Case for Christ. I think it's by Lee Strobel, or something. He gives evidence about Jesus and his followers, that they lived, and evidence for some of their works.

A good book for you to read is the Case for Christ. I think it's by Lee Strobel, or something. He gives evidence about Jesus and his followers, that they lived, and evidence for some of their works.

I also suggest reading the Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter gandy

suicide bombers make their religious ideas true?

Buddist monks who set themselves on fire?

Crazy cults who all commit suicide together?

No, because people will always follow other people, even if it is a load of contradictory brainwashing gibberish

Do any of them rise from the dead?

Do their "saviors" rise from the dead?

Did they see someone die, be placed behind an almost immobile guarded rock, and still come back living a few days later?

Do any of them rise from the dead?

Do their "saviors" rise from the dead?

Did they see someone die, be placed behind an almost immobile guarded rock, and still come back living a few days later?

you don't know WHAT they saw, you only know they died for what they believe in.

.
Damn, Grave, you had me worried when I started to read that beginning.

It's okay, though. I hope I don't disappoint.

I have already posted, on this topic (Post on Valid Data Supporting Sound Scripture (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8450685&postcount=218)), the interestingly coincidental history of the Bible: written in 3 languages by 40-41 diverse authors (depending on what you do with Hebrews) over 40 generations (or 1500 years, whichever you prefer) on three continents, surviving persecution, criticism, and time. Somehow, it manages to maintain no contradictions other than absurdly trivial ones. From such different sources, in such distant places, speaking unfamiliar languages, you would think that writings would conflict on major issues somewhere. This is not the case.

There are those that would say it could have been exaggerated by the writers. Is that possible? I suppose. However, most of the writers of the New Testament were contemporaries of Jesus (Paul is the glaring exception, though he was not far removed) and killed for their claims (John is the glaring exception, as he died of old age while exiled to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the book of Revelation). This would seem like a stretch, for someone to die for something they intentionally exaggerated or conjured up, though they saw the events occur, many with their own eyes.

Since some of these writers were even disciples, they were close to Jesus. They knew him. Does it stand to reason that they would die for a lie they knew was a lie, about a man who they knew so well? I am very doubtful. I can believe that those who after them would die whether or not it was a lie, because they believe the original apostles, who would've known Jesus personally. These who received the "second-hand gospel" may have the same mentality as those who die for any other religion. It is the persecution, torture, and execution of the original writers and leaders of the church that would lead me to believe that the authors wrote what they witnessed to be true, as I doubt they would die for a useless lie, such as a conjured up Messiah.

Then, there are those who would claim that the Bible was likely changed as time elapsed. There is difficulty with this view as well. I will address it from two points.

I was recently able to go to Europe and I made a trip to the museam where there was an exhibit of the Jesuit legacy. I loved the architecture and the history. The guide was telling us about the monastic movements of the Jesuits, who were just one order of monks, granted. They were hellatious at keeping every dot on an 'i' identical from the previous copy. I would take you through the process, but it was to the point of ridiculously tedious and careful (wrote letter by letter), though thankfully, now I can take assurance that they did not make negligent mistakes.

As I talked to the woman, I learned that she did not follow the Bible because she did not like that someone should have moral authority over a responsible adult. Interesting woman. Unthinking theology (See? It's not just us Christians that are willfully ignorant! ;) )



In addition, you will find (not including the Latin Vulgate) 14,000 original copies of the new testament, all of which are in agreement. This would not only negate the idea that there were casual or intentional mistakes, as the differences would be different from area to area, but it would also negate the danger of a "telephone effect" for the same reason. As all of these are from different places and from different times, it is interesting to see how accurate to each other that they are.

Also, for those that would say that there was a time after the Bible was written and before it was copied down and the "telephone effect" took place prior to that copying of the letters, gospels, etc., the book of Revelation was finished circa AD 100. The oldest copy found was one written in AD 125. This span of only twenty-five years leaves little room for that.

After all that evidence (Notice that I didn't say proof.), is there a slight possibility that it could be a fluke? Yes, but I can't imagine that being a very realistic odd. That is where my faith comes in.

God is a rational God. He created a world of order. It would be ludicrous to assume that God does not witness to Himself through rational thought. This is where the idea of faith is misrepresented. If faith is flat out, across-the-board, blind belief, then nobody would ever become anything (Christian or otherwise) that requires it, because they would have no reason to do so. Telling an "unbeliever" that it takes blind belief to support a view is vanity . . . pointless . . . absurd.

I didn't need as much evidence as I was given. There is more that was needed. I say that because you can be less "educated" than anyone on this forum or you could be the most intelligent person on this forum and still believe. It would take faith, yes. There is quite a substantial mound of evidence, however.

I do like the fact that you pointed out that some religions are "utterly exclusive." This would not sit well with those that like to think that everyone is right. To logically prove the flaw in that:

An evangelical believes that Jesus is the Messiah.

A Jew believes Jesus was not the Messiah.

According to one of the three laws of logic, the Law of Excluded Middle, something either is or it is not. There is no middle ground.

As Jesus was no exception, there is no way for the survival of the idea that both of these people can be correct.



Eh, not true. The Jewish writings may all be true and those in the Talmud and such that are not in the Christian Old Testament may be true as far as stories go. I have honestly never read the Talmud, so forgive me if I have unknowingly misspoken. The difference is that we believe the book was not inspired. Maybe you meant that, and if so, it's just symantics.



Okay - let me re-word it... the Christian has to believe that the Bible is inerrant, and the perfect word of 'God', right? To admit that the text is fallible in part, is to admit that the text cannot be relied upon to be factual in entirety.

Can the Christian have the same assurance about the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita? If EVERY detail is true in those books, if they are as infallible as the Christian needs to believe the Bible to be - then there is a conflict - because the texts do not agree.

Thus - the Christian has to plead a Special Exeption for the Bible... while, obviously, the Muslim would plead Special Exception for the Koran.

Both texts are inspired, are infallible, and are perfect - which presents a problem when the details differ.

Was Jesus the Christ, or just another prophet? Both versions cannot be true, surely? Jews say 'prophet'. Islam says 'prophet'. Only Christianity claims Jesus as Messiah.


Second point - I believe the Old Testament DOES show evidence of what we are calling "Telephone effect"... especially when you look at the Hebrew of the first few bites of Genesis. To me, it is obvious that the first chapters of Genesis talk about multiple creations... of multiple peoples, by a variety of powers... and that things like the Flood are obviously confined to limited geography - as, I believe, is the Creation story itself.

This seems to hark back to similar myth in other Mesopotamian mythologies, which SEEM to surface again later in Mosaic texts, but subtly changed. The Code of Laws of Hammurabi (literally, carved in stone in the middle of Babylon) as compared to the story of the Ten Commandments (which becomes a written text during or after, the Jewish sojourn in Babylon).

Similarly - the Flood myth is not the FIRST such story - but, perhaps it is the first version to change 'as far as the eye can see', to 'as far as the eye OF GOD can see'.

A more likely transition of scripture, than the 'telephone effect', would be the passage of documents, traded between members of sects - like the Essenes. We have enough evidence to know that they kept libraries, and took some kind of 'schooling' with scripture... which seems like the most likely way for such texts to be transmitted.... taught, copied, carried.

Thus - all you need is ONE flawed description of a real event, and it becomes the SAME as truth, by it's repetition and disemination.

So - if ONE Apostle tells the story one way - within just a few years, that version becomes official 'truth'... and other accounts have to bend to accomodate, or are dropped entirely. This would be one good explanation of why small differences exist between accounts, but few big discrepencies... people like the Essenes were not stupid... they could correlate texts.

In fact - to MY way of thinking... it is the LACK of conflicts which marks the unreliability of some scripture.

Try looking at incident reports after a car accident.... minutes after the fact, people can't even agree what the COLOURS of the involved car were, or who-crashed-into-whom. But, give them 20 minutes, and people seem to fit their memories to each other... and disparate elements become unified.

Thus, the Gospel scriptures show the hallmarks of the democratisation of 'truth'... recording the MOST agreeable elements. And those texts that didn't agree (like Enoch) simply fail to make it into Canon.

The fact that we have evidence of Qumran, of the libraries and schools of (probably) Essenes... and have texts that were DEFINITELY constructed there, along with texts that reflect earlier texts... means that even two thousand years ago, there could be 'mass production'. Think of a colony of Essenes copying and trading scripture, day in and day out, throughout the year... and all of a sudden, a mere 25 years seems like a long time... to replicate similar versions of texts, and to create one 'authorised' version of a story.

Just one other point.... you mentioned the completion of the book or Revelation. I was surprised to discover that, while it seems likely that Daniel was written hundreds of years earlier - the Jews didn't accept it as cononical until AFTER Revelation was written. People base much of the validity of the New Testament, upon the foundation of the Old - and yet the earlier 'text' was still a work-in-progress long after the advent of the New message.

you don't know WHAT they saw, you only know they died for what they believe in.

In fact - all you really know, is that someone ELSE says that some people died for a certain reason.

Choose the description that fits him best in your mind; please explain if you choose "Other."

As I see it, Jesus seems to have been a character who was carefully crafted by the gospel writers using several Old Testament texts that spoke of an evil ruler who wanted to be worshipped as God. Although these rulers are not specifically named, they are given various suggestive titles, such as "King of Babylon" or "Lucifer" and "King of Tyrus" or "Prince of Tyrus," for example (Babylon means "confusion by mixing," "Lucifer" means "morning star," and Tyrus means "rock"). Some obvious examples of such passages can be found in Isaiah 14 (especially verses 12-19) and Ezekiel 28 (especially verses 1-19). Additionally, Jesus goes so far as to identify himself as the "morning star" in Revelations 22:16, making this hypothesis a bit difficult to dispute.

Also, two of the gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) went out of their way to craft genealogies that would actually prove that Jesus couldn't be the long awaited Jewish Messiah. First of all, the Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of King David through both Solomon and Asa. For another, the Messiah could not be a descendent of the cursed branch of Jeconiah. Neither genealogy showed the proper line of descendency through both Solomon and Asa, and both showed that he was descended from Jeconiah - either implicitly (Luke) or explicitly (Matthew). Why?

Combine these facts with some of the anti-family comments that have been attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers (among other things), and you seem to have a pretty unsavory character who is currently being worshipped as God by about a third of the world's population. Does this seem odd to anyone else besides me?


He just came in one day and said to the Roman Emperor, "All your bases are belong to us" then the Emperor replied, "What? It you! Guards! Somebody set us up the bomb!". This is why the Romans first persecuted Christianity, because of Jesus' constant instistance that all of the Roman's bases belonged to him, when they clearly didn't. But then the Emperor went mad and said, "Take off every Zig! For great justice!". So the Emperors subjects travelled the land in search of every zig, and eventually found them all and took them off. Then Jesus said, "You have no chance to survive! Make your time!". This is how Christianity came to be.

He just came in one day and said to the Roman Emperor, "All your bases are belong to us" then the Emperor replied, "What? It you! Guards! Somebody set us up the bomb!". This is why the Romans first persecuted Christianity, because of Jesus' constant instistance that all of the Roman's bases belonged to him, when they clearly didn't. But then the Emperor went mad and said, "Take off every Zig! For great justice!". So the Emperors subjects travelled the land in search of every zig, and eventually found them all and took them off. Then Jesus said, "You have no chance to survive! Make your time!". This is how Christianity came to be.

Amen! :)

Ah, geez, I knew I forgot something.

The passage Pterodonia referenced where Jesus told his disciple to "hate" (I hate the Enlish Language.) their families in order to follow him.

Pterodonia is quoting Luke 14:26. Reading the teachings of Jesus throughout the gospels, it would seem a little odd for him to place such an emphasis on loving others (Matthew 22 and all its correspondent gospels as well as Luke 10) and exclude family from that. This is not necessarily any kind of proof, per se. This is just a reason to doubt that the English translation is as accurate to the original text as it could be.

So, off to the Greek text we go!

The word used for "hate" is the word "miseō" (μισέω), which, by extension, means "loves less." Jesus affirms that this is his true message in Matthew 10:37, where he says, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." I would assert that this was his message in both passages as a result of both the word study and the related message offering a more clear identification of his message (in English, albeit) in Matthew.

The man that wanted to go bury his father seems confusing at first. Leaving bodies unburied in the Jewish culture was an "abomination." The problem here lies in our modern mindset. The man said he wanted to bury his father. He never said he was dead. This is a result of the way that the people of that time spoke and the way that those who translated into the KJV spoke. In essence, the man was asking that Jesus let him be a disciple after his father dies. Seems okay, right? The problem with this is the problem I mentioned above and the one Jesus talks about in Matthew 10. The man placed more importance in his own father than following Jesus. This would be reasonable, according to Jesus' teaching, if he was a mere man. However, according to Jesus' lesson on the greatest two commandments, he would have to be God to make such a claim.

Jesus admitted that he spoke in parables so that many people would not understand his message and would therefore not be saved. When he explained the darker meaning of his parables, he (at least sometimes) did it only in secret after sending the rest of the audience away. This tells me that his ultimate mission was to seduce people away from God (which he began with by first separating them from their families).

You are referring to Matthew 13, where Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 6:9-10, correct? Notice what he says about these people from who he is hiding this message. That they are unresponsive to the teachings of him.

Wait, that's the point of making it clear to them, right?

The answer lies in what he is hiding. In the text, itself, it does not say that he is hiding the saving grace. They are already rejecting that. He is hiding the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" (mustērion τό basileia ouranos), as he clearly states in verse 11.

Therefore, it is not the saving grace that is being hidden, but the secrets of heaven. If he was to make those clear, then even those who were unresponsive would decide that Jesus is some sort of miracle man (which was not his purpose in earth, even though he did do miracles) and would come to him to cure their various problems, sort of like a "spiritual Santa Claus."

Really? Please show me where Jesus uses the word "God" anywhere in John 15. Actually, the reference he makes is to his "Father," who Christians have obviously decided is God. I am simply allowing for the possibility that his true "Father" had a different identity (e.g., Satan, the god of this world, prince of the power of the air, etc.). If that is the case, then since he also said that he and his Father are One - it logically follows that Jesus is Satan.

You're right. He uses it nowhere in John 15. However, just a few chapters before, in John 8, where Jesus says, in verse 40, that his teachings are from God (yes, "theos"). In addition, a few statements later, in verse 42, he says that he is from God ("theos gar" ~ "gar" is an intensifying word, similar to the implications of "verily" or "assuredly"). Jesus did in fact, claim to be from God, and even referring to him as the Father ("patēr") that sent him.

In addition, in Matthew 15, Jesus speaks to the pharisees. (Matthew does offer that Jesus encouraged honoring father and mother, thus providing further evidence that his message was not to hate family. ;) Just thought I would point that out.) He goes on to say that he opposes that which God (yes, "theos") also opposes: those who profess what makes them out to be religious but do not genuinely follow their own profession (hence, the word "hypocrite," which Jesus used often with the religious leaders), but replace such genuineness with traditions of men (entalma anthrōpos). So, not only does Jesus claim God as his Father, but also his Sender and the One with whom his message is in agreement.

Since, as you say, "he also said that he and his Father are One," it logically follows that Jesus is God.

Okay, now for these similarities between Jesus and Satan. I first want you to know that I honestly admire your study. You are obviously someone who exercises your mind, as was intended. I wish more Christians were as tenacious at defending themselves as you are. We, as Christians, are commanded to do so in I Peter 3:15. It is funny how many will conveniently "forget" that part because it requires time, investigation, and sometimes, brutal honesty in admitting that there are some things that they must change about their beliefs. It's the "I-know-what-I-believe-don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts" attitude. It is ignorant, and to quote Hutchinson again, "Unthinking faith is a curious offering to be made to the Creator of the human mind." I had actually slightly misquoted (I had "A thoughtless" instead of "Unthinking.") that last time, so I just fixed it.

Jesus came to earth from heaven [see gospels] - just as Satan allegedly did [see Ezekiel]

Correct! He did! Difference: How and why thy went from heaven to earth.

As I have already established, Jesus was sent, whereas Satan was "cast as profane" and promised to be "devoured" by fire (Ez. 28:16,18).

Honestly, I had never heard that argument before, though. Thank you. I am now more informed on the argument as a result.

Jesus is called the Morning Star (and so is Lucifer);

I assume you are referring to Revelation 22 and Isaiah 14. The wonderful lack of color in the English language strikes again.

In Isaiah, Satan is called "hêylêl bên shachar," which is better interpreted "Lucifer, son of the morn(ing)." He is then chastized for attempting to be higher than God.

In Revelation, Jesus calls himself (according to John) the "lampros kai orthrinos astēr." This is more literally "bright and morning star." Though there would be a difference in the original language anyway (because Hebrew and Greek are obviously different), the actual meanings of the words are different. The morning star, as in Revelation, was used as a beacon. Satan's description was likely to depict his beauty and light, as he is deemed the "angel of light."

Furthermore, Jesus speaks of Satan in terms of authority in Luke 10. The seventy disciples come back after performing many miraculous works and exclaim to Jesus, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name." Jesus responds in a way that is a bit confusing in today's culture. It is translated to mean something like, "I saw that Satan was cast, as a light from heaven." Now, if Jesus has control of Satan, Satan would not be painted as his father. It would be the other way around.

Jesus matches the description given of Lucifer (aka, the King of Babylon) in Isaiah 14 - almost to a "T"

I am not doubting that you see something, but in the entire passage on Lucifer (vv. 12-20, at least) seems to give nothing that is similar to the Jesus I am defending. Could you be a bit more clear about it? The king of Babylon is more widely-accepted to be an appocalyptic reference to the "Antichrist."

On question: How do you reason the temptation of Christ in the desert, where Jesus was tempted and defied him thrice?

Looking forward to hearing your reply.

I won't be disappointed, I know.

The king of Babylon is more widely-accepted to be an appocalyptic reference to the "Antichrist."


Here's one of those questions:

Why do you believe that the "King of Babylon" is anyone other than the 'king of Babylon'?

This is just one of those big problems I have... where the Christian dictates something from scripture... and then claims it is a metaphorical reference.

My question... if one part is... why not another part?

The Kings of Babylon became wealthy, and then fell from grace, and decayed in the ground - just as every other man... although, in their case - it would seem like a greater fall, since they 'fell' from such a lofty origin...

Why read such passages as anything other than that? Still poetic, even metaphorical... you might argue... but borrowing one LESS extension of belief.

Jesus was a guy from the beginning of the common era. He died fairly young from being nailed to a couple of boards.

Jesus was a guy from the beginning of the common era. He died fairly young from being nailed to a couple of boards.

And then rose again three days later and changed the world.

Reading the teachings of Jesus throughout the gospels, it would seem a little odd for him to place such an emphasis on loving others (Matthew 22 and all its correspondent gospels as well as Luke 10) and exclude family from that.

Except that Jesus seems to be fairly consistent when it comes to showing hatred and disrespect for family, whether it is his own or others.

The word used for "hate" is the word "miseō" (μισέω), which, by extension, means "loves less." Jesus affirms that this is his true message in Matthew 10:37, where he says, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." I would assert that this was his message in both passages as a result of both the word study and the related message offering a more clear identification of his message (in English, albeit) in Matthew.

