NationStates Jolt Archive

Look at it!
Would you rather sit there and debate whether to use the coefficient of e^256i or e^256j in the formula, or whether scroll XY in section Q1234 meant A or B?
They both seem complicated, but I think I'd rather discuss something where you can come to an answer without offending everyone else for a milennium to come.
LOL! I don't "do" mathematics! :D

Yes, they both exist as concepts.
Aye; and when we talk about the evidence that myth provides, it is concepts that are being evidenced, not literal facts. Myth is metaphor; a story that represents concepts.

To recap, what evidence you garner depends entirely on what you are looking for in the evidence. If you are looking for the literal truth in myth, you will not find it; but if you are looking for non-literal meaning (that bits that religious folk actually find to be important) then the myths are evidence of true things.

Standards of beauty, at least as far as we know, are universal among humans: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/ekanayake.html

Are you sure? The article says:

However it could be argued that the very concept of using the relative waist to hip ratio of women to assess beauty, as an indicator of better adaptability and fertility might be a consequence of western hegemonic values and ideals internalized by individuals of different backgrounds, cultures and ages. As poet and social critic Katha Pollitt argues, "it's the fantasy life of American men being translated into genetics" (2).A research had been carried out by some evolutionary biologists to test the hypothesis that the male preference for women with low WHR might be a product of dominant western influences and that beauty as an indicator of adaptability might be culturally variable (4).A study of two populations of Matsigenka Indians; an indigenous group of Peru, which comprised of a highly isolated group and a more westernized group of the same ethnic population was used to test this hypothesis (4).The summarized observations revealed that males in the highly isolated group of Matsigenka ranked 'overweight' women with high WHR as more attractive and considered them more healthy and fertile than women with low WHR (4). However, the men of the more westernized group of Matsigenka, regarded low WHR women as more attractive and preferable although overweight and high WHR females were considered healthier and more fertile (4). Child bearing women of both population group was observed to have a high WHR as opposed to post child bearing and childless women who were thinner and had a small waist to hip ratio (4). These observations by themselves do not prove (or disprove) the hypothesis that the male preference for small waist, big hipped women is dependent on cultural variances. However it emphasizes the importance of a more broad and diverse theory of evolution and adaptability, which takes in to account, increased diversity as imperative to evolution rather than a narrow focus on supposedly 'universal' characteristics like small waist to hip ratios as an indicator of female adaptability. It also makes us contemplate how 'natural' the categorization of humans under the broad umbrella of biology of beauty as a form of 'successful' adaptation really is, if it does not address increased diversity and reproduction with variance. Biological evaluation of women based on the contours of their body for instance has been used to contend male preferences for certain categories of women like young (a.k.a. 'fertile' and 'healthy' women) that exclude a diverse segment of women out of the beauty paradigm. Thus, it could be argued that by biological categorization/separation of women as superior/inferior based on attractiveness, science becomes another tool to justify patriarchal practices that discriminate and subordinate women. This time on the grounds of biological quality.

Aye; and when we talk about the evidence that myth provides, it is concepts that are being evidenced, not literal facts.
No, they are presented as literal facts.

Pwned! :)LOL you don't know what the word "God" mmeans do you

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

Boy, that has to be the most ridiculous religio-centric thing I've ever heard. Not to mention, completely illogical.

If something doesn't come from nothing...where the heck did your Judeo-Christian god (or any other religion's god for that matter) come from?

Are you sure? The article says:
That is a speculative portion of the article. I'll search for the original study if you like. The study included men from primitve tribes in remote areas of the world, and their responses indicated the same preferences as did those from men in more technoligically advanced nations.

No, they are presented as literal facts.
Only by people who don't know what myth is (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/whatismyth.htm).

Questions closely related to the nature of myth are "what is truth?" and "how do we know anything?" It seems fair to say that myth is not the same as scientific fact, but what exactly does even that mean? If we look at one of the ancient Greek creation stories, the world was originally Chaos. From Chaos suddenly Order appeared, and from the conflict between the two of them, all else in the world was created. Did the Greeks think of this as the literal truth? How would they know for sure? Perhaps they extrapolated from their observations and powers of reasoning to construct this world view as an allegory. Paul Veyne in Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths? writes:

"Myth is truthful, but figuratively so. It is not historical truth mixed with lies; it is a high philosophical teaching that is entirely true, on the condition that, instead of taking it literally, one sees in it an allegory."

That is a speculative portion of the article. I'll search for the original study if you like. The study included men from primitve tribes in remote areas of the world, and their responses indicated the same preferences as did those from men in more technoligically advanced nations.

In regards to fertility, yes - but your point was that beauty/attractiveness are universal.

The summarized observations revealed that males in the highly isolated group of Matsigenka ranked 'overweight' women with high WHR as more attractive and considered them more healthy and fertile than women with low WHR (4). However, the men of the more westernized group of Matsigenka, regarded low WHR women as more attractive and preferable although overweight and high WHR females were considered healthier and more fertile

One group found high WHR attractive, the other low.

Only by people who don't know what myth is (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/whatismyth.htm).
Oh, they know what a myth is: someone else's religion.

Does beauty exist? Does truth exist?

absolute truth does exist... :)

absolute truth does exist... :)
I once heard it said that truth is an interpretation of fact. I don't know how much I agree with that, but it has helped me to understand some people when they talk about "Truth", but are interpreting facts differently than I interpret them.

Oh, they know what a myth is: someone else's religion.

Not just someone else's - ALL religion is myth.

Since you claim the OT is about jesus, and since 4Q521 is not in the OT, I'm trying my best to ascertain how the OT is about jesus when clearly it isn't.

no im not saying that the OT was about Jesus. however there are plenty referenses to the coming saviour. the NT writers saw to it that they show how Jesus fulfilled prophecy and the requirments to be the saviour. think about it reallly. if you one of the NT writers, and your trying to make the case for Jesus as saiviour, why would you not have him fulfill the prophecy of the saviour? the reason i mentioned the DSS was that the ideas of what type of saviour the jews were expecting is showed...theres another one that i just remembered i think called the suffering servant...

i have a book called the New Testament Parallels. It is wriiten with the gospels side by side. it shows the same storys and events and sayings all next to each other. if you look at each book and read about a common event or saying, you see that some parts are the same, some are missing, some changed, and others are reaarranged. the point is that the authors took what they had and made something that conveyed the point of the book. the best way to understand what each book is writing about and the purpose of it is to read commentaries. each author is not just writing about the life of jesus, but is writing about something and for something. like Matthew, he is probably writing to a group of jews in his church. his book is full of greek phrases that would be meaningful to jews that commoners would not really understand in 1st centruy B.C.

(ill try to find the suffering servant fragemnt, and see if im thinking of the right one)

EDIT: suffering servant

1 [. . .] the sons of the generation [. . .] 2 [. . .] his wisdom. And he will atone for all the children of his generation, and he will be sent to all the children of 3 his people. His word is like the word of the heavens, and his teaching, according to the will of God. His eternal sun will shine 4 and his fire will burn in all the ends of the earth; above the darkness his sun will shine. Then, darkness will vanish 5 from the earth, and gloom from the globe. They will utter many words against him, and an abundance of 6 lies; they will fabricate fables against him, and utter every kind of disparagement against him. His generation will change the evil, 7 and [. . .] established in deceit and in violence. The people will go astray in his days and they will be bewildered (DSST, 270).

2.2 4Q541 frag. 24 col. II

2 Do not mourn for him [. . .] and do not [. . .] 3 And God will notice the failings [. . .] the uncovered failings [. . .] 4 Examine, ask and know what the dove has asked; do not punish one weakened because of exhaustion and from being uncertain a[ll . . .] 5 do not bring the nail near him. And you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers you will make a tested foundation rise. 6 You will see it and rejoice in eternal light. And you will not be of the enemy. Blank 7 Blank (DSST, 270).