According to the Blue Letter Bible site, "miseo" is to be translated this way:

1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
2) to be hated, detested

There doesn't seem to be anything there that would imply a lesser degree of love.

An interesting side note here is that according to the the New Revised Standard Version (as it is given in a parallel column of the New Greek/English Interlinear New Testament), the disciples of Jesus are called upon not only to hate their families, but all life as well:

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple."

What could be more "Satanic" (in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, that is) than hating all life? It seems that the deeper I dig, the worse this gets!

The man that wanted to go bury his father seems confusing at first. Leaving bodies unburied in the Jewish culture was an "abomination."

Except that he wasn't advocating leaving bodies unburied - rather, he required that any disciple of his must be willing to immediately abandon all family responsibilities without looking back, leaving the burden to others instead. Anyone who did this was promised a huge reward in the afterlife.

The problem with this is the problem I mentioned above and the one Jesus talks about in Matthew 10. The man placed more importance in his own father than following Jesus. This would be reasonable, according to Jesus' teaching, if he was a mere man. However, according to Jesus' lesson on the greatest two commandments, he would have to be God to make such a claim.

Well, technically speaking, one does not have to be God to make any claim whatsoever. I could make such claims myself, but that wouldn't constitute proof that I am God. My argument is that Jesus was most decidedly not God. At best, he was a mere mortal man with a God complex - that seems to have been pretty common at that time. And at worst? The Antichrist? The Son of Satan? Satan? A case could be made for any or all of the above. Since I have serious doubts that the man ever really existed in the flesh, the main question for me is, what did the gospel writers intend for him to be?

You know, I've heard it said that Satan will tell 1000 truths just to slip in one lie. Most people seem to focus on the 1000 truths, and deliberately overlook the lie because it doesn't fit in with all those truths. Me? I'm sifting through the multitude of truths to find and expose the hidden lie. You seem to be one of the few who is at least willing to examine my findings, even though you may not agree with them, and I do appreciate that in a person. :) As I see it, one who is not willing to look for the hidden lie will not be able to find the strait gate, either.

In order to keep this message at a more manageable length, I think I'll end it here. But before you file the paragraph above under the category of "non sequitur," please consider it as an introduction to my next installment, where I will address Jesus's secrecy.

You are referring to Matthew 13, where Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 6:9-10, correct? Notice what he says about these people from who he is hiding this message. That they are unresponsive to the teachings of him.

Wait, that's the point of making it clear to them, right?

The answer lies in what he is hiding. In the text, itself, it does not say that he is hiding the saving grace. They are already rejecting that. He is hiding the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" (mustērion τό basileia ouranos), as he clearly states in verse 11.

Therefore, it is not the saving grace that is being hidden, but the secrets of heaven. If he was to make those clear, then even those who were unresponsive would decide that Jesus is some sort of miracle man (which was not his purpose in earth, even though he did do miracles) and would come to him to cure their various problems, sort of like a "spiritual Santa Claus."

First of all, I'd like to begin by calling your attention to Jesus's triple-denial that he ever taught anything in secret:

John 18:19-21: The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

Of course, we know that Jesus wasn't being completely straightforward here. He admittedly spoke in parables so that his true message would remain hidden to many; he didn't restrict his sermons to the synagogues and temples; and he sometimes waited until he was alone with his disciples to explain in secret the true meaning of the parables he had previously spoken to a much larger audience.

One particularly chilling example of this last point is the "Field of Tares" parable, in which an enemy has deliberately sown weeds among the wheat:

Matthew 13:24-30: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

And here is the secret meaning that Jesus reveals to his disciples behind closed doors:

Matthew 13:36-42: Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Now if Jesus really came to save the entire world from this evil fate, then why would he deliver his message in such a way that only a select few would understand it and be saved (and then, apparently, only because he explained it to them in secret)? Wouldn't this deliberate deception make Jesus the tare-sowing enemy of whom he had spoken?

Matthew 13:10-15: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Please note that, for the purpose of making it look like he was a fulfillment of prophecy to those who were not so well-versed in the scriptures (and I assume his uneducated disciples probably weren't), he seems to have deliberately misquoted Isaiah, where God tells Isaiah (not Jesus) to utter a curse to confound people and to hide truth from all (not just some or most - but all) of those in his audience (the Israelites) as part of his great plan to bring about the Exile:

Isaiah 6:9-12: And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

Now, I'm assuming that Jesus knew the scriptures better than most, so I'd also have to assume that he was being deliberately deceptive when he implied that he was the fulfullment of a "prophecy" of events which had long since taken place - even with his own disciples. Please note that, in contrast, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is not a deceiver.

He (Jesus) was a prophet, spreading God's words to others. But he's passing away was glorified and was wrongfully described as God or God's son. He was God’s messenger just like prophet Moses and prophet Muhammad (may he rest in peace).

Jesus may very well have existed in real life. There is a great chance he was indeed an important historical figure.
But why is someone important, historically? Because history makes it so. And history is written, sometimes by contemporaries, but alas more often by people who "came afterwards", who heard stories, who consulted with sources dead and/or alive. The gospels were not written by Jesus himself, but by people with an ideology. A very strong one at that. And they were written after Jesus lived. Before that, the religion of the people who were later labeled Christians was harsh, unforgiving and totalitary - completely historicaly adept at their social, political and geographical environment. But as society changed and evolved, confronted with the civilizing influences of the great sedentary nations - the Graeco-Romans, but also the Mesopotian nations, although perhaps but a wraith of their former glory - the need for a more socially inspired spiritual government arose. And the new and improved christianity filled that void. The bible was "designed" to act as a guideline for social and economic behaviour, and as such it is constructed in a way that makes it readily adaptable for any kind of motivation. It can as easily say 'yes' as it can 'no'. Each and every statement can be dismissed and/or confirmed using the bible - just as it would be when using contemporary proverbs. The bible is a very important socio-cultural source, although it is by no means pure and unscathed. It has been altered many times in the course of history, unfortunately. It is accepted by so many people not because it is different and new, but because it is old and confirming of existing feelings. In that way, it has much in common with a television soap-opera.
Again to Jesus. He was probably a preacher, but he was also probably completely unaware of the shoes (or sandals) history would deem him fit to fill. It is only afterwards that the ties and influences were created that would make "his" way "the" way, one to be followed. For "his" way is not all that different from others that came before and after. Siddharta Gautama (Buddha), Pelagius (who was burned at the stake by the "true" christians), Saint-Francis (who started off a devout holy man, but later on retracted himself probably because he felt disappointed in the way the Holy See wanted to make use of his teachings and guidelines).
Religion is an ingenious construction of man, and more often than not historians (like myself) can provide an explanation for certain aspects of a particular religion. Christianity is no different (although it makes for a lengthy explanation, that cannot yet be completed, for it still keeps evolving). But make no mistake: chances are, God did not create man in His image. It probably is the other way round.

You're right. He uses it nowhere in John 15. However, just a few chapters before, in John 8, where Jesus says, in verse 40, that his teachings are from God (yes, "theos"). In addition, a few statements later, in verse 42, he says that he is from God ("theos gar" ~ "gar" is an intensifying word, similar to the implications of "verily" or "assuredly"). Jesus did in fact, claim to be from God, and even referring to him as the Father ("patēr") that sent him.

In John 8:42, Jesus interestingly stated that he did not come from himself - which implies that he is indeed separate from God, or whoever else might have sent him:

John 8:42: Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

So much for the idea that Jesus is God. Of course, if Jesus is really Satan incarnate, then what would stop him from lying about that last point?

Also, please note that, while Jesus seems to be implying that God is his Father, he doesn't really come out and say so here. He says that he "proceeded forth and came from" God - which seems at least somewhat deceptive to me, since, according to Judeo-Christian belief, everything came from God - even Satan. There also seems to be an implication that God and the one that sent him are two different beings - that although he "proceeded forth and came from God," as did everything in the Universe, he was really the errand boy for a different being. And even if you don't agree with me on that point, we both know that it wouldn't be the first time God sent a lying spirit to deceive people. So even if Jesus was sent by God to deliver a message to the Jews, that in itself wouldn't mean much - especially if that message in any way contradicts God's earlier messages that were supposed to endure forever.

By the way, according to the Blue Letter Bible site, the word that was translated to "proceeded forth" was "exerchomai," which translates as follows:

1) to go or come forth of
a) with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which he departs
1) of those who leave a place of their own accord
2) of those who are expelled or cast out

2) metaph.
a) to go out of an assembly, i.e. forsake it
b) to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of
c) to go forth from one's power, escape from it in safety
d) to come forth (from privacy) into the world, before the public, (of those who by novelty of opinion attract attention)
e) of things
1) of reports, rumours, messages, precepts
2) to be made known, declared

3) to be spread, to be proclaimed

4) to come forth
a) emitted as from the heart or the mouth
b) to flow forth from the body
c) to emanate, issue
1) used of a sudden flash of lightning
2) used of a thing vanishing
3) used of a hope which has disappeared

There are certainly some interesting implications in his choice of words, wouldn't you agree?

A product of the imagination in the time honored fashion of Horus,Ashtoreth,Zeus,Mithras,Thor,Vishnu and countless other gods and spirits.His story was very cleverly put together when Rome needed it. :eek:

"Lets just say that a million years ago on this day a dude was born that most of us think was magic, but others don't. But that's O.K., because we're probably right" -A Great American (on Chistmas)

That would be the complete and utter loser of his age...!
Ending up dead pretty much means to be a loser, does it not?

That means we're ALL utter losers. . . I meand D'uh! we're all gonna DIE!!!!

*runs away*

And then rose again three days later and changed the world.

According to one version of the story...

Grave, my apologies on leaving that one, I was a little distracted while I was trying to write that last post and I had to leave early. As you will notice, I didn't even address everything Pterodonia pointed to.

Originally posted by Grave n idle
Why do you believe that the "King of Babylon" is anyone other than the 'king of Babylon'?

This is just one of those big problems I have... where the Christian dictates something from scripture... and then claims it is a metaphorical reference.

In fact, the Antichrist will be the king of Babylon (Rev. 17:17,18). This king of Babylon, however, is not Satan, and is not called such in the Isaiah passage. That was my main point, but the fact that this particular section is also apocalyptic in nature is the reason for thinking that it wasn't the most immediate king of Babylon (Writing of Isaiah is estimated to be 700-681 BCE, while the Neo-Babylonian Empire started with King Nabopolassar in about 626 BCE.). For the record, my argument was never that it was metaphorical. Nowhere is that even hinted in my statements. You assumed that because I didn't believe it was the first king that came along, I must think it is metaphorical. I think that it is very literal, just not about Nabopolassar. The reason for the thought that it is the Antichrist is the passage in Revelation. Either way, it is prophetic. The difference is, Babylon and its king's downfall are both reiterated in Revelation (most of Rev. 17 and some of 18).

Again, sorry about the lack of clarification. I was not only defending myself on here, but I was defending myself to a person standing beside me. It is difficult to try to debate with several people at once.

Okay - let me re-word it... the Christian has to believe that the Bible is inerrant, and the perfect word of 'God', right? To admit that the text is fallible in part, is to admit that the text cannot be relied upon to be factual in entirety.

I agree.

On the (very) small differences, such as what was on the sign above Jesus on the cross, those are likely effects from the "car wreck" example you gave. This is to say that all the gospels were not subject to your explaanation that "if ONE Apostle tells the story one way - within just a few years, that version becomes official 'truth'... and other accounts have to bend to accomodate, or are dropped entirely." There are subtle differences. However, using that same car wreck example, what the witnesses agree on is usually what is reliable. If one discrepency between detail was enough to question everything about the story, then you could say that unless everyone agrees about everything in that example, the car crash may never have happened.

Can the Christian have the same assurance about the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita?

What evidence is there that anyone should?

If EVERY detail is true in those books, if they are as infallible as the Christian needs to believe the Bible to be - then there is a conflict - because the texts do not agree.

I fully agree. "If . . ."

Thus - the Christian has to plead a Special Exeption for the Bible

Not fully. A Christian who bases his or her beliefs fully on ignorant faith would. Those who decide to look at history and find facts that give evidence (not proof) can become certain of its legitimacy. Because the Bible cannot be proven as a math problem, there is always room for disbelief. However, if it could, then there would be nobody who would doubt it (at least nobody with any sense). You have sense and yet do not believe it. That is my point. It is not completely based on Special Exception. Evidence gives way to the belief. Faith is what solidifies and carries the belief.

Was Jesus the Christ, or just another prophet? Both versions cannot be true, surely?

Correct. The logical laws of Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle would support you on that.

Second point - I believe the Old Testament DOES show evidence of what we are calling "Telephone effect"... especially when you look at the Hebrew of the first few bites of Genesis. To me, it is obvious that the first chapters of Genesis talk about multiple creations

Where? I see the creation in chapter one, and a recap in chapter two. I say that because chapter two begins with everything already made:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (Recap begins here), in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground

It then describes the creation again. I see no second creation.

My biggest question is about the events following the killing of Abel by Cain. It says, in Genesis 4:14 that Cain feared that someone would kill him. Unless he is talking about unmentioned brothers and sisters or his parents, I wonder where these people come from. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand this. However, I suppose that I am not the epitome of insight into Scripture, so it is one of the few things that I have learned to deal with in limbo.

and that things like the Flood are obviously confined to limited geography

I'm not sure where this is from. Any help is appreciated.

This seems to hark back to similar myth in other Mesopotamian mythologies, which SEEM to surface again later in Mosaic texts, but subtly changed.

You mean Gligamesh? Great story. One character, the goddess Ishtar, is actually incorporated into Christianity in the New Testament church through syncretism, and is where we get the name for our holiday "Easter." Remember how she escaped the flood? Magical painted egg.

However, the evidence for this story being unchanged is even more unlikely than Scripture, so it is more likely that what we have now is not the original Gilgamesh than not the real Scripture.

Gilgamesh is still a good story. I do prefer Oedipus Rex, though.

Mosaic text references to these?

The Code of Laws of Hammurabi (literally, carved in stone in the middle of Babylon) as compared to the story of the Ten Commandments (which becomes a written text during or after, the Jewish sojourn in Babylon).

The Code of Hammurabi is generally accepted to be older, though it's date is not solidified (middle chronology, I suppose). It is very likely that these rules were written down. The difference is that they seem more like the Levitical Laws than the Ten Commandments. I would not doubt, however, that this is where the Israelites got the idea of "and eye for an eye," as that seems to be the idea of the Code of Hammurabi. Still, we are accepting the Ten Commandments only on paper but we accept the Code of Hammurabi written on a giant stone? Surely if it is acceptable to have a stone writing, the writing of the Ten Commandments written on stones would be valid. The Exodus was still after the kingship of Hammurabi, but the Israelites would not have had any access to his Code as of yet, as they had been in Egypt.

In addition, I do chuckle that the Bible is so drawn into question, yet these writings, such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Epic of Gilgamesh are held almost as infallable by those opposing the inspiration of Scripture as the Scripture is by those who support it.

I would submit that you have an interesting point, though. I am intrigued.

Similarly - the Flood myth is not the FIRST such story - but, perhaps it is the first version to change 'as far as the eye can see', to 'as far as the eye OF GOD can see'.

Again, Gilgamesh? There are as many discrepencies with this Epic. All of the tablets are not even in our possession (Tablet XII is still unaccounted for.). My putting faith in the originality and timing Bible is, historically, more valid than someone believing the originality and timing of this epic. Both take faith, just in different capacities.

A more likely transition of scripture, than the 'telephone effect', would be the passage of documents, traded between members of sects - like the Essenes. We have enough evidence to know that they kept libraries, and took some kind of 'schooling' with scripture... which seems like the most likely way for such texts to be transmitted.... taught, copied, carried.

Not quite sure what you are arguing here. Could be that it's 3 AM and I am not thinking at normal speed.

Thus - all you need is ONE flawed description of a real event, and it becomes the SAME as truth, by it's repetition and disemination.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Epic of Gilgamesh could be viewed the same way.

Your logic is true.

So - if ONE Apostle tells the story one way - within just a few years, that version becomes official 'truth'... and other accounts have to bend to accomodate, or are dropped entirely.

Wrong. The minor discrepancies in numbers of peoples and examples like what was written on the cross have not all been changed to agree. Would four witnesses of a car wreck change their story based on what they heard of another witness' description? Doubtful. Why apply that reasoning here?

This would be one good explanation of why small differences exist between accounts, but few big discrepencies [sic]

Like I said, if they were looking for uniformity, why even leave the little discrepencies? Logically, those are the easiest to change, so why would those be the last things to be changed?

Also, in the car wreck analogy: The bigger details are generally the ones that people remember the most clearly. Plus, after hearing another witness' statement, you think any of the other witnesses would change major parts of their story? Again, very doubtful, as the major parts are often similar.

people like the Essenes were not stupid

Nobody implies that they were. However, this does not mean someone who is not stupid is also not wrong. A little bit of flawed logic, here.

In fact - to MY way of thinking... it is the LACK of conflicts which marks the unreliability of some scripture.

Try looking at incident reports after a car accident.... minutes after the fact, people can't even agree what the COLOURS of the involved car were, or who-crashed-into-whom. But, give them 20 minutes, and people seem to fit their memories to each other... and disparate elements become unified.

Except that the apostles did not have a meeting and piece together a story while they were writing their gospels. That would negate the need for more than one book and also it would negate even the minor discrepancies. In addition, the gospels were not written immediately after the event, so that it had been a significant time to ponder. It was fresh enough in their minds, but not so fresh that they were still in any kind of a state of shock as to the life of Jesus. There was no desparation as there is immediately after a wreck. This is even ignoring the fact that a statement about a crisis immediately following it is not fairly comparible to a biographical writing about a life that was, on the whole, not a crisis that was not written immediately.

Now, I do not doubt that some things were shared between gospel writers, as there are a lot of parts of gospels that are repeated verbatim in other gospels.

Saying that the uniformity of facts is a reason against the validity of such is a bit illogical. That would mean that, the less uniformity there is, the more plausible the story would be. So, stories that do not connect at all are the most valid? Not the case. Aside from that, I was referring to the copies written after the original autographs, which were written in different places by different people, being uniform, thus validating a lack of change as a result of copying. In order for a mistake to be made and not caught by this means, both copiers would have to make the same mistake at the same time, though they be miles upon miles away from each other and possibly not even acquainted.

The fact that we have evidence of Qumran, of the libraries and schools of (probably) Essenes... and have texts that were DEFINITELY constructed there, along with texts that reflect earlier texts... means that even two thousand years ago, there could be 'mass production'. Think of a colony of Essenes copying and trading scripture, day in and day out, throughout the year... and all of a sudden, a mere 25 years seems like a long time... to replicate similar versions of texts, and to create one 'authorised' version of a story.

Agreed that there would be a mass production. Your argument here would make sense with one big 'if' . . . If the Essenes all were making their copies one at a time, then mistakes would easily go uncaught. However, with 40 people all copying a text, it would be easy to see that there would not likely be one mistake made by the majority of the copiers at the same time in the same part of the text. The majority would likely not make the mistake. Even if they had, though, it would still have conflicted with those being copied by the other two groups (Pharisees and Sadducees), as they prided themselves on knowing the Law and the Prophets with impecable accuracy.

Funny thing is, so did the Essenes. They knew the middle letter of the Torah as well as the middle letter of the Prophets. They copied the Scriptures letter-by-letter (as did the Pharisees and Sadducees), making the possibility for a mistake even less likely. This is, in addition, where many of the monastic units developed their system of copying (they did add a few things). I am not Roman Catholic, by any stretch, but I cannot refute their contribution of keeping the Scriptures accurate.

Just one other point.... you mentioned the completion of the book or Revelation. I was surprised to discover that, while it seems likely that Daniel was written hundreds of years earlier - the Jews didn't accept it as cononical until AFTER Revelation was written. People base much of the validity of the New Testament, upon the foundation of the Old - and yet the earlier 'text' was still a work-in-progress long after the advent of the New message.

You are correct. In fact, comparitively, not much of Daniel is quoted in the New Testament. However, the problem here lies in the fact that you are attacking tradition of Judaism and I am defending theology of Christianity. Much of Christianity stems from Judaism, but much also differs. Enough of it had already differed when Revelation was written as the day of Pentacost signified the start of the new church.

Also, I am not saying that those 14,000 copies are the only copies found, thus making this copying divine. There are some copies found that do not agree. The problem with them is A) they are not typically all that old, in comparison, and B) they are the overwhelming minority.

Think of it this way:

You are a high school substitute teacher one Monday morning. Your class of thirty students had been told by their normal teacher to each copy down an identical work to the letter. Over the weekend, they each had. On the following Monday morning, they turn them in, but alas, you have not been given the original and have nothing by which to check the papers. You then examine each one of the students' works with great scrutiny over the next few days, to find that 26 of them have identical copies to each other, while four of them have variances. You then can conclude, with great assuredness, that the 26 with identical papers copied the text of the piece to its completeness and exactness. Am I not correct? I am not saying that there is not a slight chance that one of the four could actually be the only one correct. I am saying that there is an overwhelming chance that such is not the case.

Originally posted by San Texario
Jesus was a guy from the beginning of the common era. He died fairly young from being nailed to a couple of boards.

Sure was.

Originally posted by Pterodonia
Except that Jesus seems to be fairly consistent when it comes to showing hatred and disrespect for family, whether it is his own or others.

Evidence of this? He obeys his mother with his first miracle, even after he says it is not yet time. He also made sure she was well taken care of even as he was hanging on the cross (when he gave her to John for care). Where was he disrespectful to family?

I will reiterate, Matthew 10 does not quote Jesus saying, "He that loveth father or mother is not worthy of me." It quotes him saying, "He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me." If his intent was for those who follow him to hate their own families, would he not have said so?

In Matthew 12, he even says that anyone who does the will of his Father is as his sister, brother, and mother. Why would he use such an example if his message was to hate family? This would make no sense at all. If he holds the view of family the way you hold that he does, then he is essentially saying, "For whosoever does the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is as those I hate." Why hate someone who does the will of the one who sent you?

Matthew 15 (also in Mark 7) records Jesus saying that it is God's (theos) command to honor one's father and mother and that the Pharisees and Scribes were not doing so, and were hypocrties, therefore.

He teaches it again (honoring father and mother), in Matthew 19 (and Mark 10, and Luke 18), to a man wishing to obtain eternal life.

In Paul's letters, Paul (a man who preaches Jesus to be Christ) encourages children to obey parents and everyone to honor father and mother (Eph. 6:1,2).

According to the Blue Letter Bible site, "miseo" is to be translated this way:

1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
2) to be hated, detested

There doesn't seem to be anything there that would imply a lesser degree of love.

The word can mean that as well. Make no mistake. However, as a man who has been trained to know the biblical Greek language, I can personally assert that the meaning I mentioned is also carried.

For your humor, however, I looked it up in Strong's Greek Dictionary (Though when I type the Greek word on the computer it always shows numbers in place of some of the symbols, which is frustrating.).

miseō (μισέω):

1. to detest
2. by extension, to love less

A website, albeit one many Christians seem to like, versus a Greek-English Dictionary and three years of Biblical Greek. I'll take my chances.

An interesting side note here is that according to the the New Revised Standard Version (as it is given in a parallel column of the New Greek/English Interlinear New Testament), the disciples of Jesus are called upon not only to hate their families, but all life as well:

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple."

I never really liked the RSV, though I admit I have quoted it in times when it seems to be acceptably in accordance with the original text implications. However, if I come to you and say I am sick of life, what does this mean? Does this mean I hate all life that lives on earth? No, it means I am sick of my life. Poor interpretation on the part of the RSV and partially incorrect because of our interpretation of what even the Enlish translation therein means.

What could be more "Satanic" (in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, that is) than hating all life? It seems that the deeper I dig, the worse this gets!

All life on earth? Eh, I could see your point. However, if we are being as true to the text as I was attempting to be, then there is nothing wrong with it. Check out Paul and his fellow believers in II Corinthians 1:8.

Except that he wasn't advocating leaving bodies unburied - rather, he required that any disciple of his must be willing to immediately abandon all family responsibilities without looking back, leaving the burden to others instead. Anyone who did this was promised a huge reward in the afterlife.

It is likely that he had brothers, and because of the family atmosphere (the Jewish culture in the NT revered family, even extended, much closer than we do in our present culture. It is likely that there were enough in the extended family that were able to fulfill those duties. Basicaly, though, it is not out of the question that Jesus gives such a statement because the man was wanting to wait until he had nobody else to serve, or, to paraphrase, "Let me follow you when I have nobody better to tend to." This may have not been the verbage, but it may likely have been the conveyed message. I am not saying that it was absolutely the case, but it is plausible.

You know, I've heard it said that Satan will tell 1000 truths just to slip in one lie. Most people seem to focus on the 1000 truths, and deliberately overlook the lie because it doesn't fit in with all those truths.

And what evidence was this based upon? I could tell you that Satan slips in just one truth with 1000 lies and it would be just as verifiable.

You have given me what you were told. I will give you what I read of him in Scripture:

John 8:44 - "He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Hypothetically, if Satan told one thousand truths for every one lie, he would be one of the most honest beings on earth. ;)

Me? I'm sifting through the multitude of truths to find and expose the hidden lie.

Commendable. It is good, in fact, it is preached in Paul's letter that it is good to test those who come as teachers. Paul commended people who tested teachers and found them to be apostates.

As I see it, one who is not willing to look for the hidden lie will not be able to find the strait gate, either.

I, rather, aim to address each and every issue and determine if it is true or not. Basically, I spend time searching out both what is true and what is untrue. I examine each step to make sure it is strait. (metaphorically, of course ;) )

I am glad that you are searching for truth. Too many just accept what they hear as truth, both Christians and otherwise. I do not mean to dismiss your work. I mean to possibly help you find that truth. I, by no means am telling you to go join the nearest church. I am not telling you to start giving money. I, in fact, find people that do those things ignorant and as close to the Jude description of an apostate as you can get. I am not going to tell you that I have a faith built on what I feel. Those are the most ignorant Christians (and, unfortunately, the most prevalent in this day and age), who say they know Jesus is living in them because they feel it.

It took me a long time to accept redemption for this reason. My response was, "You know Jesus because you feel him. I don't know him because I don't feel him."

They wouldn't be reasonable, so I ignored them.

Thankfully, I then found a dear friend of mine with something unique: a thinking, studied, well-defended faith. This intrigued me, because he was the first Christian I had met that showed me that there is, logically, a legitimacy in evangelical Christianity. I then did the same thing that you are doing now. I got ahold of a Greek NT and a Hebrew OT. I found translations, commentaries, concordances, dictionaries, etc. and I poured over them. For the first time, I could chuckle at the fact that I was not looking at Christianity in order to disprove it, but to simply investigate it, from a neutral perspective. Believe me, it took awhile, because I was still thinking, "If I am even going to attempt to believe this, it had better be supported well." In essence, I put the Bible on trial (and no, I have never read those 'Case for . . .' books, though I had heard of them).

Since then, I have come up with a relationship with God that is not built on my emotions and feelings, which are subject to change by uncontrollable things. It is built on what I know, not feel.

Matthew 22:37 "And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."

In essence, I attempt to do just that.

Sorry for that little story, but I figured that since you had given yours I might as well give you mine. :)

John 18:19-21: The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

Of course, we know that Jesus wasn't being completely straightforward here. He admittedly spoke in parables so that his true message would remain hidden to many; he didn't restrict his sermons to the synagogues and temples; and he sometimes waited until he was alone with his disciples to explain in secret the true meaning of the parables he had previously spoken to a much larger audience.

First, he was not speaking of everything he had ever said. Rather, as he was about to be put on trial (though there was some defiance of Jewish court laws as Jews did not question defendants in court, but relied on witnesses for the accounts), he was easily speaking about the claims about himself, that he was the Son of God (which the demons called him in Matthew 8, and he called himself in John 9), which he never did in secret.

On a side note, a passage that you use later (Isaiah 53) tells that this Servant "opened not his mouth" when he was "led as a lamb to the slaughter." His refusal to offer a defense personally could be related to this, as well.

It is ludicrous to say that he was implying he never said anything in secret. The charges against him were charges that were true (that he called himself the Son of God and the Christ), and he had never denied them, not even in secret. The parables had nothing to do with the charges against him. It would be like saying, in a modern-day court, that if a defendant was accused of something he readily admitted, and he responded, "I haven't claimed anything else to anyone, not even in secret," you could accuse him of not saying anything to anyone ever in secret. That is, simply, not a rational use of the text here.

Partially, as well, I can't imagine that Jesus did not know the law about courts and he knew that he was not allowed to be questioned in court. Regardless, though, if his message was that he was the Son of God, and witnesses could account for that, why were they questioning him in the first place? Basically, he said the same as all the witnesses, so why bend the rules and ask him?

Matthew 13:24-30: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

And here is the secret meaning that Jesus reveals to his disciples behind closed doors:

Matthew 13:36-42: Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Secret meaning? Not so. His message was the same. It didn't change once behind closed doors. He was elaborating on his parable, not "decoding" it, like some sort of secret agent. If he meant to be secretive about the that parable, then why speak it? Why not just say it behind closed doors in the first place? Parables explained non-earthly things in earthly terms, so it is reasonable that sometimes, further explanation would be necessary.

The only real defense you have of him hiding meanings in his parables is Matthew 13, where he doesn't even hide anything but a further understanding of those things that were already received by those who had "ears to hear."

This is not a difficult concept. Before you teach someone trigonometry, you teach them addition, correct? Teaching the masses about the "Trigonometries" of heaven without them believing the "additions" of heaven would leave them without a proper understanding. Make a little more sense?

Now if Jesus really came to save the entire world from this evil fate, then why would he deliver his message in such a way that only a select few would understand it and be saved (and then, apparently, only because he explained it to them in secret)? Wouldn't this deliberate deception make Jesus the tare-sowing enemy of whom he had spoken?

That's my point. He didn't deliver it in such a way. If you will notice, all his parables were in cultural terms, which the people would be most likely to understand very well. The fact that he re-explained himself later was simply because his dsciples asked. Notice he didn't re-explain every one of the parables he had just told, and he never offered the explanation. He gave the explanation because they asked. How is that deceptive?

Please note that, for the purpose of making it look like he was a fulfillment of prophecy to those who were not so well-versed in the scriptures (and I assume his uneducated disciples probably weren't), he seems to have deliberately misquoted Isaiah, where God tells Isaiah (not Jesus) to utter a curse to confound people and to hide truth from all (not just some or most - but all) of those in his audience (the Israelites) as part of his great plan to bring about the Exile:

Funny, I cannot find the word "all" anywhere in the text. What I do find is that if you go just a few verses further, you discover that "a tenth" will return and will be those who do finally understand.

For the record, one disciple at least (Simon the Zealot), would have been educated in the Scriptures very well, as that was a characteristic of the group known as such, that they were very well versed in the Law and the Prophets. Your assumption doesn't hold up entirely and if Jesus had blatantly misquoted this, as you say, then there would have at least been a question about it. Instead, could it not be that Jesus was doing the same thing in the NT as Isaiah was doing in the OT?

Now, I'm assuming that Jesus knew the scriptures better than most . . .

Jesus had no more training in Scripture than his disciples or anyone else in the working class. It was not readily taught to those of that class, as it would be today. Jesus did know them better, but it was not because of education. This assumption is based on what Jesus said, but if Jesus had no training and was then so knowledgeable about the Scriptures, so much so that he was able to silence the religious leaders of the day on numerous accounts, then there had to be some other explanation.

I'd also have to assume that he was being deliberately deceptive when he implied that he was the fulfullment of a "prophecy" of events which had long since taken place - even with his own disciples.

Though the Scriptures were only known exhaustively by those who were trained, a general knowledge was encouraged in society. In addition, the history of their people was revered with great importance, as it is with Jews today. Having a knowledge of their history, at least to an extent, would have been likely even with the uneducated. Therefore, these were not simpletons when it came to everything. Jesus did not choose twelve mentally handicapped people. He chose twelve average people. Some were poor. Some were not. One was a scholar. Most were not. But they all were likely to have a basic understanding of Judaism of that day, and none of them had likely been educated any less than Jesus.

Please note that, in contrast, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is not a deceiver.

Quite right. The discrepancy is that, if you read the gospels contextually, there is no "contrast."

In John 8:42, Jesus interestingly stated that he did not come from himself - which implies that he is indeed separate from God, or whoever else might have sent him:

No, this simply is evidence of the Trinity, that God is one but three. This passage, however, is speaking not that he didn't come from himself, but that he didn't come for himself (apo').

So much for the idea that Jesus is God.

Hasty conclusion fallacy.

Also, please note that, while Jesus seems to be implying that God is his Father, he doesn't really come out and say so here. He says that he "proceeded forth and came from" God - which seems at least somewhat deceptive to me, since, according to Judeo-Christian belief, everything came from God - even Satan.

You're right, he does that in chapter 9, not 8.

Also, the idea that everything came from God is not completely Judeo-Christian. It is Calvinistic. For instance, I do not think that evil came from God. Rather, it is merely the lack of good, which God did create.

You may have seen this reasoning somewhere. I do not attribute it to Einstein, as some do. Einstein himself said that he was a skeptic from age twelve. The reasoning, however, is still legitimate.

The existence of cold is defined by the existence of heat, so that if heat never existed, cold would not either, as cold is simply the name we give to a lack of heat. Cold is not measurable apart from its lack of heat. Light and dark are the same way.

Thus, it is reasonable that good and evil are the same as well.

Anyhow, yes, Satan - a sentient being, was created by God. However, he was not created in his current state. This is a small part of what leads to my view of Calvinism/Arminianism.

There are certainly some interesting implications in his choice of words, wouldn't you agree?

Hmm . . . interesting? Not especially. Simply because something can mean something does not mean that it does. You must read the context around what is said to determine the meaning of it.

What does the word "fall" mean?

It depends on how it is used. Since Jesus says in that passage you quoted that they would love him because he "proceeded" from God. By your implications, it would make sense that he said, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because God expelled me/cast me out." This is where one must see how the word is used to decide on the intended meaning.

Example: I hacked a log.

Could you interpret the word "hacked" to mean "broke into and tampered with," as one would a computer? Certainly not.

I cannot be doing this every day. One of you two, I can deal with, but two is just too time-consuming.

Grave, my apologies on leaving that one, I was a little distracted while I was trying to write that last post and I had to leave early. As you will notice, I didn't even address everything Pterodonia pointed to.


No apologies needed. This is an exercise for all involved, and most of us (one assumes) do something else outside of NationStates Debating. :)


In fact, the Antichrist will be the king of Babylon (Rev. 17:17,18). This king of Babylon, however, is not Satan, and is not called such in the Isaiah passage. That was my main point, but the fact that this particular section is also apocalyptic in nature is the reason for thinking that it wasn't the most immediate king of Babylon (Writing of Isaiah is estimated to be 700-681 BCE, while the Neo-Babylonian Empire started with King Nabopolassar in about 626 BCE.). For the record, my argument was never that it was metaphorical. Nowhere is that even hinted in my statements. You assumed that because I didn't believe it was the first king that came along, I must think it is metaphorical. I think that it is very literal, just not about Nabopolassar. The reason for the thought that it is the Antichrist is the passage in Revelation. Either way, it is prophetic. The difference is, Babylon and its king's downfall are both reiterated in Revelation (most of Rev. 17 and some of 18).

Again, sorry about the lack of clarification. I was not only defending myself on here, but I was defending myself to a person standing beside me. It is difficult to try to debate with several people at once.


Actually - you are still perhaps misunderstanding me - I wasn't attacking you on this - it was an honest statement of an observed principle... and not directed at you, or any other specific individual in this context.

There is a GENERAL acceptability among people of any religion - especially noticable in Christians - due, one assumes - to proximity.... that a holy text can be BOTH entirely true, and partly metaphorical..

Further to that - that some parts are 'OBVIOUSLY' metaphorical, while other parts are 'OBVIOUSLY' true.

My probel with that (not with you), is that you have to learn which parts are OBVIOUSLY which... or you have to apply a biased critical analysis.

To ME - the Crucified Messiah is OBVIOUSLY a metaphor... on many levels... and yet, it is the very basis of modern Christian teaching... while, at the same time the King of Tyre can be metaphor.

I personally don't believe that the Babylonian King is ONE king at all... not ONE historical King... more likely a legendary king being retold, or a conglomeration... the 'epitome' of Babylonian king-ness, if you will. :)

Perhaps it is a reference to a given king... but I don't see any special reference that identifies which one.


On the (very) small differences, such as what was on the sign above Jesus on the cross, those are likely effects from the "car wreck" example you gave. This is to say that all the gospels were not subject to your explaanation that "if ONE Apostle tells the story one way - within just a few years, that version becomes official 'truth'... and other accounts have to bend to accomodate, or are dropped entirely." There are subtle differences. However, using that same car wreck example, what the witnesses agree on is usually what is reliable. If one discrepency between detail was enough to question everything about the story, then you could say that unless everyone agrees about everything in that example, the car crash may never have happened.


Not at all - the wreckage on the road shows SOMETHING happened. But, eye witnesses may tell a version of the story which is very different from what ACTUALLY occured.

There was almost certainly a man (who MAY have been called Jesus - not an uncommon name) who had some trouble with the authorities, and who may have been a prophet or wise man. Certainly - in that geography, at that time - that much is not hard to accept.

It is also equally likely that the 'Jesus' story is the collection of tales about desert prophets - in the same way that King Arthur became a repository for various myths... even down to the early Celtic gods.


Not fully. A Christian who bases his or her beliefs fully on ignorant faith would. Those who decide to look at history and find facts that give evidence (not proof) can become certain of its legitimacy. Because the Bible cannot be proven as a math problem, there is always room for disbelief. However, if it could, then there would be nobody who would doubt it (at least nobody with any sense). You have sense and yet do not believe it. That is my point. It is not completely based on Special Exception. Evidence gives way to the belief. Faith is what solidifies and carries the belief.