Also the Thankgiving Hymn (One of my favorites from all the DSS) conveys the message of a suffering teacher.

"...dwelling with diseases; and I underwent trial with plagues, And I was as a man forsaken, despised..."
- Thanksgiving Psalms IQH Via, 26f

"I give thanks to You, O Lord, for Your eye sta[nds} over my soul, and You have delivered me from the jealousy of the mediators of lies and from the congregation of those who seek flattery. You have redeemed the soul of the poor one, whom they planned to put to an end, pouring out his blood because he served You. Because they [did not kn]ow that my steps are directed by you, they appointed me for shame and scorn in the mouth of all those who seek deceit. But You, my God, have helped the soul of the destitute and the poor against one stronger than he. You have redeemed my soul from the hand of the mighty."
- Thanksgiving Psalms 1QH 10:31-35

(i know that the teachers enemny is the wicked priest and the spouter of lies, but the point is suffering)

Pwned! :)

someone sold that answer at a gun/jewelry store?

So basically you're saying "I don't understand the big bang theory, therefore it must be false"

...




So basically you're saying "I don't believe in God, therefor He must be false".

Uh-hu.

Which is a bigger stretch of the imagination? Saying that the universe can come form nothing, when sponteneous creation of particles has been observed, or saying that some mystical creature can come from nothing and defy the laws of physics, when you have no explanation for how he was created?

There are explanations for the sponteneous creation of matter. There are no explanations for the creation of a god other than "he was always there". That's one hell of a leap of faith.

sponteneous creatiof of particles has been observed? where? How come that never happens when I'm around?

The big bang did not "just happen". In a vacuum, matter will sponteneously pop out of the void as long as corresponding anti-matter appears at the same time. It's like digging dirt out of the ground. You have a hole and you have dirt, but you haven't gained anything. These particles have an incredibely small life span, however, when multiple pop up at the same time in the same place, the fabric of space time stretches a little. About 10 pounds of matter in the size of a proton would create enough stretch to set the big bang in motion, and create all the energy the universe ever needs.

I've answered your question, how answer mine: what created your god?

really? so if I suck all the air out of a chamber, a universe will sponteneously pop out of the void? This sponteneous "popping" you refer to isn't sponteneous at all. It is forced with the help of machines. So unless you are suggesting Sponteneous Matter Popping machines are also eternal...

Did you say observed? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but no human was around to observe the birth of the Universe! Take my example: You find a book in a field. On explanation is that somebody put it there. You cant say: "That book just appeared." or "That book was always there."

of course not! It was random particles that coalesced into a rudimentary booklike form that then evolved over time until you found it in its current state.

The Big Bang Theory works, as energy has always existed, and since it can be neither created or destroyed, it would have to change. Noting this, 'God' couldn't have created anything, as energy cannot be created. Energy can only be changed/manipulated.

I'm all for the BB. But lets say you are correct that energy cannot be created or destroyed, something had to make it change. And who says energy can't be created?

Not just someone else's - ALL religion is myth.
Only in the sense of "living" the myth, of stepping into the shoes of a character. The actual myths are the stories and concepts upon which the religion is founded.

So basically you're saying "I don't believe in God, therefor He must be false".

There is evidence for the Big Bang, there is none for god(s).

There is evidence for the Big Bang, there is none for god(s).

but creationists would argue that the big bang is evidence for god...

no im not saying that the OT was about Jesus. however there are plenty referenses to the coming saviour.
The DAVIDIC savior, which jesus isn't.


the NT writers saw to it that they show how Jesus fulfilled prophecy and the requirments to be the saviour.
They INVENTED prophecies! 3 days in the ground like 3 days in the belly of the whale? Doesn't exist in the OT. Born of a virgin? Doesn't exist in the Hebrew-language OT (but sorta does in the Septuagint).

They MISAPPLIED prophecies. Such as Is 9:6. That's about the child born in Is 8:3.


think about it reallly. if you one of the NT writers, and your trying to make the case for Jesus as saiviour, why would you not have him fulfill the prophecy of the saviour? the reason i mentioned the DSS was that the ideas of what type of saviour the jews were expecting is showed...theres another one that i just remembered i think called the suffering servant...

Is 53. The suffering servant is Israel. http://jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html


2.2 4Q541 frag. 24 col. II
4Q541 has 6 fragments.


2 Do not mourn for him [. . .] and do not [. . .] 3 And God will notice the failings [. . .] the uncovered failings [. . .] 4 Examine, ask and know what the dove has asked; do not punish one weakened because of exhaustion and from being uncertain a[ll . . .] 5 do not bring the nail near him. And you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers you will make a tested foundation rise. 6 You will see it and rejoice in eternal light. And you will not be of the enemy. Blank 7 Blank (DSST, 270).

Also the Thankgiving Hymn (One of my favorites from all the DSS) conveys the message of a suffering teacher.
Yes, the Hodayot is about Israel.

The DAVIDIC savior, which jesus isn't.

the NT writers showed how he was a decendent of David.


Born of a virgin?

it is in hebrew, but you have to understand the hebrew words used in the isaiah passage. why its good to know hebrew ;)

almah in isaiah 7:14 is the same word used in about 7 other passages. each time refering to a virgin. look up the word in a hebrew dictionary and you see that it is the word given to describe virgin qualities. so the virgin birth prphecy still holds as prophecy.


Is 53. The suffering servant is Israel. http://jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html

no i said the 'suffering servant document' in the DSS. also the "Priestly Messianism". i was not refering to the suffering servant in isaiah.

like i said, there are prohpecies of the saviour in the OT that the NT writers showed jesus fulfilling. let me say, just so you know, im not defending christianity or jesus or whatever. the facts are that the NT writers made jesus fulfill prphecy to make him the saviour...

you say he wasnt the davidic savoiur, the NT writers traced his lineage to david, therefore estrablished himself as the david saviour. you can agree with them or not, which is what draws the line. the point is still there. they made him fulfill prophecy...

4Q541 has 6 fragments.

im assuming you got that from your source you gave me earlier that hasnt been updated since "Sunday,March 28, 1999..." and "Saturday,April 29, 2000..."

google "2.2 4Q541 frag. 24 col. II"

the NT writers showed how he was a decendent of David.
No, they did not. In fact, John even states that he wasn't.


it is in hebrew,
No, it is not. Ha-almah means "the young woman". If the author meant "virgin", then the author would have used "bet'ulah", which is used a couple of other times in Isaiah.

But you knew that, right?


no i said the 'suffering servant document' in the DSS. also the "Priestly Messianism". i was not refering to the suffering servant in isaiah.
Fine. Then it's not in the OT, so you can't use it.


like i said, there are prohpecies of the saviour in the OT that the NT writers showed jesus fulfilling.
No, they did not.


You say he wasnt the davidic savoiur, the NT writers traced his lineage to david,
No, they did not.


therefore estrablished himself as the david saviour. you can agree with them or not, which is what draws the line. the point is still there. they made him fulfill prophecy...
They made...as in "made up".

im assuming you got that from your source you gave me earlier that hasnt been updated since "Sunday,March 28, 1999..." and "Saturday,April 29, 2000..."

google "2.2 4Q541 frag. 24 col. II"
I wasn't aware that more fragments had been found. And the sources from the website are ones that you gave, as well!

No, it is not. Ha-almah means "the young woman". If the author meant "virgin", then the author would have used "bet'ulah", which is used a couple of other times in Isaiah.

But you knew that, right?

did i know that. yes, and ill explain it to you. (maybe you dont see what i see, but that last line looks like you being a smart ass. so if u dont mind, cut it out.)

why did isiah not use betula: Walton: betûlâ is a “social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status." betula would not apply because the virgin mary is no under the guardianship of her father. she was to be married to joseph. that means that word would not apply. therefore, isaiah's usage of almah is correct. almah as defined in hebrew = "a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity...”


Fine. Then it's not in the OT, so you can't use it.


i used it to show what the expectations of the messiah was at the time period.


They made...as in "made up".

maybe you didnt understand me many posts ago. i dont beleive int he bible. yes, they made up... my point is that if your making up the saviour persona of jesus, you would have him fulfilling prophecy. which they did. you can disagree if you want. im not forcing anything here.

I wasn't aware that more fragments had been found. And the sources from the website are ones that you gave, as well!

i didnt give any did i? i stated the fragments identification. the site you gave (in which you wanted me to find the manuscript) says it had 6 fragments. its not updated. and it wasnt recent discovery, only recently published. there are still fragments that have not been released...

No, they did not. In fact, John even states that he wasn't.

reference?

BAAWA look at any website with jesus and prophecy. you really say jesus fulfilled no prophecy, but you are wrong. they did, you can say the NT writers lied, which is probable, but the fact remains, the NT jesus filfilled OT prophecy. http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/jesusmessiah2.php

pay attention to the section called "THE GENEALOGY OF THE MESSIAH." you cant keep saying "no they did not" because they did. and there it is...

blasphemy against the spirit is not accepting it. that means, rejection. the only way for god to forgive, is if you accept his forgiveness. so if you reject gods forgiveness then you cant be forgiven. thats why its called the unforgivable sin...


No. Just plain wrong. Don't try to push that kind of crap. Blasphemy isn't just disbelief - it is speaking ill of the Spirit. It is using the name in vain, perhaps... it is devaluing the Spirit, deliberately.

The non-believer simply failing to accept the Spirit is not a blasphemer. In fact - unless one knows the TRUE name of the Spirit, it is hard to see how one could 'blaspheme' it, at all.


your confusing whats going on in the text. there is different judgments going on. there is a first one with the books, which is the books of actions. this judgment is for the saints of christ, "believers." they are given rewards based on how they acted as christians. its not a judgement of condemnation. non believers are not at this judgement...

the next book is the book of life. this judgement is the one that decides whether one goes to heaven or hell. the christians have been forgiven and are therefore written in the book. the non believers are not written in the book because they are not forgiven, therefore they go to the lake of fire...
they are judged by thier actions, yet non believers are unfogiven...

No - I'm not confusing what is going on in the text... you are changing what is written in scripture, and I refuse to accept your Heresy as equal to the text.

Quite clearly, ALL are present in the second judgement, and are being judged according to what they did... this is pretty explicit.

:rolleyes: , the Bible part II would be consistant with the first...

The Qu'ran is VERY consistent with the Old Testament. It is the obviously erroneous nature of the NEW Testament scripture that is out of step with BOTH the other texts... the one that came before, and the one that came after.

No. Just plain wrong. Don't try to push that kind of crap. Blasphemy isn't just disbelief - it is speaking ill of the Spirit. It is using the name in vain, perhaps... it is devaluing the Spirit, deliberately.

The non-believer simply failing to accept the Spirit is not a blasphemer. In fact - unless one knows the TRUE name of the Spirit, it is hard to see how one could 'blaspheme' it, at all.


its right there in the NT grave. you cant be saved without accepting the forgivness of god.



No - I'm not confusing what is going on in the text... you are changing what is written in scripture, and I refuse to accept your Heresy as equal to the text.

Quite clearly, ALL are present in the second judgement, and are being judged according to what they did... this is pretty explicit.

how many commentaries on Revelation have you read? a good one is by Joseph Trafton, who was my professor in college... :) what seperates me and you is what interpretion we are taking. there are more than one, and many take your view, but there are others to keep in mind...

The Qu'ran is VERY consistent with the Old Testament. It is the obviously erroneous nature of the NEW Testament scripture that is out of step with BOTH the other texts... the one that came before, and the one that came after.

with the Old Testament, but not the NT. Islam considers Jesus a prophet just like Moses, Abraham, and Noah. The NT considers him gods son, or in some interpretaions, god himself. so they are not consistant...

No. Just plain wrong. Don't try to push that kind of crap. Blasphemy isn't just disbelief - it is speaking ill of the Spirit. It is using the name in vain, perhaps... it is devaluing the Spirit, deliberately.

The non-believer simply failing to accept the Spirit is not a blasphemer. In fact - unless one knows the TRUE name of the Spirit, it is hard to see how one could 'blaspheme' it, at all.



No - I'm not confusing what is going on in the text... you are changing what is written in scripture, and I refuse to accept your Heresy as equal to the text.

Quite clearly, ALL are present in the second judgement, and are being judged according to what they did... this is pretty explicit.


Best way to derive the meaning, is through the context of the passage, as it is Jesus issuing a warning of them about such an action, implying that they blasphemed himself at the time, connecting such an action with the Spirit, it can be easily seen that "blasphemy" against the Spirit, is attributing the acts whereby the Spirit operates, to some other motive or force, specifically contrary to God (the Father).... An example would be calling the work of the Spirit an act of Satan (an opposition to The Father)...

You're right, it is far, far more than just simply unbelief.... If it were, then NO ONE would really be forgiven, since we have all been guilty of that to one degree or another, at some point (even many of the Patriarchs and their wives....)

This convey's well the idea of "speaking ill of" something... Or slandering something...

Grave, do you remember Justifidians? just so you know that used to be me :) i was at the end of my rope with christianity and was trying to hang on to it, but i finally let go...

I remember the name... but I don't have much I can put with it.... if you can rmeember the CONTENT of something we might have debated... I might have a better chance. :)

Love the sig, by the way... I might have said that already, though.

I remember the name... but I don't have much I can put with it.... if you can rmeember the CONTENT of something we might have debated... I might have a better chance. :)

Love the sig, by the way... I might have said that already, though.

yeah, i agrued in favor of Christianity. i was debating with you upward thrust, straugh. we had a big debate over "sheol" that we never budged either of our views on. it was in the monster thread "Come get me pseudo-christians)...we also battle our wits over hebrew poetry, dinosaurs, symbolism, all kinds of things...

ring anybells?

yeah you mentioned the sig before :) the best movie ever...

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

Tell me why there has to be a first cause? Why could not the universe have always existed in some form? And why could there not be infinite universes outside this universe? Why does existence have to have starting point; why does everything have to be finite. I believe everything is infinate (and pointless, but that is off subject). Scientificaly it is believed that our universe took its present form when a new form of matter came into existence and obliterated all the old matter. It is theorized that such an event will happen again (a new form of matter will come about naturally or Humans will create it in typical shortsighted human fashion).

And why a Judeo-Christian God? Why not a series of Gods or god-like beings (think Q from star trek). Or to parapharase David Hume, "Why could the universe not been woven together by spiders?"

The idea of the "first cause" has long since been disproved.

Best way to derive the meaning, is through the context of the passage, as it is Jesus issuing a warning of them about such an action, implying that they blasphemed himself at the time, connecting such an action with the Spirit, it can be easily seen that "blasphemy" against the Spirit, is attributing the acts whereby the Spirit operates, to some other motive or force, specifically contrary to God (the Father).... An example would be calling the work of the Spirit an act of Satan (an opposition to The Father)...

You're right, it is far, far more than just simply unbelief.... If it were, then NO ONE would really be forgiven, since we have all been guilty of that to one degree or another, at some point (even many of the Patriarchs and their wives....)

This convey's well the idea of "speaking ill of" something... Or slandering something...

Thinking about it... even Jesus' was let down by his mortal flesh (on the Tree, and during his snake-stamping soujourn...) and had moments of 'doubt'. I find it hard to reconcile the Spirit incarnate being able to blaspheme the Spirit....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secluded Islands: blasphemy against the spirit is not accepting it. that means, rejection. the only way for god to forgive, is if you accept his forgiveness. so if you reject gods forgiveness then you cant be forgiven. thats why its called the unforgivable sin...