On the contrary - to take ONE collection of stories (the Bible) and say that that ONE collection is the only true collection of god-stories, and that ALL other collections of god-stories are untrue, IS to plead Special Exception.

There is no more 'evidence' for the New Testament than there is for the Old Testament, or the Koran - and yet both are considered flawed texts in their contradictions of the Bible (as an entirety).

Thus - either the bible is irrelevent to belief, in which case, faith is blind; or the bible is evidence FOR belief... in which case, special exception is being sought.


Where? I see the creation in chapter one, and a recap in chapter two. I say that because chapter two begins with everything already made:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (Recap begins here), in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground

It then describes the creation again. I see no second creation.


Ah - you assumed I was talking about the text-book 'Two Creations'.

Not so - I was talking more about the manner of creation even within Genesis One.

Looking at the Hebrew, we see 'elohiym'. The name used for 'god' is plural... although I have seen this argued as representing the Trinity. We thus have an act of creation being carried out by multiple entities... whether you 'buy' the Trinity version or not.

Personally - I see no reason to swallow the Trinity version, since the Trinity is not accepted as existing in Genesis, and, in fact, other Old Testament references seem to deny the commonly held view of Trinity.

Also -looking at the SPECIFIC wording in Hebrew, our 'heavens' are 'Shamayim' - again a plural... thus indication of perhaps more than one area of creation. Also - 'Shamayim' can be the reference for just the Visible Heavens - effectively - as far as the eye can see.

This would also make 'erets into the locality of earth tied to those same heavens within the clause... effectively - multiple 'gods' making 'visible' domains. Each god making it's own domain, of it's own people.

Thus - the people that Cain fears are those outside of YHWH's creation... as, most likely, is his future bride.

Why would Genesis keep talking about Eden and Adam/Eve if there were more people out there? More creations out there?

Reading the rest of the Old Testament gives a reason - they were NOT the Hebrews, and this book, is the History of the Hebrews.


My biggest question is about the events following the killing of Abel by Cain. It says, in Genesis 4:14 that Cain feared that someone would kill him. Unless he is talking about unmentioned brothers and sisters or his parents, I wonder where these people come from. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand this. However, I suppose that I am not the epitome of insight into Scripture, so it is one of the few things that I have learned to deal with in limbo.


I believe the text lists the first three born - and Seth was the third. If you just accept the straight Genesis version, as it is in English, you have to make one of two assumptions. 1) There are unmentioned daughters, or 2) there are people outside of the immediate geography.

Neither is explicit, either is an assumption.


You mean Gligamesh? Great story. One character, the goddess Ishtar, is actually incorporated into Christianity in the New Testament church through syncretism, and is where we get the name for our holiday "Easter." Remember how she escaped the flood? Magical painted egg.

However, the evidence for this story being unchanged is even more unlikely than Scripture, so it is more likely that what we have now is not the original Gilgamesh than not the real Scripture.

Gilgamesh is still a good story. I do prefer Oedipus Rex, though.

Mosaic text references to these?


I am not arguing Gilgamesh as fact.

I am arguing Gilgamesh as one example of the same Genesis stories, in 'earlier' forms. I don't accept the Gilgamesh model any more than the Genesis model - but it IS an evidence that some of the stories were ALREADY being told by others, before the Hebrews got around to recording their 'history'.

I seem to recall a Gilgamesh story where he goes seeking immortality, and drops the 'secret' due to the interference of a serpent...


The Code of Hammurabi is generally accepted to be older, though it's date is not solidified (middle chronology, I suppose). It is very likely that these rules were written down. The difference is that they seem more like the Levitical Laws than the Ten Commandments. I would not doubt, however, that this is where the Israelites got the idea of "and eye for an eye," as that seems to be the idea of the Code of Hammurabi. Still, we are accepting the Ten Commandments only on paper but we accept the Code of Hammurabi written on a giant stone? Surely if it is acceptable to have a stone writing, the writing of the Ten Commandments written on stones would be valid. The Exodus was still after the kingship of Hammurabi, but the Israelites would not have had any access to his Code as of yet, as they had been in Egypt.

In addition, I do chuckle that the Bible is so drawn into question, yet these writings, such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Epic of Gilgamesh are held almost as infallable by those opposing the inspiration of Scripture as the Scripture is by those who support it.

I would submit that you have an interesting point, though. I am intrigued.


My reference of Ten Commandments to Hammurabi - was in the story-telling elements. Yes - Hammurabi does seem to 'predict' the Mosaic Laws... not JUST those ten commandments - but it is interesting to me that we have a carved stone tablet of laws predating someone else's story - which coincidentally ALSO features a carved stone tablet of laws... just with a different' 'creation' story.

I don't think anyone actually holds Hammurabi or Gilgamesh as infallibe evidences... more the fact that clear doubt SHOULD exist.


Wrong. The minor discrepancies in numbers of peoples and examples like what was written on the cross have not all been changed to agree. Would four witnesses of a car wreck change their story based on what they heard of another witness' description? Doubtful. Why apply that reasoning here?


Okay - you are starting from the assumption that scripture must be TRUE, though.

If you start from the opposite point, that it is UNTRUE, until PROVEN true... then there is GOOD reason to supsect that people would change their story to match other accounts, as much as they could.

Think of the Emperor's New Clothes.

If I was a 2000-years-ago recorder of stories, and I was writing about Jesus, but claimed SHE was a woman... I would be an object of ridicule. If I wanted to 'sell' my 'product', I would need to make sure MY 'version' agreed as closely as I could make it, with the OTHER versions out at the same time.


Like I said, if they were looking for uniformity, why even leave the little discrepencies? Logically, those are the easiest to change, so why would those be the last things to be changed?

Also, in the car wreck analogy: The bigger details are generally the ones that people remember the most clearly. Plus, after hearing another witness' statement, you think any of the other witnesses would change major parts of their story? Again, very doubtful, as the major parts are often similar.


How about - because it is EASY to notice that 'Dave' has written a version which says Jesus was a woman. That is one big, obvious discrepency.

You might not even pay attention to the exact wording other's claimed for the cross. So long as you MENTIONED the cross, no big 'discrepency' exists.

Regarding the 'car wreck' analogy - I'm afraid it is often very true that MAJOR changes are made in statements, AFTER the 'witnesses' have had a few moments to gather their thoughts together.


Nobody implies that they were. However, this does not mean someone who is not stupid is also not wrong. A little bit of flawed logic, here.


Not a matter of the 'logic'... what I was aiming at is that they would be able to corroborate their story... and spot obvious conflicts.


Agreed that there would be a mass production. Your argument here would make sense with one big 'if' . . . If the Essenes all were making their copies one at a time, then mistakes would easily go uncaught. However, with 40 people all copying a text, it would be easy to see that there would not likely be one mistake made by the majority of the copiers at the same time in the same part of the text. The majority would likely not make the mistake. Even if they had, though, it would still have conflicted with those being copied by the other two groups (Pharisees and Sadducees), as they prided themselves on knowing the Law and the Prophets with impecable accuracy.

Funny thing is, so did the Essenes. They knew the middle letter of the Torah as well as the middle letter of the Prophets. They copied the Scriptures letter-by-letter (as did the Pharisees and Sadducees), making the possibility for a mistake even less likely. This is, in addition, where many of the monastic units developed their system of copying (they did add a few things). I am not Roman Catholic, by any stretch, but I cannot refute their contribution of keeping the Scriptures accurate.


Unless 'Dave' the Essene ALWAYS copies Genesis 1:1, and 'Fred' the Essene always copies Genesis 1:2... etc.

In which case, if an error occurs in Genesis 1:1, it is PROBABLY 'Dave' who made the mistake - and he may well duplicate that same mistake thousands of times.

And then, when 'Bill' takes over from 'Dave', 15 years later - he never even looks back at the 'original', and continues to replicate the same mistakes, thousands more times.


You are correct. In fact, comparitively, not much of Daniel is quoted in the New Testament. However, the problem here lies in the fact that you are attacking tradition of Judaism and I am defending theology of Christianity. Much of Christianity stems from Judaism, but much also differs. Enough of it had already differed when Revelation was written as the day of Pentacost signified the start of the new church.


Not attacking Judaism OR Christianity, really. Just pointing out that the accepted 'chronology' is flawed.

How can you RELIABLY claim that Jesus is the Messiah of Prophecy, when parts of the Hebrew texts were STILL outside of canonisation a century AFTER Jesus is alleged to have lived?



Also, I am not saying that those 14,000 copies are the only copies found, thus making this copying divine. There are some copies found that do not agree. The problem with them is A) they are not typically all that old, in comparison, and B) they are the overwhelming minority.

Think of it this way:

You are a high school substitute teacher one Monday morning. Your class of thirty students had been told by their normal teacher to each copy down an identical work to the letter. Over the weekend, they each had. On the following Monday morning, they turn them in, but alas, you have not been given the original and have nothing by which to check the papers. You then examine each one of the students' works with great scrutiny over the next few days, to find that 26 of them have identical copies to each other, while four of them have variances. You then can conclude, with great assuredness, that the 26 with identical papers copied the text of the piece to its completeness and exactness. Am I not correct? I am not saying that there is not a slight chance that one of the four could actually be the only one correct. I am saying that there is an overwhelming chance that such is not the case.


I would say that you can't JUST rely on which book is more popular.

Also - just because 26 copies of the original match - doesn't mean that the 'original' was true, to start with.



Apologies... much as there are areas I still wished to follow... as with others, I have things I have to do...

Maybe I can come back later, and see if my arguments are all in tatters. :)

(An eventuality which would not make me ANY sadder.) :)

Gah! I've seen whole THREADS shorter than that post!

Gah! I've seen whole THREADS shorter than that post!
Yet it still manages to be a solid post

I assume you are referring to Revelation 22 and Isaiah 14. The wonderful lack of color in the English language strikes again.

In Isaiah, Satan is called "hêylêl bên shachar," which is better interpreted "Lucifer, son of the morn(ing)." He is then chastized for attempting to be higher than God.

Actually, it appears to me that he wants to be like God (yes, he states that he will exalt his throne above the stars of God - but not above God himself. Here is the passage in question, with the parts that seem especially likely to have been used in creating the Jesus character in bold:

Isaiah 14:4-19: That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Here is what I see:

it [Hell] stirreth up the dead for thee - Jesus was said to have raised a great multitude from Hell on Easter Sunday:

Matthew 27:52,53: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? - This is self-explanatory - Jesus was supposedly God in human form.


How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! - We've pretty much covered this ground already - Jesus was sent from heaven to earth and was called the Morning Star. According to the Blue Letter Bible site, Lucifer was also called the Morning Star (check the concordance there for "Lucifer").


For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. - Again, this seems to me to be self-explanatory - Jesus wanted to be worshipped as God, though the bible in many places plainly shows him to be a separate being lower than God, and therefore obviously not equivalent to God.


Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. - It is said that Jesus spent 3 days in hell following his crucifixion:

Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms - There was said to have been a great earthquake when Jesus finally gave up the ghost:

Mat 27:50,51: Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent


But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. - Whatever else we may know or not know, one thing we can all agree on for certain is that Jesus's body is not in its tomb. And the phrase "abominable branch" seems to me to be a reference to his cursed lineage as a descendant of Jeconiah, as we discussed previously.

Pterodonia—

I believe you misunderstood my post. The First Peter reference was in reply to Aluminumia, not to you. The Mormonism reference was an assumption of mine due to how the CLDS equates family with God, and seemed, from my initial readings, to be influencing your view that anyone who would devalue the family in any way could not be "on God's side". In more recent posts you've seemed to drop that line of argument and simply argued from the text, which is a better way to go about it. (My scriptural and limited Koine studies indicate to me that Aluminumia is correct on this topic—one is only to "hate" something that gets in the way of following Jesus; therefore, especially considering the Matthew 10 quotes, "love less by comparison" is a more accurate English rendering.)

I thought that you may have been offended because I was making assumptions and generalizations about your life which of course may not have been true. I am glad to see that you are not so easily put off, though.

Still appreciating your arguments. If noone challenged our beliefs it would be all too easy to be unthinking, and any religious person denying reason denies a very critical aspect of the creator.

Pterodonia—If noone challenged our beliefs it would be all too easy to be unthinking, and any religious person denying reason denies a very critical aspect of the creator.

Amen to that! :)

Dear God!
:eek:
Pterodonia! You have taken the bible and made it say its greatest object is the devil! When it says Lucifer, son of the morning, it means, Lucifer, Son of the Morning, not Jesus Christ of Nazerath, the Living Son of God Almighty.

Lucifer is the DEVIL! Not a reference to Jesus. Every prophecy that has been fufilled about the Messiah has already been fufilled, save the Tribulation and the Glorious Appearing. Coincidentally, that is just what your Bible reference leads to.

Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer shall, halfway into the Tribulation, indwell The Beast, and take down man's rule of the Earth, having it as his own until the Glorious Appearing.


"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. - Again, this seems to me to be self-explanatory - Jesus wanted to be worshipped as God, though the bible in many places plainly shows him to be a separate being lower than God, and therefore obviously not equivalent to God. "

This is in a direct reference to Lucifer. And, no, Jesus was not considered lower than God in any place of the Bible, but rather seen as God himself, part of God, and yet a seperate being. Try wrapping THAT around your demonic brain.


Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. - It is said that Jesus spent 3 days in hell following his crucifixion:

No matter what Lucifer does to the Earth, he will not be able to withstand Christ's final return, where, in the final judgement, he shall be thrown into the lake of burning sulfer, referred to as hell here.


"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms - There was said to have been a great earthquake when Jesus finally gave up the ghost:"

The Bible is clear when it should be taken literally. Here, it is obviously not to be. Metaphorically speaking, Lucifer has shaken up the nations, has caused dissent among mankind, has 'rocked the boat,' if you will.



Now, I'm not a Bible scholar, and I have little to say to refute your other arguments, but, with study, I'm sure I could.

I have a few simple questions for everyone.. If all churches are really businesses at heart(try to argue that they are not and I will point you towards American public access television), do you not think that they will say and do anything they can to recruit you into thier particular establishment? I think it is wildly hilarious that starting in about 800 A.D. all the Christianity-based churches of Europe started to fight over so called religious artifacts i.e. The Grail, The Shroud of Turin(What a Joke!!), The hand of the Apostle John, and so on...They seemed to be involved in some sort of religion ratings war and would do anything to get you to join or visit thier church. There is no truth behind it. Also, why does God seem to live in poor neighborhoods more than affluent ones? Modern Christianity was created by aristocrats and Kings to keep the common people in line...Nothing More...Am I wrong here? I do not need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, I just know...and you do to....

'A book tells you what's right and wrong' because your version of right and wrong will, doubtless with our current societal standpoint in the United States, deteriorate until you think Euthanasia is okay.

Jesus hung about with the poor people because they were the ones who most needed him, and thus the ones who would be most likely to follow him, the rich ones of the day, however, turned their noses up at him.

Oh yes, and not everyone who starts a war or commits atrocities 'for God' is doing it for God: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' And I will tell them plainly, ' I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!'" Matthew 7:21-23.

Yes, admittably, the church has been posessed that it is now a business, distracting believers from what should be happening. However, that is not the way it was meant to be, the church was meant to be God's house, where the Good News can be spread by an organization. WE gotta do whatever we can to change that.

Yes, admittably, the church has been posessed that it is now a business, distracting believers from what should be happening. However, that is not the way it was meant to be, the church was meant to be God's house, where the Good News can be spread by an organization. WE gotta do whatever we can to change that.
From its inset (it seems) it has been used as a tool to control people (the church) we have given it many chances but I am inclined to feel that organization of beliefs can be a bad thing

From its inset (it seems) it has been used as a tool to control people (the church) we have given it many chances but I am inclined to feel that organization of beliefs can be a bad thing

Well, Hello stranger! :fluffle:

I totally agree. Belief itself is not a bad thing. Canonisation of belief is a slightly more dubious prospect....

But, for me - the problem arises when an organisation appears that claims to REPRESENT belief. ORGANISED religion seems like an aberration of the concept, to me.

What I get from the story of Jesus - is a man who talked about having a relationship with 'god'; who warned AGAINST the learned men with their interpretations of the 'meaning' of scripture; who recognised the significance of scripture - but argued against putting all your trust in a book.

For me - Jesus was all about PERSONAL FAITH.

When you get to the point where there is a recognised form and formula to what you can 'believe', that isn't faith - that's conditioning.

He lived in a pineapple under the sea....he wore square pants which he could turn into a variety of shapes with his jesus powers..his best friends name was patrick..

Well, Hello stranger! :fluffle:

I totally agree. Belief itself is not a bad thing. Canonisation of belief is a slightly more dubious prospect....

But, for me - the problem arises when an organisation appears that claims to REPRESENT belief. ORGANISED religion seems like an aberration of the concept, to me.

What I get from the story of Jesus - is a man who talked about having a relationship with 'god'; who warned AGAINST the learned men with their interpretations of the 'meaning' of scripture; who recognised the significance of scripture - but argued against putting all your trust in a book.

For me - Jesus was all about PERSONAL FAITH.

When you get to the point where there is a recognised form and formula to what you can 'believe', that isn't faith - that's conditioning.


Grave_n_idle,
Once again i'm impressed. For the amount of Christians that I know, so many of them have not come to that realization. It is about personal relationship not some big church with an organizational chart. You are right on. =)

The early church and when i mean early...i mean.....the group of people that stayed together right after Jesus' death and resurrection. The people who were of "one heart and lived in unity". These people didn't have a rule book on how to do church. If you read the book of Acts it talks about the early church and the 'acts of the apostles". In particular, pay attention to Acts 4. For me, i wish we could go back to this. But you know we humans are people of habit. You start messing with that and you will run into some brick walls!

As a Christian, i'll be honest (that sounds like an oxymoron doesn't it....funny). I get more out of the home group (small group/bible study....etc.) then i do get out of church. As in the Sunday services themselves. At my home group it isn't about following a set order of things. Its about praying, worshipping God, and encouraging one another. I can truly say that that group has become like family to me. I don't take lightly calling them my brothers and sisters and truly meaning it.

I wish there were a way to get back to the roots of Christianity. The roots of relationship, sharing, bearing one another's burdens, loving one another........all we have down is make thousands of church splits. That hurts, alot. This just goes to show how imperfect we really are.

BTW, I just want to add......wow.....you guys really know how to debate! (you all know who i'm talking about). I have enjoyed reading the posts and feel very enlightened. Thanks for being good teachers who actually search things out and don't get offended when you are found 'incorrect'(or a word close to that effect). =)

Grave_n_idle,
Once again i'm impressed. For the amount of Christians that I know, so many of them have not come to that realization. It is about personal relationship not some big church with an organizational chart. You are right on. =)

The early church and when i mean early...i mean.....the group of people that stayed together right after Jesus' death and resurrection. The people who were of "one heart and lived in unity". These people didn't have a rule book on how to do church. If you read the book of Acts it talks about the early church and the 'acts of the apostles". In particular, pay attention to Acts 4. For me, i wish we could go back to this. But you know we humans are people of habit. You start messing with that and you will run into some brick walls!