No. Just plain wrong. Don't try to push that kind of crap. Blasphemy isn't just disbelief - it is speaking ill of the Spirit. It is using the name in vain, perhaps... it is devaluing the Spirit, deliberately.

The non-believer simply failing to accept the Spirit is not a blasphemer. In fact - unless one knows the TRUE name of the Spirit, it is hard to see how one could 'blaspheme' it, at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secluded Islands: your confusing whats going on in the text. there is different judgments going on. there is a first one with the books, which is the books of actions. this judgment is for the saints of christ, "believers." they are given rewards based on how they acted as christians. its not a judgement of condemnation. non believers are not at this judgement...the next book is the book of life. this judgement is the one that decides whether one goes to heaven or hell. the christians have been forgiven and are therefore written in the book. the non believers are not written in the book because they are not forgiven, therefore they go to the lake of fire...they are judged by thier actions, yet non believers are unfogiven...


No - I'm not confusing what is going on in the text... you are changing what is written in scripture, and I refuse to accept your Heresy as equal to the text.

Quite clearly, ALL are present in the second judgement, and are being judged according to what they did... this is pretty explicit.

Your both wrong. When you die consciousness ceases to exist and the matter that formerly made up “you” goes on to make up something else, like a rock or blade of grass. That’s all.

its right there in the NT grave. you cant be saved without accepting the forgivness of god.


Consider Abraham, yes?


how many commentaries on Revelation have you read? a good one is by Joseph Trafton, who was my professor in college... :) what seperates me and you is what interpretion we are taking. there are more than one, and many take your view, but there are others to keep in mind...

I have read a deal of commentaries. However, I do not base my thiniing on commentaries, but on Scripture.

Follow your false-prophets if you choose to do so... my relationship with scripture is between the Word and myself.

Revelation 20:11-15 commentary...

"After the events just foretold, the end will speedily come; and there is no mention of any thing else, before the appearing of Christ to judge the world. This will be the great day: the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, will then put on majesty and terror. The persons to be judged are the dead, small and great; young and old, low and high, poor and rich. None are so mean, but they have some talents to account for; and none so great, as to avoid having to account for them. Not only those alive at the coming of Christ, but all the dead. There is a book of remembrance both for good and bad: and the book of the sinner's conscience, though formerly secret, will then be opened. Every man will recollect all his past actions, though he had long forgotten many of them. Another book shall be opened, the book of the Scriptures, the rule of life; it represents the Lord's knowledge of his people, and his declaring their repentance, faith, and good works; showing the blessings of the new covenant. By their works men shall be justified or condemned; he will try their principles by their practices. Those justified and acquitted by the gospel, shall be justified and acquitted by the Judge, and shall enter into eternal life, having nothing more to fear from death, or hell, or wicked men; for these are all destroyed together. This is the second death; it is the final separation of sinners from God. Let it be our great concern to see whether our Bibles justify or condemn us now; for Christ will judge the secrets of all men according to the gospel. Who shall dwell with devouring flames?" - Matthew Henry

If i understood what you said previously, that the reference in revelation was about god judgeing according to merit. only those in the book of life are granted heaven, because all thier actions are forgiven. those that are "dead" are judged also, yet will all go to hell because they did not accept forgiveness...

Amestria']Your both wrong. When you die consciousness ceases to exist and the matter that formerly made up “you” goes on to make up something else, like a rock or blade of grass. That’s all.

:) (i agree with you, ive lost all hope in life after death)...

Consider Abraham, yes?

old testament grave :)


I have read a deal of commentaries. However, I do not base my thiniing on commentaries, but on Scripture.

Follow your false-prophets if you choose to do so... my relationship with scripture is between the Word and myself.

i dont base my thinking this way either. but we have to respect and understand every side to an argument and then decide which evidence supports which idea...

please read more OT passages about the saviour...learn hebrew also, its better in the original language. also read the dead sea scrolls like i have, and see a jewish sect and what they were looking for in a messiah/saviour...(oh, the DSS were written before the NT also)...

I've read the Old Testament and the New in more langauges than I care to name. I've read the Scripture in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I've read the scripture in the Vulgate version. I've read 'modern' translations, I've read classic translations, I've read translations into a variety of European language... and even some Russian.

Once, I read some of a project to convert the Bible into Klingon.

I've also read Dead Sea Scripture, Midrash Scripture and a variety of other contemporary scriptures. I have read Hanukh and Barukh, and more 'gospels' and 'apocalypse' texts than I can remember.

I have talked to modern Jews, and had it explained to me the many and various reasons why Jesus doesn't match the Old testament prophecies. I have also had the concept of 'messiah' explained to me - which lets me understand why Jesus wouldn't have WANTED to be the 'messiah' figure of Hebrew lore.

Shall we debate the Re'em? The Sheddim? Shall we discuss the Lilim? Shall we talk about the heresy at Mount Armon?

Thinking about it... even Jesus' was let down by his mortal flesh (on the Tree, and during his snake-stamping soujourn...) and had moments of 'doubt'. I find it hard to reconcile the Spirit incarnate being able to blaspheme the Spirit....

My point, it's not "doubt" or "unbelief" or "disbelief"...

It's a very particular "sin", and one which is heinous beyond belief...

It's closely related to the speaking and points made by the Pharisees about Christ's work... That the power by which He (Jesus) cast's out demons, is by the power of Beelzebul (Satan, Ruler of Demons)....

It is at this point Christ being his speech, culminating with a warning... A warning about Blasphemy (normally constrayed as speaking ill of, or slandering another...) in this case, slander against the Spirit...

I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the other poster... Blashphemy is not disbelief/unbelief.... It is attributing and speaking ill towards the office and power of the Spirit...

The sin includes something with is not temporal (disbelief, murder, lying, etc. are all temporal sins, which are forgivable.... there are numerous cases of people praying to be forgiven their unbelief... and other such sins...) This is a sin in operation which acts AGAINST the very power by which salvation comes; and THAT is why it is not forgivable... The Pharisees did not commit the sin (though they did hit close to it); and Christ's message was serving a purpose of instruction to them and everyone....

Any unrepentant belief is not forgivable (by definition).... But we can see cases of biblical persons calling for God to "help" their unbelief...

I side that, (as you), it is "speaking ill of"... (which is the normal meaning)... Not just vain speak (forgivable), not merely temporal disbelief (forgiveable), or any other "normal" sin...

I've read the Old Testament and the New in more langauges than I care to name. I've read the Scripture in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I've read the scripture in the Vulgate version. I've read 'modern' translations, I've read classic translations, I've read translations into a variety of European language... and even some Russian.

Once, I read some of a project to convert the Bible into Klingon.

I've also read Dead Sea Scripture, Midrash Scripture and a variety of other contemporary scriptures. I have read Hanukh and Barukh, and more 'gospels' and 'apocalypse' texts than I can remember.

I have talked to modern Jews, and had it explained to me the many and various reasons why Jesus doesn't match the Old testament prophecies. I have also had the concept of 'messiah' explained to me - which lets me understand why Jesus wouldn't have WANTED to be the 'messiah' figure of Hebrew lore.

Shall we debate the Re'em? The Sheddim? Shall we discuss the Lilim? Shall we talk about the heresy at Mount Armon?

well aware of your resume grave, but my response was to BAAWA...

but perhaps thats why there was a split amongst the jews? some followed jesus, and others rejected him. you can say youve talked to jews who give thier opinions to why jesus is not the messiah, but i can say that i personally know jewish followers of yeshua, that can give me reasons to beleive yeshua as messaih. (messianicart.org is a site of jewish christians.) its all about perspective, and how one interprets scripture...