As a Christian, i'll be honest (that sounds like an oxymoron doesn't it....funny). I get more out of the home group (small group/bible study....etc.) then i do get out of church. As in the Sunday services themselves. At my home group it isn't about following a set order of things. Its about praying, worshipping God, and encouraging one another. I can truly say that that group has become like family to me. I don't take lightly calling them my brothers and sisters and truly meaning it.

I wish there were a way to get back to the roots of Christianity. The roots of relationship, sharing, bearing one another's burdens, loving one another........all we have down is make thousands of church splits. That hurts, alot. This just goes to show how imperfect we really are.

BTW, I just want to add......wow.....you guys really know how to debate! (you all know who i'm talking about). I have enjoyed reading the posts and feel very enlightened. Thanks for being good teachers who actually search things out and don't get offended when you are found 'incorrect'(or a word close to that effect). =)

Thankyou for kind words. :)

I agree with you, that the 'heart' of Christianity has been lost... and there are now far too many 'christians', who feel qualified because they attend church, and say the 'right words'. To me - THOSE people are 'christians'... they are namesake followers, paying lipservice to something they cannot truly comprehend. To me - the Christian is someone who gets close to the heart of Christianity - someone who follows in the steps of the Christ, someone who tries to be Christlike.

I see our modern religion as ridiculous - and entirely AGAINST the teachings of Jesus. He wanted to bring people, individually, to a relationship with 'god'. He WASN'T building a machine to mass-produce believers.

I think you have the right idea - Christianity is NOT about church, not about services... it IS about family. And that family, is the one you make YOURSELF... with the family YOU choose, a family with Jesus in it.

That's how I see it anyway - entirely my own opinion.

Dear God!
:eek:
Pterodonia! You have taken the bible and made it say its greatest object is the devil! When it says Lucifer, son of the morning, it means, Lucifer, Son of the Morning, not Jesus Christ of Nazerath, the Living Son of God Almighty.

It also refers to this same character as the "King of Babylon" - but I'm not so sure that Satan has ever held that title. On the other hand, the word "Babylon" means "confusion by mixing" - and what is Christianity but a confusing mixture of Judaism and Paganism? It is also interesting to note that "Babylon" is often used in the bible as a kind of a code word for "Rome" - and which "king" has been seated on that throne since Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire around 380 C.E. (figuratively speaking, that is)?

Lucifer is the DEVIL!

Perhaps, though not necessarily. That seems to have been an error in translation in the King James version of the bible. "Lucifer" is actually a Latin name that was used in Roman astronomy for the "morning star" or Venus. Since Venus appears just before dawn, heralding the rising sun, it became known as the bringer or bearer of light. In the Hebrew text, the otherwise unnamed Babylonian king is referred to as "Heylel, ben Shachar," which literally translates to "Shining One, Son of the Dawn" (according to the Blue Letter Bible site). This was translated in the KJV to Lucifer, who Christians have mistakenly identified as Satan ever since.

Interestingly, Jesus identifies himself as the "Morning Star" (Revelations 22:16) and and the "Light of this World" (John 9:5). Something else to consider is that Satan is often referred to by Christians as the "God of this world."

Every prophecy that has been fufilled about the Messiah has already been fufilled, save the Tribulation and the Glorious Appearing.

Every prophecy that has been fulfilled has been fulfilled?? I guess I can't really argue with that logic except to say - it ain't over 'til it's over. ;)

Im gee whiz
AKA ted nuggent

No apologies needed. This is an exercise for all involved, and most of us (one assumes) do something else outside of NationStates Debating.

Whew! Glad to see I am in company willing to have some good-natured banter.

There is a GENERAL acceptability among people of any religion - especially noticable in Christians - due, one assumes - to proximity.... that a holy text can be BOTH entirely true, and partly metaphorical..

Okay, so far you have me.

Further to that - that some parts are 'OBVIOUSLY' metaphorical, while other parts are 'OBVIOUSLY' true.

I am chuckling at trying to find metaphors in some more amusing passages.

My probel with that (not with you), is that you have to learn which parts are OBVIOUSLY which... or you have to apply a biased critical analysis.

The critical analysis does not necessarily have to be biased. Going from a man who once would have been arguing at your side to one who will defend Christianity to you, I can attest that the analysis does not have to be, and is not always, biased. When I came to the text, I leaned more toward the ideas that "This can't be true, can it?" That developed into "Maybe . . ." which developed into "I suppose it is possible." It was all uphill from there.

To ME - the Crucified Messiah is OBVIOUSLY a metaphor... on many levels... and yet, it is the very basis of modern Christian teaching... while, at the same time the King of Tyre can be metaphor.

Please, clear up the obviousness that the crucifixion of the Messiah was metaphorical. Not only was crucifixion a common practice, but rather I would say that the crucified Messiah is the literal event symbolized by the sacrifices of the Jews.

I personally don't believe that the Babylonian King is ONE king at all... not ONE historical King... more likely a legendary king being retold, or a conglomeration... the 'epitome' of Babylonian king-ness, if you will.

I suppose I could see it being told of multiple kings. I would not go so far as to say that it is a state of being, but I have since looked at that one and found that I actually think it could represent more than one king, and a modern Babylon (as in Revelation) would not even necessarily have to be called such, I suppose, making your point and mine agree, for the most part, if for different reasons and with different implications.

Perhaps it is a reference to a given king... but I don't see any special reference that identifies which one.

The problem with prophecy is that something giving no name, but a title, like a king, like this can only be identified after the prophecied events have occurred. Again, I understand your perspective on this one.

Not at all - the wreckage on the road shows SOMETHING happened. But, eye witnesses may tell a version of the story which is very different from what ACTUALLY occured.

But telling the story to their grandchildren in years after, who have not that evidence on the street, would mean that their grandchildren would have reason to doubt the entire event, even if they heard all the accounts from the different people. Generally, if many people tell what they saw, it is the parts on which they agree that are accepted, even by police in a car wreck situation.

There was almost certainly a man (who MAY have been called Jesus - not an uncommon name) who had some trouble with the authorities, and who may have been a prophet or wise man. Certainly - in that geography, at that time - that much is not hard to accept.

Yes, Jesus was not all that uncommon a name, you are correct. There is a young man in my family with a Hebrew version of that name (Joshua).

Won't disagree with the prophet and wise man part.

There is not reason to believe he had as much trouble with the Roman authorities as he did the Jewish ones. If he was not in trouble with the Jewish authorities, why try to rock the boat in that heavily-Jewish region, if you are the Roman authorities? While the Judas Maccabeus incident turned out to be won by the Romans, something like that is simply a nuisance at least.

It is also equally likely that the 'Jesus' story is the collection of tales about desert prophets - in the same way that King Arthur became a repository for various myths... even down to the early Celtic gods.

History gets in the way of this. In the tales of Camelot I have read (I confess, that is not all of them.), there is no real reference to events that historically are thought to have happened at the time. Basically, it could be a story based on another planet, since it has no connection to actual historical documentation, as the Bible has (the "missing day" in Joshua 10, which has, astronomically, been proven to have occurred, though the astronomers offer no explanation why; the fall of the temple in AD 70; the various peoples that were named in the Old Testament, but never accepted as being real until evidence was later discovered on them).

I am not familiar enough with the Celtic gods and wouldn't dare insult you, then, by arguing anything about them. I have my inklings that I may have the same argument against that as I did with Arthur, but I cannot say that, to be sure.

On the contrary - to take ONE collection of stories (the Bible) and say that that ONE collection is the only true collection of god-stories, and that ALL other collections of god-stories are untrue, IS to plead Special Exception.

But who claims that all other god-stories are untrue? There are similarities in the Quran which lead me to believe that those who wrote it were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and if some of the stories line up, then I would say that it is true. It is not the book that I claim to be true, per se, but rather, the pericopes therein. If a pericope is mentioned elsewhere, it is just as true. In addition, I am not saying that all there is to God is what is in the Bible. To say such, in fact, would be contradictory to Scripture (that He is inexhaustible). I do think that Scripture is all that is required to know about Him. There could, however, be other stories about Him that I cannot disprove. If it doesn't contradict the Bible/history, then I have no argument against it.

There is no more 'evidence' for the New Testament than there is for the Old Testament, or the Koran - and yet both are considered flawed texts in their contradictions of the Bible (as an entirety).

Both? I believe the Old Testament is as valid as the New Testament. The Quran, while I do not believe anything that contradicts Scripture, likely has some historical validity as well, since some of these stories were not heard exclusively by the Hebrews, as they affected more than just the Hebrews.

Thus - either the bible is irrelevent to belief, in which case, faith is blind; or the bible is evidence FOR belief... in which case, special exception is being sought.

Maybe this just sounds like an overgeneralization and I am not getting the intent. The Bible is not the 'ONLY' evidence for belief, though it is evidence. If the Bible was the only evidence for belief, nobody who was not raised to believe it would believe it, because the Bible would not be held as valid evidence to such an audience.

We thus have an act of creation being carried out by multiple entities... whether you 'buy' the Trinity version or not.

We are not amused. Actually, we are, but I am asserting that this is not even having to do with the Trinity, but instead has to do with the "Royal We." When the monarch of England addresses Parliment, he/she refers to himself or herself as "we" and "us" and "our." It is not God speaking to others, but Himself. Even if he was speaking the other persons of Himself in the Trinity, they would not be separate entities, as they were all of the same image ("our" is plural, but "image" is not), meaning there was no distinction found through instress.

Personally - I see no reason to swallow the Trinity version, since the Trinity is not accepted as existing in Genesis, and, in fact, other Old Testament references seem to deny the commonly held view of Trinity.

If you are going to use biblical text to deny the Trinity, however, then I would ask you to explain the pericope of Jesus' baptism.

Also -looking at the SPECIFIC wording in Hebrew, our 'heavens' are 'Shamayim' - again a plural... thus indication of perhaps more than one area of creation. Also - 'Shamayim' can be the reference for just the Visible Heavens - effectively - as far as the eye can see.

Flying the friendly skies does not mean multiple skies. Heavens may be along the same lines. Why not?

In addition, however, it was Hebrew belief that there were three "heavens:" the sky beneath the atmosphere, the sky above it (i. e. space), and the throne of God (Paul talks about the third heaven.). Either one of these is plausible

Thus - the people that Cain fears are those outside of YHWH's creation... as, most likely, is his future bride.

You know, I just checked this out today. It could also be that Cain was fearful of other brothers and sisters not mentioned. As timing is never really given for when this killing occurred, it is possible to assume that there was no reason to mention Adam and Eve "be fruitful" if that is what they were commanded to do and were doing it. Those of no significance may not need to be recorded, but since Adam lived to be over 900-years-old, there is a great chance that he had a massive family tree (It is not ridiculous to think that he could have had over 1000 relatives by the time he died.).

Thank you for the insight into your own thoughts on the matter. I will actually be bringing this up to a "close friend" of mine. :)

[I]Why would Genesis keep talking about Eden and Adam/Eve if there were more people out there? More creations out there?

Exactly.

Reading the rest of the Old Testament gives a reason - they were NOT the Hebrews, and this book, is the History of the Hebrews.

Where is this in the rest of the Old Testament? The Scriptures are not about the Hebrews until Abraham, which is in Genesis, but Job was likely a contemporary, if not a forerunner of Abraham. We have no idea if he was Hebrew or not, but the promise was not made until many generations after Adam, who is also never called a Hebrew. Nobody was until Abraham, which is to say that Hebrews were in existence group before Abraham, but after ethnic groups had begun developing, which is after the Creation.

I believe the text lists the [B]first three born - and Seth was the third. If you just accept the straight Genesis version, as it is in English, you have to make one of two assumptions. 1) There are unmentioned daughters, or 2) there are people outside of the immediate geography.

Neither is explicit, either is an assumption.

You believe the text lists the first three born? I am inclined to believe that it does mention three, but they may have not necessarily been the first three. They were merely ones of consequence (did something besides begin populating the earth). Taking into account how long Adam lived, it is not unrealistic that Adam could have had many many relatives by the time that this is event which is apparently worth noting, as it gives no reference to time between the fall of man in the garden and the killing of Cain and Abel. False dichotomy, as there is an easily explained third option.

I am arguing Gilgamesh as one example of the same Genesis stories, in 'earlier' forms.

I agree, whole-heartedly. There are many flood stories around the world (India, Polynesia, Africa, etc.). The flood was not likely to have been completely unheard of when Moses wrote of its occurrence so long before (Sometime between 1445 and 1405 BCE is the period in which both Genesis and Exodus were written.). There, therefore, could have been those retelling the tail. I don't consider it to be a completely separate story. Again, on this point we agree. The Scriptures are the only place where I read that the text claims its own authority. Gilgamesh claims no authority to my rememberance. This may be something you do not accept, as anyone can make such claims. Those others, however, did no such thing to my knowledge. If five people were to tell a story and only one was to say that it is the correct story, it could be false, but there would be no argument for such except silent possibility, rather than self-claimed authority.

That said, your presuppositions about Scripture and mine simply split here, thus, I respect the fact that you do not hold Scripture to be inspired, as you have as much assuredness in your view as I do in mine.

but it is interesting to me that we have a carved stone tablet of laws predating someone else's story - which coincidentally ALSO features a carved stone tablet of laws

There is no record of the laws of Hammurabi on tablets. It was carved into an eight-foot-tall black rock. Hardly a tablet. They were both made of stone, but that is about the only comparison one can make.

I don't think anyone actually holds Hammurabi or Gilgamesh as infallibe evidences... more the fact that clear doubt SHOULD exist.

Possible doubt? Sure. Even reasonable doubt? Maybe. Clear doubt? As much clear doubt as there is in any other view, including yours. That's the fun of this. There is potential doubt in every view, because more than one view has an intelligent argument and not all of them can be true.

Okay - you are starting from the assumption that scripture must be TRUE, though.

As it claims itself to be. True, anyone can do so, but it is written by someone who walked with Jesus (Peter) and died for his teachings of such. If this claim was a hoax to start a religion, he would have known so, as he was the writer. However, it raises a curious question: Why would someone die for something they know to be false?

It is not entirely an assumption. I have just answered that question with: "He wouldn't."

If I wanted to 'sell' my 'product', I would need to make sure MY 'version' agreed as closely as I could make it, with the OTHER versions out at the same time.

But why not renounce this then if life was threatened since you know your actual writings to be untrue to what you witnessed?

I come to the same answer: You wouldn't.

Regarding the 'car wreck' analogy - I'm afraid it is often very true that MAJOR changes are made in statements, AFTER the 'witnesses' have had a few moments to gather their thoughts together.

Two points (and if I am repeating myself, I am sorry):

1) The events were not events that were of the "it-all-happened-so-fast" type. These three years that these people spent with the man were not an isolated event that just happened to catch their attention, leaving the shock value out of the equation.

2) (Here's what I think I might have mentioned before.) Police officers who interview multiple witnesses of something like a car wreck take the most strongly supported facts to be the ones that the witnesses agreed upon. If this is not a correct way to look at it, someone should let them know. (My nephew is in the LAPD, so I'll tell him. ;) He is the one that told me this.)

Not a matter of the 'logic'... what I was aiming at is that they would be able to corroborate their story... and spot obvious conflicts.

Correct. Again, I was distracted in calling you illogical. The person to whom I was talking beside me was not being very logical. I might have become confused. However, the Essenes would have been able to spot conflicts as well as anyone else of the time, yet the teachings of the gospels were never viably refuted in the times of the New Testament church. Those who were Epicureans and Stoics and in Rome marvelled at Paul when he told them of the 'unknown god.'

Unless 'Dave' the Essene ALWAYS copies Genesis 1:1, and 'Fred' the Essene always copies Genesis 1:2... etc.

In which case, if an error occurs in Genesis 1:1, it is PROBABLY 'Dave' who made the mistake - and he may well duplicate that same mistake thousands of times.

And then, when 'Bill' takes over from 'Dave', 15 years later - he never even looks back at the 'original', and continues to replicate the same mistakes, thousands more times.

True, but this would seem like an awefully inefficient way to go about copying the Scriptures. Also, it is, as you say, less likely to be a reliable way, deeming that it would seem foolish to insist on such a way.

Even still, though, the fact that they copied letter by letter and checked the works immediately upon finishing the copy to spot errors, it would be unlikely, even if what you mention was the practice.

Not attacking Judaism OR Christianity, really. Just pointing out that the accepted 'chronology' is flawed.

How can you RELIABLY claim that Jesus is the Messiah of Prophecy, when parts of the Hebrew texts were STILL outside of canonisation a century AFTER Jesus is alleged to have lived?

The texts being out of canonization were not the fault of the Messiah (no matter the identity), but the humans dealing with it. Jesus, himself, quotes Daniel in Matthew 24. Whether those dealing with the canonization puts Daniel in or not has nothing to do with whether or not it contains prophecy fulfilled by the "mâshîyach."

The accepted chronology of the Biblical books is certainly flawed, but that is a separate subject.

Also to note, Daniel was canoned a few hundred years before the New Testament was canonized at the council at Carthage (387 AD). Even still, do you not suppose that the book of Daniel was canonized because of the hind-sight following Jesus' life? It is not inconceivable.

I would say that you can't JUST rely on which book is more popular.

I said nothing about popularity. Some of the very popular 'Christian' books out now are no more divine than the back of my cereal box. I never mentioned popularity.

Also - just because 26 copies of the original match - doesn't mean that the 'original' was true, to start with.

True, but that draws into question every book ever written before our time. Your history book back in elementary school could be full of inaccuracies. Most of the New Testament books are either letters or eyewitness accounts (albeit many years later with the gospels).

Maybe I can come back later, and see if my arguments are all in tatters.

(An eventuality which would not make me ANY sadder.)

I love rhyme! ;)

Oh dear... another long one... :)

Whew! Glad to see I am in company willing to have some good-natured banter.


For me - the Nationstates Debate Forum, is somewhere to learn, to explore my mind, and the minds of others... but also - to have some fun.

If I am not learning, not stretching my mind, and not having at least SOME fun... then I am wasting my time.


The critical analysis does not necessarily have to be biased. Going from a man who once would have been arguing at your side to one who will defend Christianity to you, I can attest that the analysis does not have to be, and is not always, biased. When I came to the text, I leaned more toward the ideas that "This can't be true, can it?" That developed into "Maybe . . ." which developed into "I suppose it is possible." It was all uphill from there.


Of course - I arrived at MY perspective from exactly the opposite chain of events. I began as 'accepting', and have moved towards the position of non-believer.

As far as I can see - it is the belief that justifies the text. The non-believer sees a text, flawed and full of impracticality.

With belief comes an acceptance of the 'nature' of the text... a 'faith', which was missing from the non-believer. Perhaps you can try an exercise of IMAGINING yourself not believing any more, and then see how you view the texts.

I am pretty sure, you would quickly notice that there is a positive 'filter' regarding what you will and will not accept from THIS set of scripture.


Please, clear up the obviousness that the crucifixion of the Messiah was metaphorical. Not only was crucifixion a common practice, but rather I would say that the crucified Messiah is the literal event symbolized by the sacrifices of the Jews.


I do not doubt that people WERE crucified, or that Jews suffered at the hands of Rome, or that SOME Jews suffered at the hands of Jews.

But, none of that makes the Crucified Messiah any more historically accurate or true... or any LESS likely to be a metaphor.

In fact - looking at the phallocentric leanings of Hebrew scripture, and of post-Jesus Christian teaching... there are lots of ways in which the entire Crucifixion becomes metaphor, almost of necessity.


History gets in the way of this. In the tales of Camelot I have read (I confess, that is not all of them.), there is no real reference to events that historically are thought to have happened at the time. Basically, it could be a story based on another planet, since it has no connection to actual historical documentation, as the Bible has (the "missing day" in Joshua 10, which has, astronomically, been proven to have occurred, though the astronomers offer no explanation why; the fall of the temple in AD 70; the various peoples that were named in the Old Testament, but never accepted as being real until evidence was later discovered on them).

I am not familiar enough with the Celtic gods and wouldn't dare insult you, then, by arguing anything about them. I have my inklings that I may have the same argument against that as I did with Arthur, but I cannot say that, to be sure.


There are several 'king' figures who COULD have been Arthur, or Arturus, and several different invasions/incursions that would fit the necessary conflicts of the time. It depends HOW MUCH of the accepted myth you try to add on, as to how much evidence you can find. Personally - I find no evidence for Launcelot before Mallory's telling of the tale, probably a thousand years AFTER any likely reign of a real Arthur.

Similarly - other figures of the now accepted story are artifacts or confusions... Merlin is originally named Mirdynn (or other spelling) - literally a "wise man" in the Celtic Gaelic of the time.

The sister of Arthur, in the accepted version shows her Celtic roots, also.
Commonly called Morgaine, or Morgana le Fey (which is a clue), Morgana started out as Morrigan (in later Celtic histories Morrigan is a 'fairy' queen, in earlier histories, she is a War God).

I don't suppose you have a source you can cite about the 'proof of a missed day'? I have never heard of a serious scientific allegation of such a thing... unless you mean the same kind of 'missing day' as the errors in the transition between calendars...


But who claims that all other god-stories are untrue? There are similarities in the Quran which lead me to believe that those who wrote it were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and if some of the stories line up, then I would say that it is true. It is not the book that I claim to be true, per se, but rather, the pericopes therein. If a pericope is mentioned elsewhere, it is just as true. In addition, I am not saying that all there is to God is what is in the Bible. To say such, in fact, would be contradictory to Scripture (that He is inexhaustible). I do think that Scripture is all that is required to know about Him. There could, however, be other stories about Him that I cannot disprove. If it doesn't contradict the Bible/history, then I have no argument against it.


Well - there are certain conflicts. The Koran claims that Jesus was a prophet, not Messiah - and Jews believe that Jesus failed to meet the requirements of Messiah, also.

Thus, if there is a 'spiritual' heir to the Torah, it is the Koran... and the New Testament is the text left out in the cold, and unsupported.


....I do not believe anything that contradicts Scripture...


That worries me.

I hope that is a generalisation, and not one that you really thought about, or actually cling to.


Maybe this just sounds like an overgeneralization and I am not getting the intent. The Bible is not the 'ONLY' evidence for belief, though it is evidence. If the Bible was the only evidence for belief, nobody who was not raised to believe it would believe it, because the Bible would not be held as valid evidence to such an audience.


It is not held as valid evidence to such an audience.

I think your assertion that you must be 'raised to believe' is a little excessive, but I agree you have to 'come to' believe.

And - as I just mentioned... nobody who has 'come to believe' the Bible DOES hold it as valid evidence... not in isolation. It is evidence ONLY where it is corroborated.


We are not amused. Actually, we are, but I am asserting that this is not even having to do with the Trinity, but instead has to do with the "Royal We."


I see no justification for assuming the royal 'we'... or any means by which such an attribution can be made to 'god'. Also - since the books were supposed to have been written by Moses (which also presents it's own obvious problems)... why would HE have been referring to 'god' in the royal first person?

Most LIKELY explanation.... a plural is used, because multiple 'things' are being described. To assume anything else is to add to the text.


If you are going to use biblical text to deny the Trinity, however, then I would ask you to explain the pericope of Jesus' baptism.


How does the Baptism justify Trinity?

I seem to recall 'trinity' is never mentioned even once in the entirety of Canonised scripture.


Flying the friendly skies does not mean multiple skies. Heavens may be along the same lines. Why not?

In addition, however, it was Hebrew belief that there were three "heavens:" the sky beneath the atmosphere, the sky above it (i. e. space), and the throne of God (Paul talks about the third heaven.). Either one of these is plausible


Actually - I seem to recall far more heavens from Hebrew 'belief'... anywhere between 9 and 12, depending on which version you accept. (Shamayim, Raquia, Shehaqim, Machanon, Mathey, Zebul, Araboth, Muzaloth, Kukhavim and Aravoth are, I believe, the most commonly accepted 10, although I have also seen Sagun... and have seen Zebul as the name of an angel, rather than the 'heaven' which 'it' occupies.).


Where is this in the rest of the Old Testament? The Scriptures are not about the Hebrews until Abraham, which is in Genesis, but Job was likely a contemporary, if not a forerunner of Abraham. We have no idea if he was Hebrew or not, but the promise was not made until many generations after Adam, who is also never called a Hebrew. Nobody was until Abraham, which is to say that Hebrews were in existence group before Abraham, but after ethnic groups had begun developing, which is after the Creation.


By Hebrews, I am following a direct lineage that extends forwards and back THROUGH the Hebrews. Thus - Adam is 'Hebrew' for the sake of this discussion... since he is the first link of an unbroken chain.


The Scriptures are the only place where I read that the text claims its own authority. Gilgamesh claims no authority to my rememberance. This may be something you do not accept, as anyone can make such claims. Those others, however, did no such thing to my knowledge. If five people were to tell a story and only one was to say that it is the correct story, it could be false, but there would be no argument for such except silent possibility, rather than self-claimed authority.


I see no justification AT ALL for believing a text to be true, JUST BECAUSE it says it is.

The Lemony Snicket stories start out that way... and I have never suspected them of being inerrant or inspired.


There is no record of the laws of Hammurabi on tablets. It was carved into an eight-foot-tall black rock. Hardly a tablet. They were both made of stone, but that is about the only comparison one can make.


Possibly a little too much attention to the semantics of the situation... I would say that, one culture writing stories about Laws written on big chunks of rock... RIGHT AFTER they leave a place where there are Laws written on big chunks of rock - is a little suspicious, at the very least.

I think the wording is the least element of worry, there.


Possible doubt? Sure. Even reasonable doubt? Maybe. Clear doubt? As much clear doubt as there is in any other view, including yours. That's the fun of this. There is potential doubt in every view, because more than one view has an intelligent argument and not all of them can be true.


No such thing as 'possible' or 'potential' doubt.

Either there IS doubt, or there is NO doubt.

I agree - EVERY viewpoint SHOULD have doubts.


As it claims itself to be. True, anyone can do so, but it is written by someone who walked with Jesus (Peter) and died for his teachings of such. If this claim was a hoax to start a religion, he would have known so, as he was the writer. However, it raises a curious question: Why would someone die for something they know to be false?

It is not entirely an assumption. I have just answered that question with: "He wouldn't."


I very much doubt that the Branch Davidians who died at Waco ALL believed EVERYTHING they 'died for'.

The women who died at the Salem withc trials died for things they DIDN'T believe, based on admissions later suggested as either forced confessions, or whole-hearted forgeries.


2) (Here's what I think I might have mentioned before.) Police officers who interview multiple witnesses of something like a car wreck take the most strongly supported facts to be the ones that the witnesses agreed upon. If this is not a correct way to look at it, someone should let them know. (My nephew is in the LAPD, so I'll tell him. ;) He is the one that told me this.)


Actually - the tiny little town near where I live, with it's one sheriff and one deputy... has occasional car accidents. Witness statements ARE sought, obviously, but there is also a very detailed analysis of the scene... attempting to work out from the PHYSICAL evidence what happened, such that witnesses can corroborate.

I have seen witnesses describe the wrong colours of cars involved, for example... or describe a car as being 'hit' by an 18-wheeler... when, if they were STILL looking at the incident, they would be able to SEE the car wedged into the SIDE of the 18-wheeler's wheelbase...

Witnesses are funny things.


True, but this would seem like an awefully inefficient way to go about copying the Scriptures. Also, it is, as you say, less likely to be a reliable way, deeming that it would seem foolish to insist on such a way.


Inefficient.... but then, so is copying an entire text, letter by letter.


True, but that draws into question every book ever written before our time. Your history book back in elementary school could be full of inaccuracies. Most of the New Testament books are either letters or eyewitness accounts (albeit many years later with the gospels).


I DO question EVERY book. Even books written IN our time, about things that are going on even as we speak.... and consider it essential, and something that everyone SHOULD do. I certainly wouldn't trust an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated source.


I love rhyme! ;)

If this post had been a shorter one... I was almost tempted to respond in rhyme...

But, I guess we can forgo that fun... or postpone it to some other time...

;)

Dear God!
:eek:
Pterodonia! You have taken the bible and made it say its greatest object is the devil! When it says Lucifer, son of the morning, it means, Lucifer, Son of the Morning, not Jesus Christ of Nazerath, the Living Son of God Almighty.

This point of view presents an interesting psychological study of the whole Christian phenomenon. Most Christians I know - at least, the fundamentalists - believe there will be an Antichrist, though there seems to be little agreement as to who that might be or whether or not he has appeared on the scene at any time in our past or is now on the scene in our present time. According to 1 John 2:18 and 1 John 4:3, the antichrist or spirit of antichrist was already present at that time, and thereby causing the writer of 1 John to define that period of time as the "Last Days":


1 John 2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 4:3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


Hmmmm...the Antichrist drama has apparently long since passed and we all missed it!

The antichrist is apparently someone who deceives others regarding the identity of the Messiah:

1 John 2:22: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

But think for a moment of what else the Antichrist was supposed to accomplish - was he not supposed to seduce the world into worshipping him as God - even the very elect? Who has managed to do that more than any other person who ever lived - whether in fiction or in actual history?

It was certainly not an expectation of the Jews that the Messiah would be God incarnate, and you must keep in mind the fact that God had all along explicitly negated the idea that God was a man or a son of man, as well as the idea that there was another Savior besides him. Therefore, I would expect that anyone who came along and led others to believe he was both the Messiah and God incarnate was actually the ultimate Antichrist! He may even have been Satan and/or the Son of Satan! Of course, his "prophets" would have been antichrists as well, either by having allowed themselves to be deceived by him in spite of having been fully aware of what God had previously said on this subject, or by creating this fiction themselves. And wouldn't it make sense that his prophets would insist that anyone who denies that their candidate is not only the the Messiah, but also the Son of God come in the flesh are the true antichrists? (Side note: If Jesus really lived as a flesh and blood man, why does the writer(s) of 1st & 2nd John insist that you must believe that he came in the flesh - wouldn't that already have been a given?) This is nothing more or less than the typical sort of misdirection you'd expect to see in one of M. Night Shyamalan's movies. But now that the show is over, I would think that people would finally be able to see that they've been duped and appreciate all the clues that they missed along the way.

You may think this is all very farfetched - and maybe it is - but I'd like to pose one question for you to think about: Assuming the "Antichrist" is a real person who either existed in the past, or who exists now, or who will exist sometime in the near future - just how do you think he would go about deceiving the entire world, and what would make you immune to such deception while so many others stumble and fall?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm

I cannot be doing this every day. One of you two, I can deal with, but two is just too time-consuming.

No problem, Aluminumia - I have similar time constraints. I generally only get two opportunities a day during the work week to post - once in the morning while I'm eating my breakfast before I start work, and once at lunch time (that is, if I sacrifice that lunch time walk my doctor thinks I should be taking every day :) ). If I post anything of any substance in any one post, that's pretty much all I can do for that period of time. There are tons of comments I want to respond to in this thread - but unfortunately I have to pick and choose, so I completely understand your dilemma. Your posts are usually the most fun to respond to, but I'm happy to pick on someone else for awhile - as long as there is no shortage of willing victims, of course! ;)

Oh dear... another long one...

They have been getting longer, haven't they?

Originally posted by Grave n idle
If I am not learning, not stretching my mind, and not having at least SOME fun... then I am wasting my time.

^^^ Christians, take note! (Too many don't.)

Of course - I arrived at MY perspective from exactly the opposite chain of events. I began as 'accepting', and have moved towards the position of non-believer.

True.

As far as I can see - it is the belief that justifies the text. The non-believer sees a text, flawed and full of impracticality.

Iin such case, the non-believer likely sees the ancient text in modern terms instead of an ancient text in ancient terms. This all relates to the mindset with which we view it. The non-believer sees the text as flawed because he comes to it already thinking he knows what is in it to be flawed.

With belief comes an acceptance of the 'nature' of the text... a 'faith', which was missing from the non-believer. Perhaps you can try an exercise of IMAGINING yourself not believing any more, and then see how you view the texts.

I don't have to imagine. All I have to do is remember.

Perhaps you could also pretend that you remember, and then observe the statements I have made about the text to see if it would be plausible.

I am pretty sure, you would quickly notice that there is a positive 'filter' regarding what you will and will not accept from THIS set of scripture.

Naturally, because if I go to a text that has a possibility of being true but go with a belief that already claims it is false, then I will naturally see what I want to see, just as a believer would if he comes to the text.

But, none of that makes the Crucified Messiah any more historically accurate or true... or any LESS likely to be a metaphor.

I wouldn't ask you to consider that as irrefutable evidence that it is true. What I would assert is this: That is is plausible.

In fact - looking at the phallocentric leanings of Hebrew scripture, and of post-Jesus Christian teaching... there are lots of ways in which the entire Crucifixion becomes metaphor, almost of necessity.

These are?

For the record, I do not believe God to be male or female. The reason I think we revere "Him" as a male is because "He" is a sentient being that was not created, thus making the pronoun "It" seem irreverent. I do think that the Messiah was a man simply because he was human, and humans are divided into male and female.

I don't suppose you have a source you can cite about the 'proof of a missed day'? I have never heard of a serious scientific allegation of such a thing... unless you mean the same kind of 'missing day' as the errors in the transition between calendars...

Well - there are certain conflicts. The Koran claims that Jesus was a prophet, not Messiah - and Jews believe that Jesus failed to meet the requirements of Messiah, also.

As I said, some of the stories line up, and I would say that those are true.

Not all Jews believe that Jesus failed to meet the requirements. Some take their Scriptures and say he did. Others take the same Scriptures and say he didn't. Two opposite conclusions beginning with the same source are what has happened in the Jewish community.

Thus, if there is a 'spiritual' heir to the Torah, it is the Koran... and the New Testament is the text left out in the cold, and unsupported.

"Two opposite conclusions beginning with the same source . . . "

That worries me.

I hope that is a generalisation [sic] , and not one that you really thought about, or actually cling to.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that is my sole blueprint for knowledge. I was saying that, through my studies (in and apart from Scripture), I have yet to come to any conclusion against from what the Bible asserts, provided I read the text within the contexts of the time (Which many 'believers' don't do, and then wonder why it doesn't always make sense.). I have had other interesting ideas thrown out that are reasonable, provided I hold one presupposition: the Bible is not true. A worldview that takes such a presupposition is just as faith-based as a worldview that holds the Bible to be inspired.

My view of the Old Testament and New Testament are not a result of having that as a starting point. It was, instead, a conclusion.

It is not held as valid evidence to such an audience.

I think your assertion that you must be 'raised to believe' is a little excessive, but I agree you have to 'come to' believe.

And - as I just mentioned... nobody who has 'come to believe' the Bible DOES hold it as valid evidence... not in isolation. It is evidence ONLY where it is corroborated.

Your conclusion here was my point. It is evidence. It is not evidence in isolation. We agree on that point.

I see no justification for assuming the royal 'we'

If the Creator had just created the world, then He had dominion over it. If He had such power, there is a perfect reason for speaking in such a way.

Also, as the word for 'man' is singular and the word for 'image' is singular, it would be difficult to say that these "entities" had different images. In addition, since 'man' is singular, it would be difficult to reason that God would have said, "Let us make man in our images." In the physical universe in which we live, one being cannot hold multiple images, according to the Law of Identity in logical thought. Since we are bound by this law as human beings on earth, we must follow it. As it is asserted that God is not bound by this law, but rather put this law into place, it stands to reason that He would not have to be bound by this.

Also - since the books were supposed to have been written by Moses (which also presents it's own obvious problems)... why would HE have been referring to 'god' in the royal first person?

Moses wasn't referring to God. He was quoting God, as the passage starts out with "And God said . . ." Moses was not using the "us" and "our" to represent himself. He wasn't claiming to create the world. Moses was quoting God in saying that.

Most LIKELY explanation.... a plural is used, because multiple 'things' are being described. To assume anything else is to add to the text.

To assume that multiple things were creating man in multiple images is not likely. To assume that multiple entities would have the same image is neither likely. These are even less likely, but they are the explanations if this was truly three entities.

To assume that it could only be referring to multiple things is to address the text in our modern terms. In a sense, I am adding to the text. I am adding context. It has to be added to understand the intent of any text. If I was to tell you to go burn a faggot, you would call me hateful, and rightly so (I love gay people as much as I love anyone else.). If I was to tell you that in a time when 'faggot' meant a bundle of sticks, you would have no problem with it. Why? Because the cultural context was different.

The most likely explanation, based on the time in which this was written in English, is that it is not referring to itself as a group as we would today. Rather, it is referring to itself as itself, a magistrate, just in the terms of the time rather than the terms of today.

This is probably the most common refutation of Scripture, that because it is nonsensical based on our time, then it must be nonsensical.

How does the Baptism justify Trinity?

In Luke 3, which was written as a descriptive text, and not a prescriptive (which is often where metaphors are more common), it says:

". . . it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

Sorry for the vagueness of my question. I thought you would be able to recognize what I was asking. My apologies.

I seem to recall 'trinity' is never mentioned even once in the entirety of Canonised scripture.

Correct. In fact, you will not find "discipleship," "omnipotent," "omniscient," or "omnipresent" either. The word 'trinity,' like those others are words that those since have come up with to explain that which was only given a description, and not a name. Basically, the word "trinity" is the word used to describe the characteristic of God that is explained as being one God in three persons.

Actually - I seem to recall far more heavens from Hebrew 'belief'... anywhere between 9 and 12, depending on which version you accept. (Shamayim, Raquia, Shehaqim, Machanon, Mathey, Zebul, Araboth, Muzaloth, Kukhavim and Aravoth are, I believe, the most commonly accepted 10, although I have also seen Sagun... and have seen Zebul as the name of an angel, rather than the 'heaven' which 'it' occupies.).