There are over 300 prophieces in the OT about the Messiah's life which are fufilled in Jesus. As for the temple issue, Jesus did say that the temple would be destroyed and he would raise it in 3 days. Of course he wasnt talking about the building.

http://www.konig.org/messianic.htm

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/otprophet.htm

There are 300 prophecies fulfilled ONLY if you are an apostate. The prophecy was Hebrew, and, according to those of the Hebrew faith, it has yet to be fulfilled.

Thus, anyone who claims a fulfillment, is a heretic and a backslider, and worships false idols.

Regarding the Temple. No, agian, wrong, I'm afraid. It's a reference to a chunk of rocks.

My point, it's not "doubt" or "unbelief" or "disbelief"...

It's a very particular "sin", and one which is heinous beyond belief...

It's closely related to the speaking and points made by the Pharisees about Christ's work... That the power by which He (Jesus) cast's out demons, is by the power of Beelzebul (Satan, Ruler of Demons)....

It is at this point Christ being his speech, culminating with a warning... A warning about Blasphemy (normally constrayed as speaking ill of, or slandering another...) in this case, slander against the Spirit...

I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the other poster... Blashphemy is not disbelief/unbelief.... It is attributing and speaking ill towards the office and power of the Spirit...

The sin includes something with is not temporal (disbelief, murder, lying, etc. are all temporal sins, which are forgivable.... there are numerous cases of people praying to be forgiven their unbelief... and other such sins...) This is a sin in operation which acts AGAINST the very power by which salvation comes; and THAT is why it is not forgivable... The Pharisees did not commit the sin (though they did hit close to it); and Christ's message was serving a purpose of instruction to them and everyone....

Any unrepentant belief is not forgivable (by definition).... But we can see cases of biblical persons calling for God to "help" their unbelief...

I side that, (as you), it is "speaking ill of"... (which is the normal meaning)... Not just vain speak (forgivable), not merely temporal disbelief (forgiveable), or any other "normal" sin...

Believe it or not, I was actually agreeing. :)

But, it never hurts to see the thing re-iterated in greater colour. :)

well aware of your resume grave, but my response was to BAAWA...


Just pointing out that it's dangerous to do that kind of 'pulling rank'. I am exceedingly well-read on the subject, yet consistently disagree with the majority, apparently. Even you. :)

Thus - it's something of a risk to try to write-off your disagreement with BAAWA as him/her being uninformed... because, it might turn out that they really DO know their stuff, and STILL just disagree with you.


but perhaps thats why there was a split amongst the jews? some followed jesus, and others rejected him. you can say youve talked to jews who give thier opinions to why jesus is not the messiah, but i can say that i personally know jewish followers of yeshua, that can give me reasons to beleive yeshua as messaih. (messianicart.org is a site of jewish christians.) its all about perspective, and how one interprets scripture...

There is no split. Those who followed this puppet-god are not true followers of the God of Abraham.

I'm a generation or two removed from being 'pure' Jew, but close enough to know that the Old Testament and New Testament 'gods' are so disimilar as to be almost unreconcilable. Jewish Christians are just Christians of a Jewish background. It is nothing to do with Judaism validating Christianity... more like Jewish people with a different religion.

Just pointing out that it's dangerous to do that kind of 'pulling rank'. I am exceedingly well-read on the subject, yet consistently disagree with the majority, apparently. Even you. :)

Thus - it's something of a risk to try to write-off your disagreement with BAAWA as him/her being uninformed... because, it might turn out that they really DO know their stuff, and STILL just disagree with you.

point taken :)



There is no split. Those who followed this puppet-god are not true followers of the God of Abraham.

I'm a generation or two removed from being 'pure' Jew, but close enough to know that the Old Testament and New Testament 'gods' are so disimilar as to be almost unreconcilable. Jewish Christians are just Christians of a Jewish background. It is nothing to do with Judaism validating Christianity... more like Jewish people with a different religion.

its ok to have that opinion, but saying they are not following Abraham is a serious accusation. again, its all how you see it. you obviously dont believe what is said about yeshua, but others do, however, and thier stance is not below yours. was paul a jew? he followed jesus but never quit being a jew. (if i remember correctly you have a beef with paul as well?)...

I'm all for the BB. But lets say you are correct that energy cannot be created or destroyed, something had to make it change. And who says energy can't be created?

The laws of physics say that matter and energy can change forms but never be destroyed, merely change from one state to another.

Amestria']

The idea of the "first cause" has long since been disproved.

really? do tell. by whom, when, and most importantly..how?

Amestria']Your both wrong. When you die consciousness ceases to exist and the matter that formerly made up “you” goes on to make up something else, like a rock or blade of grass. That’s all.

how bout a link to this one?

Consider Abraham, yes?



I have read a deal of commentaries. However, I do not base my thiniing on commentaries, but on Scripture.

Follow your false-prophets if you choose to do so... my relationship with scripture is between the Word and myself.

what about Abraham? The New Covenant was expressly for those that came after Jesus. Before the New Covenant, salvation was based on faith. Abraham and all those before him were covered.

how bout a link to this one?

While there's no evidence one way or another that conciousness survives past death, the matter that your body is made of will continue to exist, in one form or another, typically as part of the makeup of the soil or dust in the air, or 'recycled' as plant or wormfood. More or less.

well aware of your resume grave, but my response was to BAAWA...

but perhaps thats why there was a split amongst the jews? some followed jesus, and others rejected him. you can say youve talked to jews who give thier opinions to why jesus is not the messiah, but i can say that i personally know jewish followers of yeshua, that can give me reasons to beleive yeshua as messaih. (messianicart.org is a site of jewish christians.) its all about perspective, and how one interprets scripture...

I agree. My pastor and good friend is jewish. As a matter of fact, every year we celebrate passover at our Christian church. He's very convincing when it comes to the Jewish perspective and Jesus.

I'm a generation or two removed from being 'pure' Jew, but close enough to know that the Old Testament and New Testament 'gods' are so disimilar as to be almost unreconcilable. Jewish Christians are just Christians of a Jewish background. It is nothing to do with Judaism validating Christianity... more like Jewish people with a different religion.
A catholic and a jew lived next door to each other and were good friends, but had a bit of a rivalry going on about how great their children were.

One day the catholic appears at the jew's door, all excited and out of breath.

"I just wanted to let you know that my oldest boy was just accepted into the priesthood," the catholic panted.

"So? This is a big deal?" replied the jew.

"Of course it is! Why, he could one day become a Bishop!"

"And this Bishop thing is what? Something great?"

The catholic, beginning to be a bit perturbed now, replies, "Of course it is! Why, someday he could even become a Cardinal!"

"And what is this 'Cardinal?' Some sort of bird?" asks the jew.

"Bird???" asks the catholic, now totally incredulous. "Why, if he got to be a Cardinal, he could even one day become the first American Pope!"

"Pope, schmope," responded the jew. "So what?"

The catholic, now teetering on the edge of rage, says, "What the hell do you want him to be? Jesus Christ?"

The jew smiles and says, "Why not? One of our boys made it!"

:D

There are 300 prophecies fulfilled ONLY if you are an apostate. The prophecy was Hebrew, and, according to those of the Hebrew faith, it has yet to be fulfilled.

Thus, anyone who claims a fulfillment, is a heretic and a backslider, and worships false idols.

Regarding the Temple. No, agian, wrong, I'm afraid. It's a reference to a chunk of rocks.

Not true. Disagreeing with the Hebrew faith is not heretical or backsliding. The Hebrews were the first to accept them as fulfilled.

Wrong about the temple too.

The laws of physics say that matter and energy can change forms but never be destroyed, merely change from one state to another.

I agree it can't be destroyed, its news to me it can't be created.

how do u know that god created the universe it, were you there, scientists have reasonable explainations of the universe in the Big Bang Theory, wut about evolution????? :D

While there's no evidence one way or another that conciousness survives past death, the matter that your body is made of will continue to exist, in one form or another, typically as part of the makeup of the soil or dust in the air, or 'recycled' as plant or wormfood. More or less.

and what of the energy that can't be destroyed. We are more than just matter. otherwise we'd be inanimate.

Pwned! :)

Actualy considering a god who created time and space would have to be outside of time and space, wouldnt have to be created by anything, he was always there, and he created the idea that something comes from something else.

Actualy considering a god who created time and space would have to be outside of time and space, wouldnt have to be created by anything, he was always there, and he created the idea that something comes from something else.
If god was always there and doesn't need a creator, then I don't see why we need anyone to create that first chunk of matter to explode and form our universe.
Time is linked to matter - without matter, there's no time. One might say that in some way, the universe is thus independent of time too, since it carries it along with it.

and what of the energy that can't be destroyed. We are more than just matter. otherwise we'd be inanimate.

That goes on, too, most likely absorbed by the soil or dissapating into the air. The human body generates very little energy, most of it exuded as body heat or as nervous system electricity. What? Are you looking for a 'soul'? No such thing.

did i know that. yes, and ill explain it to you. (maybe you dont see what i see, but that last line looks like you being a smart ass. so if u dont mind, cut it out.)
No. And "u" is a letter, not a word.


why did isiah not use betula: Walton: betûlâ is a “social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status."
http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/hebrew/beth/betulah.htm
betulah "young woman, virgin" unlike na`arah, betulah does imply virginity (Ex 22:16-17; but not definitely so that where the distinction is important it is spelled out as in Gen 24:16), a related noun means "virginity". In Amos at 8:13 "beautiful maids" are linked with bachurim "chosen youths" in 5:2 the expression is "Maid of Israel" (cities and sometimes countries are commonly personified as women in the Ancient Near East).

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”


betula would not apply because the virgin mary is no under the guardianship of her father. she was to be married to joseph. that means that word would not apply. therefore, isaiah's usage of almah is correct. almah as defined in hebrew = "a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity...”
Not according to any jewish dictionary I'm familiar with. And certainly not according to the good rabbi above. And not according to the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) bible.

And not according to Strong's Concordance, either.

Y'see, almah is the feminine of elem. Elem means "young man".

Just something for you to be aware of.

Actualy considering a god who created time and space would have to be outside of time and space, wouldnt have to be created by anything, he was always there, and he created the idea that something comes from something else.
Where does it say in the Bible (i.e. the primary and only source for the existence of God) that He is outside time and space?

I agree it can't be destroyed, its news to me it can't be created.

You can convert matter into energy (actually quite easily), such as burning wood, or friction, or... you get the idea. And energy can be converted into matter- plants do this all the time.

Neither matter nor energy can be spontaneously created or susequently destroyed; they simply change form.

No, they did not. In fact, John even states that he wasn't.
reference?
7:41-42.

Interesting to note that Mark has Jesus coming from Nazareth.

And please--no talk of the census that didn't happen.

BAAWA look at any website with jesus and prophecy. you really say jesus fulfilled no prophecy, but you are wrong.
No, I'm correct. He filled 0 prophecies.


they did, you can say the NT writers lied, which is probable, but the fact remains, the NT jesus filfilled OT prophecy.
The fact remains that he did not. He didn't rebuild the temple. He didn't gather the diaspora. He didn't usher in the age of peace and knowledge. He wasn't a great military and political leader.

Dying and rising has nothing to do with Davidic messiah. Dying for someone's sins has nothing to do with the Davidic messiah. The Davidic messiah comes once, and that's it. The Davidic messiah has no second coming. The Davidic messiah is not crucified. Ps 22 actually reads "like a lion, they are at my hands and feet".

The prophecies that jesus is claimed to have filled simply don't exist, or are incorrectly applied to jesus.

and what of the energy that can't be destroyed. We are more than just matter. otherwise we'd be inanimate.

it radiates out of the body as heat or is stored in the form of carbohydrates in the body...

This whole thread is pointless. It is impossible to scientifically disprove god, although it is possible to prove things like evolution. It is also impossible to scientifically prove god, so... yeah.

Bileving or not bileving in God is a matter of faith. I'm not going to try and explain why I bileve in God here, for that reason.

As for all of those stupid "Laws of Physics" arguements, an ALL POWERFUL God could just say "This Act of God is Laws of Thermodynamics Exempt" or something like that. All of these "scientific" arguements for and agenst hold no water whatsoever.



and yeah I can't spell.

i didnt give any did i?
You certainly did.

3 [pp] Geza Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English - Revised and Extended Fourth Edition,
(London; Penguin, 1995).

(Translations in this volume are limited to a subset of 70 of the non-biblical texts from several caves. The first edition of this volume goes back to 1962. It thus provided the first generally available translations from outside the official international editorial group.)

(It has a most instructive introductory section including a history of the entire scroll fiasco and interesting reportage about most of the principle players. It is not as forthcoming about Professor Vermes own role in most of that history, but other sources can be consulted for those details. It is worth having just for the introduction.)

(It also has some commentary about the texts that it covers, but this is hardly extensive. It includes seemingly all of the largest extant manuscripts and as such is a worthy acquisition. It is also interesting to compare, where possible, these translations with those of F. García Martínez. The later it should be remembered, were first translated into Spanish and then into English by Wilfred G. E, Watson. This might be expected to produce some interesting differences in the final texts.)

Remember referencing Vermes?

No. And "u" is a letter, not a word.



http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/hebrew/beth/betulah.htm
betulah "young woman, virgin" unlike na`arah, betulah does imply virginity (Ex 22:16-17; but not definitely so that where the distinction is important it is spelled out as in Gen 24:16), a related noun means "virginity". In Amos at 8:13 "beautiful maids" are linked with bachurim "chosen youths" in 5:2 the expression is "Maid of Israel" (cities and sometimes countries are commonly personified as women in the Ancient Near East).

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”



Not according to any jewish dictionary I'm familiar with. And certainly not according to the good rabbi above. And not according to the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) bible.

And not according to Strong's Concordance, either.

Y'see, almah is the feminine of elem. Elem means "young man".

Just something for you to be aware of.

From the words of Zach Smith:

It is unlikely that the LXX [Septuagint— ZS] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14. It is also possible that the unusual translation of the LXX is an attempt to accommodate the meaning of the text as altered by both the redaction and the reception of the original prophetic oracle (2001, 10:160, emp. added).

The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations: The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay.

"Faith" in the sense that I trust them to eventually yield correct answers, not "blind faith" as in believing that every word of a repeatedly-altered book of ancient oral traditions is completely true.

This may speak more to the fact that I don't wander around asking people what they mean by "faith", but you're probably the first (other) person I'm aware of who has stated it thusly.

I always find it very... puzzling... disturbing... that those who most vociferously profess "faith" and denounce anything not "faith-based" most often seemingly define faith ever and only as "blind". Nevermind that "faith" literally means "trust" - I have faith in reason and logic, I trust them, because I have reason to trust them. Faith ought not be groundless.

Anyway, off to finish reading the rest of this monstrous thread...

You certainly did.

3 [pp] Geza Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English - Revised and Extended Fourth Edition,
(London; Penguin, 1995).

(Translations in this volume are limited to a subset of 70 of the non-biblical texts from several caves. The first edition of this volume goes back to 1962. It thus provided the first generally available translations from outside the official international editorial group.)

(It has a most instructive introductory section including a history of the entire scroll fiasco and interesting reportage about most of the principle players. It is not as forthcoming about Professor Vermes own role in most of that history, but other sources can be consulted for those details. It is worth having just for the introduction.)

(It also has some commentary about the texts that it covers, but this is hardly extensive. It includes seemingly all of the largest extant manuscripts and as such is a worthy acquisition. It is also interesting to compare, where possible, these translations with those of F. García Martínez. The later it should be remembered, were first translated into Spanish and then into English by Wilfred G. E, Watson. This might be expected to produce some interesting differences in the final texts.)