I just decided to look this up and "heavens" is actually a singular word, and one you mentioned: shâmayim. It is mentioned as singular throughout the creation story in Hebrew. According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, it is "from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky."

By Hebrews, I am following a direct lineage that extends forwards and back THROUGH the Hebrews. Thus - Adam is 'Hebrew' for the sake of this discussion... since he is the first link of an unbroken chain.

As I said, he must have had multiple immages, which goes against the Law of Identity, as the pronoun for God is the only part of that statement which is plural. There is no reason to believe that there were multiple races of men that were created as a result of the "We," as it is perfectly acceptable to say such as someone exercising dominion.

I see no justification AT ALL for believing a text to be true, JUST BECAUSE it says it is.

My original point was that many others do not even claim to be true.

The Lemony Snicket stories start out that way... and I have never suspected them of being inerrant or inspired.

I have never read anything from Lemony Snicket, but the practice of saying that a story, even a false one, is true has long since become a cultural practice.

I would say that, one culture writing stories about Laws written on big chunks of rock... RIGHT AFTER they leave a place where there are Laws written on big chunks of rock - is a little suspicious, at the very least.

These tablets were never claimed to be big. They were able to be carried by one man down a mountain, which means that he was likely carrying them for awhile. Too, the times were such that many things were written on stone or rock, provided they were to be kept for a long period of time.

Also, Hammurabi was Babylonian, while the Hebrews were leaving Egypt. They weren't leaving a place that had these writings.

No such thing as 'possible' or 'potential' doubt.

Either there IS doubt, or there is NO doubt.

I agree - EVERY viewpoint SHOULD have doubts.

Ah, misunderstood what you were implying. I agree, then, with this statement.

I very much doubt that the Branch Davidians who died at Waco ALL believed EVERYTHING they 'died for'.

You aren't addressing my statement. I was asking why people would die for something they know to be false. Those in Waco obviously did not know this to be false. This is the distinction I make with anyone but those that would have made up the religion.

The women who died at the Salem withc trials died for things they DIDN'T believe, based on admissions later suggested as either forced confessions, or whole-hearted forgeries.

But it was not for their professions that they died. There were, of course, those that did not profess to being witches and still died. Basically, the Salem Witch Trials are a false analogy, because those involved were doomed to die, regardless of profession. Those I referred to died because of it. Rome was not known for killing and torturing its own law-abiding citizens. The Salem Witch Trials are the story from which we draw the term "witch hunt," implying that someone is going to go down, regardless of profession.

Actually - the tiny little town near where I live, with it's one sheriff and one deputy... has occasional car accidents. Witness statements ARE sought, obviously, but there is also a very detailed analysis of the scene... attempting to work out from the PHYSICAL evidence what happened, such that witnesses can corroborate.

Physical evidence is a wonderful thing when there is enough of it to remove doubt. When, however, there is some unsureness of what exactly happened, witnesses who agree are usually given the nod over witnesses who do not. Also, I suppose the analogy doesn't quite fit in the first place, since that physical evidence is not available in our current debate. When this is the case, in other incidents, witnesses are the most reliable evidence.

I have seen witnesses describe the wrong colours of cars involved, for example... or describe a car as being 'hit' by an 18-wheeler... when, if they were STILL looking at the incident, they would be able to SEE the car wedged into the SIDE of the 18-wheeler's wheelbase...

It would be hard to look away from such a sight, even if you knew what happened. To say that someone was still looking at something they just saw transpire while they explain it to try to disprove their claim is grasping at straws.

Witnesses are funny things.

Humans are as well.

Inefficient.... but then, so is copying an entire text, letter by letter.

True, but that much is documented, and it is not as inefficient if such an importance is placed on identical copies, as it was.

I DO question EVERY book. Even books written IN our time, about things that are going on even as we speak.... and consider it essential, and something that everyone SHOULD do.

'Question' was, I suppose, an incorrect word. If you are to view the 26 students' papers with such skepticism, then you must view writings on Hammurabi, Gligamesh, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, The Revolutionary War (I am British by lineage and I was taught this name as oppsed to the "War for Independence." Names are funny things. ;) ), and the Civil War. In such case, you can only avoid being skeptical of your own personal experience.

I would agree, though, to question something before you believe it.

I certainly wouldn't trust an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated source.

Nor would I.

Whew, I guarantee there are about three people that actually read these posts in their entirety.

Originally posted by Pterodonia
Your posts are usually the most fun to respond to . . .

I'll take that as a compliment.

I'm happy to pick on someone else for awhile - as long as there is no shortage of willing victims, of course!

Believe me, there is an infestation on this board.

There are tons of comments I want to respond to in this thread - but unfortunately I have to pick and choose, so I completely understand your dilemma.

I hate having to avoid posts (like yours) that get my mind "frothing at its metaphorical mouth" to respond, but I have spent too much time on this thread alone this past week.

It has been fun, though. Maybe I can respond over the weekend (like Easter is not hectic enough for me in my position . . . At least you guys get work days off. ;) ).

Whew, I guarantee there are about three people that actually read these posts in their entirety.

Four. loS.

Good to know, TWA (I still shudder about your initials. ;) )

Okay, I had to check up. Back to the paper on ol' St. T-A and his Summa Theologica. You gotta love being an adult and still having homework. It'll pay off when I get this next degree.

loS? Line of Scrimmage? :confused:

No problem, Aluminumia - I have similar time constraints. I generally only get two opportunities a day during the work week to post - once in the morning while I'm eating my breakfast before I start work, and once at lunch time (that is, if I sacrifice that lunch time walk my doctor thinks I should be taking every day :) ). If I post anything of any substance in any one post, that's pretty much all I can do for that period of time. There are tons of comments I want to respond to in this thread - but unfortunately I have to pick and choose, so I completely understand your dilemma. Your posts are usually the most fun to respond to, but I'm happy to pick on someone else for awhile - as long as there is no shortage of willing victims, of course! ;)

Curious that we seem to have three heavy posters, of quite extensive material.. on on relatively short schedules... :)

If Aluminumia is too entrenched to respond to you, and if I get the access time, feel to free to use me as a willing victim.:)

I might not actively disagree with you, or I might... it would depend on the assertions I guess... but I am always willing to play Devil's Avocado. :)

The non-believer sees the text as flawed because he comes to it already thinking he knows what is in it to be flawed.


I disagree... I might look at the text as flawed for internal inconsistency, or for things that conflict with scientific evidences.

I DO view every text as potentialy flawed, anyway.... since ANY text must be subjective in at least the extent that it has been recorded by a person, or group of persons.


I don't have to imagine. All I have to do is remember.
Perhaps you could also pretend that you remember, and then observe the statements I have made about the text to see if it would be plausible.


Oh - I remember. I remember believing that every human on the planet was derived from on couple of people, something like a dozen millenia ago. I recall how I knew it for truth... but ONLY because I accepted that it MUST be truth.

Once I stopped automatically parsing every phrase through the must-be-true buffer, I came to the conclusion that much of the text could ONLY be assumed true, by determined effort to make it so.


For the record, I do not believe God to be male or female. The reason I think we revere "Him" as a male is because "He" is a sentient being that was not created, thus making the pronoun "It" seem irreverent. I do think that the Messiah was a man simply because he was human, and humans are divided into male and female.


I think we refer to 'god' as male, because the Hebrew 'god' was invested with many of the qualities of other, earlier gods... many of whom were male. Most of our modern images of god, show a Zeus-like figure... a reflection of the likely shaping of the character of the same 'god', a handful of millennia earlier.


I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that is my sole blueprint for knowledge. I was saying that, through my studies (in and apart from Scripture), I have yet to come to any conclusion against from what the Bible asserts, provided I read the text within the contexts of the time (Which many 'believers' don't do, and then wonder why it doesn't always make sense.). I have had other interesting ideas thrown out that are reasonable, provided I hold one presupposition: the Bible is not true. A worldview that takes such a presupposition is just as faith-based as a worldview that holds the Bible to be inspired.

If the Creator had just created the world, then He had dominion over it. If He had such power, there is a perfect reason for speaking in such a way.

Also, as the word for 'man' is singular and the word for 'image' is singular, it would be difficult to say that these "entities" had different images. In addition, since 'man' is singular, it would be difficult to reason that God would have said, "Let us make man in our images." In the physical universe in which we live, one being cannot hold multiple images, according to the Law of Identity in logical thought. Since we are bound by this law as human beings on earth, we must follow it. As it is asserted that God is not bound by this law, but rather put this law into place, it stands to reason that He would not have to be bound by this.


I think it must be me that was making myself unclear... I see no reason to suppose a 'royal we', because I don't see how THAT peculiarity of language has any back-compatability to the Hebrew text.

I don't see any OTHER evidence for other characters of royal stature using the 'royal we'... not in the Hebrew, nor in the English... so I see no justification for assuming that 'god' chose THAT peculiarity of English, to descibe himself in Genesis.


Moses wasn't referring to God. He was quoting God, as the passage starts out with "And God said . . ." Moses was not using the "us" and "our" to represent himself. He wasn't claiming to create the world. Moses was quoting God in saying that.


Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

The Hebrew name for 'god' here, is 'elohiym. This isn't someone 'quoting god', this is someone describing the first actions... perhaps under dictation.

Thus - if this text WAS written by Moses (which seems very unlikely), he WAS referring to 'god'.


In Luke 3, which was written as a descriptive text, and not a prescriptive (which is often where metaphors are more common), it says:

". . . it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

Sorry for the vagueness of my question. I thought you would be able to recognize what I was asking. My apologies.


I still don't see how that shows 'trinity'. Certainly not the common conception of trinity, and in no means a justification for trinity in Genesis.

Assuming for a moment that the passage is true... and that the 'holy spirit' did appear in the form of a dove, and that a voice from the heavens DID indeed claim Jesus as Son... that still doesn't make the three into aspects of one another.


I just decided to look this up and "heavens" is actually a singular word, and one you mentioned: shâmayim. It is mentioned as singular throughout the creation story in Hebrew. According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, it is "from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky."


I disagree... well, I agree with your reading of Strong... but one only has to look at the word structure. I do not intend to patronise you, so please do not be offended... but you are aware that languages carry markers of gender, for example... within their lexicons? Or - markers of plurality?

Look, for example, at the difference between singular and plural in Hebrew.

Singular = Seraph; Plural = Seraphim
Singular = Cherub; Plural = Cherubim

(Note: those who translated the KJV were apparently ignorant of this aspect of Hebrew - since Isaiah 6, for example - refers (rather infuriatingly) to "Seraphims")
.

I have never read anything from Lemony Snicket, but the practice of saying that a story, even a false one, is true has long since become a cultural practice.


Lemony Snicket is not a BAD read - and could certainly be very education for children. Personally, I have read the first 3 LS books to my 6-year-old.

(The film version wasn't TERRIBLE, but was very much more about being a vehicle for Jim Carrey, than about sticking to the spirit of the story).


These tablets were never claimed to be big. They were able to be carried by one man down a mountain, which means that he was likely carrying them for awhile. Too, the times were such that many things were written on stone or rock, provided they were to be kept for a long period of time.

Also, Hammurabi was Babylonian, while the Hebrews were leaving Egypt. They weren't leaving a place that had these writings.


The written Mosaic texts do not appear for the first time until after the 'Hebrews' have their little visit with the Babylonians.

Perhaps they already had firmly established oral traditions, just waiting to be written... or perhaps they allowd their own theological texts to be 'coloured' by those of their neighbours....


But it was not for their professions that they died. There were, of course, those that did not profess to being witches and still died. Basically, the Salem Witch Trials are a false analogy, because those involved were doomed to die, regardless of profession. Those I referred to died because of it. Rome was not known for killing and torturing its own law-abiding citizens. The Salem Witch Trials are the story from which we draw the term "witch hunt," implying that someone is going to go down, regardless of profession.


Actually - at the risk of being simplistic, many of the Salem 'witches' DID die for something they did not believe. They were forced to write confessions... swear alleigance to a 'god figure' in which they didn't believe... and then paid with their lives.


It would be hard to look away from such a sight, even if you knew what happened. To say that someone was still looking at something they just saw transpire while they explain it to try to disprove their claim is grasping at straws.


Been there... actually on the side of the road, next to the sheriff while he took witness statements (I helped out at City Hall for a while... so, while I wasn't a member of the police force, I did occasionally end up out 'in the field'.

Seriously, the story about the 18-wheeler isn't an exaggeration. The witness was removed a few metres from the scene to give a statement (at a little picnic trestle table) and gave a version of events that could not be made to fit with physical evidence only a few steps away).


'Question' was, I suppose, an incorrect word. If you are to view the 26 students' papers with such skepticism, then you must view writings on Hammurabi, Gligamesh, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, The Revolutionary War (I am British by lineage and I was taught this name as oppsed to the "War for Independence." Names are funny things. ;) ), and the Civil War. In such case, you can only avoid being skeptical of your own personal experience.

I would agree, though, to question something before you believe it.


I am British, not only by lineage, but also by citizenship, and by geography for 25 of the last 30 years. Although - perhaps strangely, at my Lincolnshire school, we were taught about the "War of Independence".

I am skeptical of ALL sources, and place no greater faith in multiple sources INSPIRED by a common source... than I would in that one source itself. I consider those to be derived evidence.... useful perhaps, but not good tools for corroboration. I would be more interested in separate, isolated recordings of an event, than in hundreds, or even thousands of recordings 'based on' one account.


Whew, I guarantee there are about three people that actually read these posts in their entirety.

The thing that frustrates me.... some people actually seem to get ANGRY, that there are long posts....

It's not like they are being FORCED to read them, or respond... :)

Shalom.

Curious that we seem to have three heavy posters, of quite extensive material.. on on relatively short schedules... :)

If Aluminumia is too entrenched to respond to you, and if I get the access time, feel to free to use me as a willing victim.:)

I might not actively disagree with you, or I might... it would depend on the assertions I guess... but I am always willing to play Devil's Avocado. :)
Devils alvicado?

Devils alvicado?

Why not...? :)

:fluffle:

Why not...? :)

:fluffle:
You naughty boy you just want to be eaten by the devil :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

You naughty boy you just want to be eaten by the devil :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Gosh! That thought hadn't even crossed my mind....

But, now I'll be up all night... :)

:fluffle:

I might not actively disagree with you, or I might... it would depend on the assertions I guess... but I am always willing to play Devil's Avocado. :)

Hmmmm...for some reason I've suddenly developed a strong craving for guacamole! :D

Evidence of this? He obeys his mother with his first miracle, even after he says it is not yet time. He also made sure she was well taken care of even as he was hanging on the cross (when he gave her to John for care). Where was he disrespectful to family?

He was rude to his mother when she expressed her concern over the wedding guests not having enough wine, when he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" My son would still be feeling the sting on his cheek if he'd said anything like that to me! He was also rude to his parents when they discovered he wasn't traveling with their group and went looking for him only to find he had willfully remained back at the temple. When they asked him to explain himself, he snottily told them he was about his "Father's business" (I'll just bet he was!) and that they should have realized it and not come looking for him. That was an extraordinarily disrespectful attitude to take with both his mother and the father who had supposedly accepted and taken responsibility for him from the very beginning, although, as the story goes, Joseph wasn't even present at his conception.

On a side note, isn't it kind of strange that his parents didn't understand what he meant by this? I mean, if I had been visited by an angel as a young virgin and told that I would shortly be giving birth to the Son of God, who I would not have the pleasure of conceiving by the usual means, I'm thinking that the memory of this event would probably stick with me for quite some time. At the very least, I wouldn't have already forgotten all about it by the time the child had reached the tender age of 12 years. But maybe that's just me...

I will reiterate, Matthew 10 does not quote Jesus saying, "He that loveth father or mother is not worthy of me." It quotes him saying, "He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me." If his intent was for those who follow him to hate their own families, would he not have said so?

Uh...he did say that - that's why we're arguing the point now! Boy, you must really be tired, Aluminumia! :)

Anyway, as we've touched on before, if Jesus was not God (and I firmly believe he was not), this was a "Satanic" thing for him to say, regardless of which way he meant it.

To reiterate my position regarding Jesus's role - I see Jesus as sort of a vice cop whose beat is located in the heart of the spiritual red light district (which has pretty much always been Satan's role, too, when you think about it). Imagine a cop whose job is to dress up like a prostitute in order to entice the would-be johns in her district to solicit her "services." The law-abiding citizens will ignore her, while the not-so-law-abiding citizens might very well find themselves ensnared by this ploy. The whole point, of course, is not to entice law-abiding citizens to become law-breakers, but rather, to rid the district of prostitution.

So, in that sense, you could say that Jesus was sent by God - just as the vice cop was sent by her chief. But that doesn't mean you should allow yourself to fall in their trap. Does that make sense?

In Matthew 12, he even says that anyone who does the will of his Father is as his sister, brother, and mother. Why would he use such an example if his message was to hate family? This would make no sense at all. If he holds the view of family the way you hold that he does, then he is essentially saying, "For whosoever does the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is as those I hate." Why hate someone who does the will of the one who sent you?

Yes, Jesus did said that anyone who does the will of his Father is his brother, sister and mother - but looking at it in context, it becomes obvious that he was publicly rejecting his own family and replacing them in his heart with his new found "cult family." This is just further evidence of what I've been saying all along regarding Jesus's disrespect for the family of his birth.

Figured I might add my two cents... used several hours the last couple of days to read this thread, and it has been very interesting reading indeed.

Now for a couple of additions to the discussion

Thus - if this text WAS written by Moses (which seems very unlikely),

It is highly unlikely that it was WRITTEN by Moses. Parts of it might be passed down from the mouth of Moses, but it was most probably carried in oral tradition for quite a while before being written down in its entirety.

I think it must be me that was making myself unclear... I see no reason to suppose a 'royal we', because I don't see how THAT peculiarity of language has any back-compatability to the Hebrew text.

The royal We does indeed not exist in Hebrew. Hebrew however operates with a "divine plural" which in much the same way has no similar function in English, and is therefore often compared to the royal plural.

I disagree... I might look at the text as flawed for internal inconsistency, or for things that conflict with scientific evidences.

If an ancient text has internal inconsistencies, is it not logical to think that this is for a reason?
Assuming that the person(s) who comprised it was not stupid, he would probably realize that it was inconsistent, right? And still the inconsistency is there.
-Well, maybe he realized it, but knew that this was the way he'd been told it, and thus the way he wrote it down.

-Or, if he did some editing while writing, maybe he saw that the inconsistencies were only in things that were considered unimportant, and therefore it might as well be left that way.

-Or maybe it wasn't considered an inconsistency at the time, for some reason not obvious to the modern reader.

We have no way of knowing, really, but in all historical reading of texts of ancient origin it must be assumed that the text, when written, made sense. A modern historian then, being so far removed from the immediate context, can only make educated guesses as to how the text was orginally read.
This is the same for things that conflict with scientific evidence. The historian must assume that when written, it did not conflict with the way the world was viewed. A most obvious example is texts which describe the human heart in terms of feelings and thougths. Well, the word "brain" did not exist, and it was common knowledge that emotional and cognitive processes take place in the heart.
If we are to understand what is conveyed through the text, we must therefore try to put ourselves in the shoes of a contemporary reader, and find what the message is. Only that way can we start to undress the text of it's contextual costume, and find the original meaning.


On a more general note (and one which is on topic...), I must say that I'm intrigued by the attempts to identify Christ with the Antichrist. It is an interesting exercise in critical reading, but a rather daunting task gathering evidence to the opposite of the message apparently being delivered throughout the New Testament.
To clearify: it is a lot easier to find points which undermine the hypothesis of Jesus as Antichrist, than it is to do what you're undertaking: finding points that undermine Jesus as Christ.

Noddeland

On a more general note (and one which is on topic...), I must say that I'm intrigued by the attempts to identify Christ with the Antichrist. It is an interesting exercise in critical reading, but a rather daunting task gathering evidence to the opposite of the message apparently being delivered throughout the New Testament.
To clearify: it is a lot easier to find points which undermine the hypothesis of Jesus as Antichrist, than it is to do what you're undertaking: finding points that undermine Jesus as Christ.

Not really. It isn't difficult at all to find such examples when you decide to read the bible with "new eyes" - that is, throw off everything that everyone else has ever told you about Jesus and read the bible with the idea that Jesus is only playing a part (such as the heavenly vice cop role I suggested in my previous post). You'll suddenly see the evidence all over the place! Some points that were completely obscure before will suddenly make sense to you, such as why Satan entered into Judas after Jesus gave him the sop during the Last Supper, for example:

John 13:26,27: Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

Compare this with John 6:47-51, where Jesus identifies himself as the "living bread" and promises eternal life to those who would eat of this bread:

John 6:47-51: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Hmmmm...the promise of "thou shalt not die" sounds very familiar...

Genesis 3:1-5: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Which leads me to John 15:22, where Jesus claims responsibility for talking to some unspecfied "them" and apparently giving them knowledge of good and evil:

John 15:22: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Once you start reading the bible this way, it's difficult to go back to believing that Jesus is God incarnate or anything remotely close.

Compare this with John 6:47-51, where Jesus identifies himself as the "living bread" and promises eternal life to those who would eat of this bread:

This is great - now I'm talking to myself! ;)

Anyway, please consider this a continuation of my last message, since I intended to include the following point about the eternal life Jesus promises.

Jesus promises eternal life to those who will follow him, but considering he holds the keys to hell and death (think jailer), where do you think that life would be spent (think Pleasure Island in Pinocchio, where boys who allow themselves to be led astray by Foulfellow are turned into jackasses)?

Well, so much for Pascal's wager...

I have a few simple questions for everyone.. If all churches are really businesses at heart(try to argue that they are not and I will point you towards American public access television), do you not think that they will say and do anything they can to recruit you into thier particular establishment? I think it is wildly hilarious that starting in about 800 A.D. all the Christianity-based churches of Europe started to fight over so called religious artifacts i.e. The Grail, The Shroud of Turin(What a Joke!!), The hand of the Apostle John, and so on...They seemed to be involved in some sort of religion ratings war and would do anything to get you to join or visit thier church. There is no truth behind it. Also, why does God seem to live in poor neighborhoods more than affluent ones? Modern Christianity was created by aristocrats and Kings to keep the common people in line...Nothing More...Am I wrong here? I do not need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, I just know...and you do to....


:D no your right dont worry

This is great - now I'm talking to myself! ;)

Anyway, please consider this a continuation of my last message, since I intended to include the following point about the eternal life Jesus promises.

Jesus promises eternal life to those who will follow him, but considering he holds the keys to hell and death (think jailer), where do you think that life would be spent (think Pleasure Island in Pinocchio, where boys who allow themselves to be led astray by Foulfellow are turned into jackasses)?

Well, so much for Pascal's wager...

See what happens!

Nobody responded in time, and you found yourself a 'willing victim'... but, unfortunately... it was yourself. :)

Figured I might add my two cents... used several hours the last couple of days to read this thread, and it has been very interesting reading indeed.

Now for a couple of additions to the discussion



It is highly unlikely that it was WRITTEN by Moses. Parts of it might be passed down from the mouth of Moses, but it was most probably carried in oral tradition for quite a while before being written down in its entirety.



The royal We does indeed not exist in Hebrew. Hebrew however operates with a "divine plural" which in much the same way has no similar function in English, and is therefore often compared to the royal plural.



If an ancient text has internal inconsistencies, is it not logical to think that this is for a reason?
Assuming that the person(s) who comprised it was not stupid, he would probably realize that it was inconsistent, right? And still the inconsistency is there.
-Well, maybe he realized it, but knew that this was the way he'd been told it, and thus the way he wrote it down.

-Or, if he did some editing while writing, maybe he saw that the inconsistencies were only in things that were considered unimportant, and therefore it might as well be left that way.

-Or maybe it wasn't considered an inconsistency at the time, for some reason not obvious to the modern reader.

We have no way of knowing, really, but in all historical reading of texts of ancient origin it must be assumed that the text, when written, made sense. A modern historian then, being so far removed from the immediate context, can only make educated guesses as to how the text was orginally read.
This is the same for things that conflict with scientific evidence. The historian must assume that when written, it did not conflict with the way the world was viewed. A most obvious example is texts which describe the human heart in terms of feelings and thougths. Well, the word "brain" did not exist, and it was common knowledge that emotional and cognitive processes take place in the heart.
If we are to understand what is conveyed through the text, we must therefore try to put ourselves in the shoes of a contemporary reader, and find what the message is. Only that way can we start to undress the text of it's contextual costume, and find the original meaning.


On a more general note (and one which is on topic...), I must say that I'm intrigued by the attempts to identify Christ with the Antichrist. It is an interesting exercise in critical reading, but a rather daunting task gathering evidence to the opposite of the message apparently being delivered throughout the New Testament.
To clearify: it is a lot easier to find points which undermine the hypothesis of Jesus as Antichrist, than it is to do what you're undertaking: finding points that undermine Jesus as Christ.

Noddeland

See - to me - the inconsistencies DO make sense.

The collators of scripture were not initially going for a unified scripture... but were recording all of the oral traditions and theological arguments of their time. Much of the more unfixable text is later lost again, through failure to be canonised... but the origins of both the Torah and the Bible, are the simple collection of texts... followed by shedding those that fit LEAST.

This is great - now I'm talking to myself! ;)

Anyway, please consider this a continuation of my last message, since I intended to include the following point about the eternal life Jesus promises.

Jesus promises eternal life to those who will follow him, but considering he holds the keys to hell and death (think jailer), where do you think that life would be spent (think Pleasure Island in Pinocchio, where boys who allow themselves to be led astray by Foulfellow are turned into jackasses)?

Well, so much for Pascal's wager...

Jesus conquered death and the grave by dying and rising. The only reason He holds the key is so that (the real) Satan can't use death as a tool against humans.

This way, if you turn to Jesus, you don't have to fear death... because when you die, instead of going down to Hades and the domain of death, you go to Heaven (or some temporary approximation thereof.)

Jesus conquered death and the grave by dying and rising. The only reason He holds the key is so that (the real) Satan can't use death as a tool against humans.

This way, if you turn to Jesus, you don't have to fear death... because when you die, instead of going down to Hades and the domain of death, you go to Heaven (or some temporary approximation thereof.)

That's what you believe... but you have no independent evidence, right?

I mean - you haven't, personally, died... I assume?

See what happens!

Nobody responded in time, and you found yourself a 'willing victim'... but, unfortunately... it was yourself. :)

D'oh! :)

I don't have enough willpower to go through all those pages, but I feel the need to express the fact that Jesus was actually quite a good philosopher for his day and age :)

Jesus conquered death and the grave by dying and rising. The only reason He holds the key is so that (the real) Satan can't use death as a tool against humans.

This way, if you turn to Jesus, you don't have to fear death... because when you die, instead of going down to Hades and the domain of death, you go to Heaven (or some temporary approximation thereof.)

That's kind of like saying that the Vice cop conquered prostitution by disguising herself as one of the fallen streetwalkers, while holding the key to the jail cell which will imprison those who fell into her trap, and that those who believed her (and therefore approached her to make use of the services she seemed to be offering) need not fear imprisonment. From my perspective, this makes no sense at all!

Consider this warning, and please pay particular attention to the fact that leaven was considered ruinous:

Luke 13:20-28: And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

So what is he telling you? As I see it, he is saying that in the end he will weed out all those who can be influenced to break God's laws, as proven by the fact that they can be convinced that they must change the glory of God into the image of a corruptible man, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, all the while professing themselves wise but proving themselves fools (see Romans 1:18-25). Think about it.

I don't have enough willpower to go through all those pages, but I feel the need to express the fact that Jesus was actually quite a good philosopher for his day and age :)

"Philosophy" literally means "love of wisdom." He may indeed have loved wisdom, but his life's work was to ensnare fools.

Well, I can start by saying that I hate computers. Mine shut itself down, and I have no computer as of now. I am typing on the one in the office next to mine.

Thus, responding will be very unlikely, as I am usually not in here.

On top of that, all my notes for this week have been erased, so I had to start from scratch.

In any case, the banter was fun. I enjoyed a friendly, good-natured disagreement. I am praying for you.

Not like you think that does anything, though. ;)

Well, I can start by saying that I hate computers. Mine shut itself down, and I have no computer as of now. I am typing on the one in the office next to mine.

Thus, responding will be very unlikely, as I am usually not in here.

On top of that, all my notes for this week have been erased, so I had to start from scratch.

In any case, the banter was fun. I enjoyed a friendly, good-natured disagreement. I am praying for you.

Not like you think that does anything, though. ;)

I'm really sorry to hear about your computer woes, Aluminumia. That is always a bummer. I'm not sure about how easy it was for you to post messages before, but for me it is always a major production - and nearly impossible from my home computer which is on a 28.8 Kbps dial up line - UGHHHH!!!! But even from my computer at work, I always have to copy my reply to the clipboard before I hit "Submit Reply," because more than likely, by the time I get to that point, I will no longer be logged in, and so I have to log in again. The problem with that is that for some mysterious reason, I can't log in directly from the forum, which means I have to go all the way back to the game site and log in there. But that's not the end of it, because half the time I can't get to the general forum by clicking on "Forum" as I usually get a "Page not found" message, or something of that nature. And even when I can go there directly, the post I want to reply to is no longer on the first page - heck, maybe not even on the 2nd or 3rd page! (Not to mention that it takes absolutely forever for the pages to load up - especially with my ultra-lame dial-up connection at home.) So I have to click on any of the messages back at the game site, being careful to choose the one with the fewest replies, and when I get to that page I click on "Reply" - even though I have no intention of replying to that message. At least then I will get a hyperlink that says "Logged in as Pterodonia," which will eventually get me to my posting history. Once I finally get to my posting history, I can click on a post in the thread I want to reply to, then hit "Reply" and paste my message in that box and hit the "Submit Reply" button. If I'm lucky, it might actually post then. Whew!! Now you know why I only do this a couple of times a day at most.

I really do wonder whether or not I'm the only one who has to take the scenic route every time I want to post a long message?

Anyway, all that aside, I have enjoyed the banter as well. I could do without people praying for something to happen to me that is against my own will, but I know that Christians think they must. By the way, it's not as if I don't believe in the power of prayer, no matter what form it takes - because I do. I am not an atheist. To clarify a bit, I really can't classify it as belief when I have seen the proof of its power with my own eyes many times over - both as a participant and as an observer - but in that case I feel it must be classified as knowledge rather than belief. But I do protect myself against the interference of those who wish to override my own will in regard to my own life path, and I only accept prayers that are in harmony with the spiritual choices I have made for myself. No offense to you or anyone else - I know you mean well and appreciate the thought. :)

It doesn't matter who Jesus was. The Beatles were more popular.

I'm really sorry to hear about your computer woes, Aluminumia. That is always a bummer. I'm not sure about how easy it was for you to post messages before, but for me it is always a major production - and nearly impossible from my home computer which is on a 28.8 Kbps dial up line - UGHHHH!!!! But even from my computer at work, I always have to copy my reply to the clipboard before I hit "Submit Reply," because more than likely, by the time I get to that point, I will no longer be logged in, and so I have to log in again. The problem with that is that for some mysterious reason, I can't log in directly from the forum, which means I have to go all the way back to the game site and log in there. But that's not the end of it, because half the time I can't get to the general forum by clicking on "Forum" as I usually get a "Page not found" message, or something of that nature. And even when I can go there directly, the post I want to reply to is no longer on the first page - heck, maybe not even on the 2nd or 3rd page! (Not to mention that it takes absolutely forever for the pages to load up - especially with my ultra-lame dial-up connection at home.) So I have to click on any of the messages back at the game site, being careful to choose the one with the fewest replies, and when I get to that page I click on "Reply" - even though I have no intention of replying to that message. At least then I will get a hyperlink that says "Logged in as Pterodonia," which will eventually get me to my posting history. Once I finally get to my posting history, I can click on a post in the thread I want to reply to, then hit "Reply" and paste my message in that box and hit the "Submit Reply" button. If I'm lucky, it might actually post then. Whew!! Now you know why I only do this a couple of times a day at most.

I really do wonder whether or not I'm the only one who has to take the scenic route every time I want to post a long message?

Anyway, all that aside, I have enjoyed the banter as well. I could do without people praying for something to happen to me that is against my own will, but I know that Christians think they must. By the way, it's not as if I don't believe in the power of prayer, no matter what form it takes - because I do. I am not an atheist. To clarify a bit, I really can't classify it as belief when I have seen the proof of its power with my own eyes many times over - both as a participant and as an observer - but in that case I feel it must be classified as knowledge rather than belief. But I do protect myself against the interference of those who wish to override my own will in regard to my own life path, and I only accept prayers that are in harmony with the spiritual choices I have made for myself. No offense to you or anyone else - I know you mean well and appreciate the thought. :)

I also have nightmare problems... the standard ultra-reliable 'dial-up' connection, coupled with the wonder that is NS on a good day.... i.e. Copy+Paste everything before you post it...

Well, the poll is closed and here are the results:

God and/or Son of God 42.12%
The long-awaited Jewish Messiah 18.47%
An itinerant preacher 33.78%
A fictional character in a book of mythology 17.57%
The Antichrist 3.15%
Satan and/or Son of Satan 3.83%
Other (please explain) 17.12%

I fully expected about a third to believe Jesus was God and/or the Son of God, but 42.12% is a little surprising - that's getting close to half the NSers who participated! At any rate, that choice obviously does not represent the narrow path or the strait gate. I wonder how Christians reconcile their beliefs with the fact their chosen path is so heavily trodden?

I was also surprised that 3.15% consider him to be the Antichrist and 3.83% identified him as Satan and/or the Son of Satan. Unfortunately, most of the people who made those choices didn't participate in the discussion - I really would have liked to have heard more from them.

Anyway, this has been a very interesting discussion, and I thank everyone who participated in the poll and/or discussion. :cool:

Thank you, Pterodonia - first thread I ever thought worthy to post on in my eleven months of 'lurking'.

Thank you, Pterodonia - first thread I ever thought worthy to post on in my eleven months of 'lurking'.

I am honored, EFTO! Your contributions were worthy as well - I especially appreciated the link to the snopes site regarding the lost day, although I know I neglected to mention that before. Take care and thanks again! :)

I could do without people praying for something to happen to me that is against my own will.

Don't worry. I am not praying that something happens to you that is against your own will. Anyone calling himself a Christian and doing so would be making God the puppeteer that I am convinced He is not.

The reference about prayer was mostly for Grave. Just some good-natured ribbing. I knew you weren't an atheist. That was part of what made my posts so long. Responding to two different views is harder than responding to two people with one view.

I am back in my neighbor's office for a moment. I have had a typewriter put into my office so that is what I will be using. Enjoy your dial-up. It's better than nothing. ;)

I feel so old thinking that I used to type my school papers on one of those.

Peace and God bless.

Don't worry. I am not praying that something happens to you that is against your own will. Anyone calling himself a Christian and doing so would be making God the puppeteer that I am convinced He is not.

The reference about prayer was mostly for Grave. Just some good-natured ribbing. I knew you weren't an atheist. That was part of what made my posts so long. Responding to two different views is harder than responding to two people with one view.

I am back in my neighbor's office for a moment. I have had a typewriter put into my office so that is what I will be using. Enjoy your dial-up. It's better than nothing. ;)

I feel so old thinking that I used to type my school papers on one of those.

Peace and God bless.

Well, hopefully this doesn't mean we will lose your input, completely?

I'm not offended by 'prayer'... any more than I would be offended by someone 'cursing' me in the name of their chosen 'entities'. It's all the same to me. :)

I have even been known to offer a prayer, when needed.

Unfortunately, it does mean that there will only be little posts here and there. Nothing lengthy and in-depth will be doable as my colleague does need his computer. Maybe when my poor preacher salary allows, I will purchase another computer :rolleyes: .

*Waits for the money to start rolling in.*

*Still waiting. ;) *

He was a nice guy who said, "Be nice to each other," and, "don't forget to feed yourself spiritually," and, "those guys in the temple are just out for your money," and then they nailed him to a tree.

He came back for a bit, and then left again. He'll be back again; sure, as soon as he can play the piano again he'll be right back.

Unfortunately, it does mean that there will only be little posts here and there. Nothing lengthy and in-depth will be doable as my colleague does need his computer. Maybe when my poor preacher salary allows, I will purchase another computer :rolleyes: .

*Waits for the money to start rolling in.*

*Still waiting. ;) *

Now that IS a shame! Your insight will be missed... but, I guess, your views will be appreciated all the more for their rarity? :)

Well thank you! I am glad to have found someone that can disagree without simply dismissing everything.

I always feel like I am nearly alone as a thinking Christian. Humorously, I know a lot of them, but the vast majority of professed Christians (and Religiocrats) seem to fit the ignorant, conservative, holier-than-thou mold. I always find myself apologizing on their behalf, because of the association.

Well thank you! I am glad to have found someone that can disagree without simply dismissing everything.

I always feel like I am nearly alone as a thinking Christian. Humorously, I know a lot of them, but the vast majority of professed Christians (and Religiocrats) seem to fit the ignorant, conservative, holier-than-thou mold. I always find myself apologizing on their behalf, because of the association.

I think there are two types of people (doesn't everyone think that, in some way?).

There are people who are happy to accept, and people who question.

Those that 'accept' seem to make up the majority ranks of various factions, religious organisations seem especially fertile ground... probably because faiths come with 'handbooks' - but the same 'accepting' people fill the atheistic ranks, also.

These people are told something, and are happy to never 'think' about the ramifications. To my mind, that is sad, because it means they have no thought or beliefs of their own... just the capacity to repeat someone else's ideas.

I have much more respect for those who 'question', because - at least you know they have arrived at their own conclusions, even if they disagree with your own.

I have also noticed that those who honestly question, seem NOT to be the ones who preach offense (whichever subject is at hand).

There are some other 'thinking Christians' on this forum - "Personal Responsibilit" and "Dempublicents1" are the ones that instantly spring to mind. I am very thankful to have debated with yourself, and with those others I mentioned. :)