Remember referencing Vermes?

i mentioned vermes, i didnt give any sources :confused:

its ok to have that opinion, but saying they are not following Abraham is a serious accusation. again, its all how you see it. you obviously dont believe what is said about yeshua, but others do, however, and thier stance is not below yours. was paul a jew? he followed jesus but never quit being a jew. (if i remember correctly you have a beef with paul as well?)...
Paul was simply a gentile who called himself a jew. He even had it out with the real apostles (recorded in Acts that he won the argument to preach to the gentiles, as the apostles would have none of that, but we know that AoLuke wrote Acts, so obviously there's a bias toward Paul).

really? do tell. by whom, when, and most importantly..how?
By many people (like myself), at many times (such as now), by the fact that causality doesn't apply to the universe qua universe, but rather within the universe.

what about Abraham? The New Covenant was expressly for those that came after Jesus.
There is no new covenant; jesus said so.

Hey guys, what is the importance of all of this? Whether or not Jesus did some of the stuff the messiah was supposed to do is up for interpretation, obviously.
Christians reckon he did, Jews reckon he didn't.
Nonetheless, both do the same stuff, don't they? One calls it "Church" the other "Synagogue", but shouldn't religion be about guidelines how to lead a happy and fulfilled life (if you feel the need for it), rather than about interpreting Scroll A that way rather than the other?

From the words of Zach Smith:

It is unlikely that the LXX [Septuagint— ZS] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14.
Never said it did. Rather, "parthenos" was the closest Greek term. And it is the Septuagint which both AoMatt and AoLuke used.

This is the transliterated Hebrew of Is 7:14
"laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel."

In English:

Look, a young woman has conceived and, bearing a son, he shall be called Immanuel.

The dictionary gets this one wrong, actually.

I wonder why they use "trust" as a synonym, when it's not. Trust requires some rational reason to believe, and with faith, there is no rational reason to believe. It's wholly irrational.

And that is the definition of faith.

The dictionary gets it quite right - as does any linguistic source.

"Faith" is not "just" a synonym of "trust". "Faith" literally is trust. "Faith" descends from the Latin fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (courtesy of http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none)

The problem arises when "faith" is redefined along the lines of "I believe it because it is impossible", instead of "I believe it because I've been given rational and justified reason to believe it". Belief and faith, of course, are entwined - for reasons meritorious, and not as much so.

Incidentally, the standard (if generally agreed to be somewhat lacking) philosophical definition of "knowledge" is "rational, justified, belief".

i mentioned vermes, i didnt give any sources :confused:
Mentioning him is giving the source, dearie.

Paul was simply a gentile who called himself a jew. He even had it out with the real apostles (recorded in Acts that he won the argument to preach to the gentiles, as the apostles would have none of that, but we know that AoLuke wrote Acts, so obviously there's a bias toward Paul).

or he was a Pharisee, who studied under Gamaliel, (who was the most popular teacher/rabbi of his time).

Galatians 1:13-14

Mentioning him is giving the source, dearie.

you said this: I wasn't aware that more fragments had been found. And the sources from the website are ones that you gave, as well!


i gave no websites and no sources. i mentioned Vermes who wrote a book that has all the published DSS in it... thats all...

i might just be confusing what you were saying, i dont know...

There are over 300 prophieces in the OT about the Messiah's life which are fufilled in Jesus. As for the temple issue, Jesus did say that the temple would be destroyed and he would raise it in 3 days. Of course he wasnt talking about the building.

The one prophecy most quoted to "prove" the messiachship of Jesus (aka Yeshua) is Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version):

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Never mind that the Hebrew almah doesn't mean "virgin", or that Jesus was not named Immanuel/Emmanuel (Hebrew for "God [El] is with us") - for that matter, of course, he wasn't named "Jesus": "Yeshua", at the time a very common name, is a form of "Yehoshua", which we translate as "Joshua".

Also, never mind that the preceding verses read as follows:

7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Further never mind the beginning of the next chapter:

Isaiah 8

8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.
8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

As far as I'm aware, just about any scholar considers the "prophecy" of Is. 7:14 thereby fulfilled (if not in that verse, I apologize - I'm not exactly one of those scholars, I just do research).

Beyond that, I would imagine that in any sizable book, utterly fictional or utterly factional, one would be able to "massage" words and "meanings" enough to predict most anything. I suppose with only minimal effort (certainly compared to the convoluted arguments and "proofs" used in proving that Jesus was, obviously, the long awaited Hebrew messiah) one could read prophecy into Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings as to the election [sic] of George Walker Bush to the Presidency of the United States of America, and so on, and so forth.

In fact, just that has often occurred throughout history. Nostradamus' Centuries is a perfect example - they have been used to predict everything, past, present, and future.

really? do tell. by whom, when, and most importantly..how?

The first cause arguement has been around since human civilization (in many different forms). It ranges from the Pagan/Christain verson (and all that those imply) to the Deistic verson (dating back to ancient Greece; that god is thought thinking thought). It was David Hume who began the process of killing that arguement, by pointing out that the universe could easily have been woven by spiders (I believe there actualy may be a creation myth to that effect). One must remember that the First Cause arguement stems from belief in inherent purpose (i.e. god given), a preverted notion of cause and effect and a lack of understanding (until recently) on how the universe worked. As a position it has no evidence on it's side, it is an arguement from ignorance, and it is utterly absolutist due to it's faith based nature (we already know the universe came about through god, so there is no need to go poking around). Saying an arguement cannot be disproved because it is based on faith is relativism. It is to be dismissed, like the Earth Centered Universe.

There is no reason to think that the universe has to have a cause to exist. All scientific evidence seems to point to the universe allways existing in some form. The often cited "Big Bang" has turned out to be wrong. There was a "Great Expansion", in which the compressed matter of our universe expanded itself (and still is expanding). We are still learning the details. Just because the full details are not known that is no justification to slap a "god" solution on it (doing so is called the "god of the gaps" arguement).

i gave no websites and no sources. i mentioned Vermes
That's giving a source!

That's giving a source!

i didnt give any references from Vermes. it was a suggestion for a book for you to read. i didnt use it as a source...

It is impossible to scientifically disprove god

I disagree.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain).

Prove me wrong! …. In the end you cannot, thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.

really? do tell. by whom, when, and most importantly..how?

Consider that the poster would have been better to post "discounted" instead of "disproved".

Discounted because the concept of "first cause" explains nothing - or everything - or both.

Either or, either or, it has not explanatory value.

Discounted.

i didnt give any references from Vermes. it was a suggestion for a book for you to read. i didnt use it as a source...
You are using it as a source for your information.

Seriously--are you as dense as you seem? I'm not trying to be rude, but you seem to have a difficult time grasping something so blatantly obvious. If that makes you feel bad--there's nothing I can do about that. But it's quite obvious that you are using Vermes as a source.

You are using it as a source for your information.

Seriously--are you as dense as you seem? I'm not trying to be rude, but you seem to have a difficult time grasping something so blatantly obvious. If that makes you feel bad--there's nothing I can do about that. But it's quite obvious that you are using Vermes as a source.

no im just trying to understand what your saying. how can i use vermes as a source when i quoted nothing from him?

no im just trying to understand what your saying. how can i use vermes as a source when i quoted nothing from him?
A source for your knowledge of the DSS. Do you not get that? You've read Vermes, right? So part of what you know about the DSS comes from Vermes' book. Which means: a source of your knowledge on the DSS is Vermes' book.

Is that clear enough for you?

A source for your knowledge of the DSS. Do you not get that? You've read Vermes, right? So part of what you know about the DSS comes from Vermes' book. Which means: a source of your knowledge on the DSS is Vermes' book.

Is that clear enough for you?

well i see now. i wasnt thinking of it that way. when you said source, i took it as you ment i had given some kind of direct quote or whathaveyou. sorry i came off that way...

ive also read Vander Kam and Flint, John Trevor, John Allegro and Yigael Yadin. all good reads...

For those who think that infinity doesn't exist or that it is an abstract concept that doesn't exist in the "real world" I think you need to go to the nearest hardware store and buy a product called an ohmeter. Then use said product on a piece of rubber. There you go an example of infinity.

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.
?

There is absolutely no proof for this god.

Even Stephen Hawkings said that a deity is unnecessary for the universe to exist. If you want to use Occam's razor, use it on the entire concept of a deity, not just on the ones you don't like. Geez, at least be consistent.

He did say "something that trancends this universe". That can be said not to need a creator. However since the universe cannot trancend itself, it does need one

No. As soon as you talk about "transcending" the Universe, you are stepping outside the scope of causality -- hence your assertion that God does not need a creator. But if you are going to allow a suspension of causality, why not just stop there? Why not say "strict causality must be suspended if the Universe has a beginning" rather than "strict causality must be suspended if the Universe has a beginning... also, there is a God"?

Ockam's Razor.

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.

Um, it cuts down that one too. Occam's Razor was created specifically to demonstrate that believers believe on the basis of faith alone, because any in any observable event, adding a mysterious term call 'God' only serves to muddy the waters and make things more difficult to predict.

For example [and horrible oversimplification], let's say you know the result of something is two. You might therefore determine the whole equation as any of the following:

1+1=2
4/2=2
1x2=2
4563-4561=2

And so on. The 'God' explanation is:

1+1+X=2

Where X is unknown. We have our observable numbers, but now we also have this mysterious extra term, X. Is it a number? A series of functions? A formula? A whole set of numbers? We can't tell from that at all, it only really serves to complicate things, so Occam's Razor would state one of the 'theories' without 'X' is superior, unless X can be adequately defined.

Since God is without limit, this is not the case; God could have created the whole universe one second ago for all we know. A being with infinite power cannot add any predictive power to a theory, and therefore must be discarded by any scientific theory.

It is impossible to scientifically disprove god



I disagree.

I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic; if something is not materialistic it does not exist. Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain).

Prove me wrong! …. In the end you cannot, thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world.

The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself.


"I disagree"... statement of position.

"I hold that the Universe is in entirely materialistic...", faith based statement, not scientific.

"...if something is not materialistic it does not exist.", another statement of faith, also is not scientific.

"Everything comes down to the material (even thoughts; electrical and chemical signals in the brain)....", also a statement from faith alone... Not scientific.

"Prove me wrong!"... Don't need to, beside, it would be as futile an attempt as the one you have just made.

"In the end you cannot..." nor can you...

"thus god is disproved by the failure to disprove the material world...", funny, this statement begins with a "thus" but is not factually established by any previous claim or evidence in the discourse... Why does one need to disprove the material world to proove (a) "god"? Last time I checked, there was no contention over the material world, nor a disagreement over its existance, nor any established statement from the opponents necessitating a situation where God can only exist exclusive of a material universe.

"The ultimate proof against god is the universe itself....", only when you've created your necessitant strawman to defeat (using some ramble-shack of dysfunctional and falsely logical constructions)...

In the end, you only provided the original poster with evidence which backs-up his hypothesis... You were unable to scientifically disproove god; only managing to create disproof by resulting to the construction of faith-based religious arguments...

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

Gee, thats a pretty poor argument...

By many people (like myself), at many times (such as now), by the fact that causality doesn't apply to the universe qua universe, but rather within the universe.

:confused: why not?

:confused: why not?
How can the basis for cause be caused? How do you apply causality to that which makes causality possible?

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

And who exactly created God you cretin?

old testament grave :)


The point still applies... unless you decide the Old and New Testament 'gods' are different entities....

its ok to have that opinion, but saying they are not following Abraham is a serious accusation. again, its all how you see it. you obviously dont believe what is said about yeshua, but others do, however, and thier stance is not below yours. was paul a jew? he followed jesus but never quit being a jew. (if i remember correctly you have a beef with paul as well?)...

Remember, on this matter I am effectively non-Partisan... as much as that is possible... for the two chief reasons:

1) I am neither pro-Christian nor pro-Judaism... they are much alike to me.

2) Although I am an Atheist, I am of the 'well, I don't believe it, but I'm not saying it's wrong...' school. I'm about as non-Partisan as one CAN be.

But - the point remains, Christianity IS a daughter to Judaism... it borrows the Hebrew prophecies, and it claims the same god.

The Hebrews, however, believe it to be an illegitimate daughter... and, since the religion on which it is based (Christianity is nothing, without 'messiah' and Old Testament prophecy) IS the religion of the Hebrews.... one HAS TO assume that THEY get to choose who is the true believer, and who the heretic worshipping false idols.


On the other subject, yes - I do have a beef with Paul. I have a beef with the fact that he is treated as more than a commentator - and I believe he damages the Legacy of Yeshua.

what about Abraham? The New Covenant was expressly for those that came after Jesus. Before the New Covenant, salvation was based on faith. Abraham and all those before him were covered.

So... blasphemy was forgivable before Jesus came?

So... God USED TO BE ABLE to live with sin, but now he can't?

Not true. Disagreeing with the Hebrew faith is not heretical or backsliding. The Hebrews were the first to accept them as fulfilled.

Wrong about the temple too.

I disagree on both points.

I don't suppose you can prove either of your claims?

The Old Testament SPECIFICALLY warns against false prophets, and against other gods.

Christianity provides both - thus, it IS heretical.

And, no... the Hebrews were not "the first to accept them as fulfilled"... indeed, MOST Hebrews did not consider them fulfilled THEN, and they are no more fulfilled NOW.

But - let us see why you think the 'Temple' is not a temple at all... so much for the Bible being literal...

From the words of Zach Smith:

It is unlikely that the LXX [Septuagint— ZS] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14. It is also possible that the unusual translation of the LXX is an attempt to accommodate the meaning of the text as altered by both the redaction and the reception of the original prophetic oracle (2001, 10:160, emp. added).

The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations: The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay.

But, don't you see that that is still irrelevent, over all?

If the translation is wrong, it is wrong. If Jesus 'matches' a false translation, he is ONLY matching a false translation - not the 'word'.

But, don't you see that that is still irrelevent, over all?

If the translation is wrong, it is wrong. If Jesus 'matches' a false translation, he is ONLY matching a false translation - not the 'word'.

what i want to get across is that one hebrew word has more than one meaning. it also has to be taken in context and with hebrew culture for the real meaning to be observed. your still right, the real meaning can still be lost in interpretation and translation. you can state one meaning of a word and you can be correct. but i can take the same word and state another meaning of it and i too would be correct. i learned hebrew so that i could read the OT in the original language, but i soon found that translation can be tricky...

what i want to get across is that one hebrew word has more than one meaning. it also has to be taken in context and with hebrew culture for the real meaning to be observed. your still right, the real meaning can still be lost in interpretation and translation. you can state one meaning of a word and you can be correct. but i can take the same word and state another meaning of it and i too would be correct. i learned hebrew so that i could read the OT in the original language, but i soon found that translation can be tricky...

I learned Hebrew for the same reason... although I admit my Hebrew is a little shaky, still.

However, context can point to occassions where our modern understanding is flawed, and the meanings WE read into the text... and even the readings that later Hebrews might have read into the text, are fatally flawed...

For example... taking the translation of 'virgin' as opposed to young woman, Joel 1:8 becomes a nonsense... "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth". Since the Hebrews considered the loss of virginity to be PART of the marriage ceremony, how can a virgin lament a lost husband?

Clearly, the word we often translate as 'virgin' is being MIS-translated... at least SOME of the time. There is no real reason to believe that Jesus' matches a GENUINE messianic prophecy... since there is no real reason to assume that a 'virgin' is EVER cited.