It is rare when one man dies for another, and when they do they have a very good reason (Acts 7).

Atheistextremist wrote:

Hesed wrote:

It is rare when one man dies for another, and when they do they have a very good reason (Acts 7).

 

If I could save the lives of every person on the planet for all time with my own death I'd go ahead and die. So would you. This self sacrifice is a reflection of human values. It has nothing to do with the likely actions of a universe creating deity.

God can't die in any case, so there's no great merit in his pretending that he did.

My context was Stephen paying the ultimate price telling the Jews that "they missed it".  Why would he do that knowing fully that they didn't take blasphemy lightly?  Was it a death wish of his?  Maybe his psychological makeup was askew?  From the Acts record, it doesn't seem to indicate that.  He was motivated by something else.  His words are direct in Acts 7, and accusatory, and yet, imo, full of compassion and zealousness to break through the barriers of those listening and point them to something he held true.

I have a family and can partially identify with such an action as it is my compassion to protect my family at all costs - they're worth it.   I see compassion in your statement, and you're right - I would.  Just had a flashback of StarTrek 2 where Spock felt it necessary to sacrifice his life to save the crew of the Enterprise, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one."  I apologize for using an offbeat reference, but it shows that the 'idea' of such an act resonates in society.  How many wars have been fought were men have risked their very being that another can be saved from certain death.  The 'human' value I believe is "compassion".  Compassion has undertones of commiseration, mercy, tenderness, heart, and clemency.

If there was a God, I would prefer that He have the character that included those qualities instead of being some kill-joy ogre that always gets His way.  And, in reference to my "ogre" statement, I would also prefer that He have absolute sovereignty meaning that He can do what He wants, but He would limit Himself and not go outside His character.  He would also have a standard.  IMO, this nonsence of "anything goes" (at least in the society of the US) is terrible.  I rejoiced seeing the news announcing that Amber who had been abducted was now found!  I don't want to sound like a bleeding heart, but 'good', when it happens, is great!  Evil, when it  happens, is terrible.

In regard to your last statement, "God can't die in any case, so there's no great merit in his pretending that he did", I want to address that at a later point in time.

Is that you in the profile picture you use in this forum?

Hesed wrote:

Is that you in the profile picture you use in this forum?

   Yes regarding Ae and his balaclava style head gear , I believe the rumor is that Atheistextremist was a former member of the militant IRA but they kicked him out when the Catholic membership discovered that he was actually an atheist...          

If there was a God, I would prefer that He have the character that included those qualities instead of being some kill-joy ogre that always gets His way.  And, in reference to my "ogre" statement, I would also prefer that He have absolute sovereignty meaning that He can do what He wants, but He would limit Himself and not go outside His character.  He would also have a standard.  IMO, this nonsence of "anything goes" (at least in the society of the US) is terrible.  I rejoiced seeing the news announcing that Amber who had been abducted was now found!  I don't want to sound like a bleeding heart, but 'good', when it happens, is great!  Evil, when it  happens, is terrible.

I'm reminded of the times when raising my kids and telling them don't, then watching them do the very thing I told them to avoid (all the time they're looking back at me to see if I was serious) - so funny!  The rule I as a parent want to enforce did not have the motive of being a killjoy, it had the motive of protection.  Of course, when the rule was broken there would be a consequence.  The consequence included a show of displeasure, words explaining why, and a hug at the end to show that my displeasure wasn't everlasting. 

Why am I rambling?  Well, the question I had then was, "Is there a law, is it relevant, and is there a good reason to follow it?"  I asked myself, well, creating laws for the sake of control is something that hasn't worked, ever.  So, we have the first don't recorded in Genesis, it was disobeyed and there was a consequence that you and I really can't identify.  What was described as 'good' became pain for mankind.  They got to live a very long time (good DNA) to experience that pain.  We have our first recorded murder.  Mankind has spread out and doing as it wills.  Doesn't seem so far fetched from today's world. 

Yet, societies have attempted to design a system of law that makes the assumption that if the law is broken the act is assigned as 'not good' and there's a penalty.  I am not willing to include laws created by other cultures in this discussion as there is the chance of contradiction.  For instance, if we were to apply the Sharia method of law and include it within the boundaries of US law - can you imagine!  So, I'd like to stay within the US boundary.  And the law of the land, did we make it up or is it based on some model?

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Hesed wrote:

It is rare when one man dies for another, and when they do they have a very good reason (Acts 7).

 

If I could save the lives of every person on the planet for all time with my own death I'd go ahead and die. So would you. This self sacrifice is a reflection of human values. It has nothing to do with the likely actions of a universe creating deity.

God can't die in any case, so there's no great merit in his pretending that he did.

My context was Stephen paying the ultimate price telling the Jews that "they missed it".  Why would he do that knowing fully that they didn't take blasphemy lightly?  Was it a death wish of his?  Maybe his psychological makeup was askew?  From the Acts record, it doesn't seem to indicate that.  He was motivated by something else.  His words are direct in Acts 7, and accusatory, and yet, imo, full of compassion and zealousness to break through the barriers of those listening and point them to something he held true.

I have a family and can partially identify with such an action as it is my compassion to protect my family at all costs - they're worth it.   I see compassion in your statement, and you're right - I would.  Just had a flashback of StarTrek 2 where Spock felt it necessary to sacrifice his life to save the crew of the Enterprise, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one."  I apologize for using an offbeat reference, but it shows that the 'idea' of such an act resonates in society.  How many wars have been fought were men have risked their very being that another can be saved from certain death.  The 'human' value I believe is "compassion".  Compassion has undertones of commiseration, mercy, tenderness, heart, and clemency.

If there was a God, I would prefer that He have the character that included those qualities instead of being some kill-joy ogre that always gets His way.  And, in reference to my "ogre" statement, I would also prefer that He have absolute sovereignty meaning that He can do what He wants, but He would limit Himself and not go outside His character.  He would also have a standard.  IMO, this nonsence of "anything goes" (at least in the society of the US) is terrible.  I rejoiced seeing the news announcing that Amber who had been abducted was now found!  I don't want to sound like a bleeding heart, but 'good', when it happens, is great!  Evil, when it  happens, is terrible.

In regard to your last statement, "God can't die in any case, so there's no great merit in his pretending that he did", I want to address that at a later point in time.

Is that you in the profile picture you use in this forum?

If the writers had put the words "I believe jesus was the Messiah" in Stephen's mouth, it wouldn't have been effective. The Jewish political machine really had no problem with the Jesus movement (the Jerusalem church were observant Jews). The Pharisees would have posed no objection at all as Jesus espoused Pharisaic teaching.

They were trying to sell Paul's new religion.

 

Right, so Stephen was convinced, as was Saul (who became Paul following his conversion).  This same Saul is recorded as being present at the stoning of Stephen.  This same Saul that was there 'approving' of Stephen's death (Acts 8:1).  This same Saul whose goal in life was to foster the destruction of those believing in this "Christ."  Who openly voiced death threats against, who also carried letters from the Jewish High Priest authorizing him to imprison believers.  As with Stephen, what got hold of Saul that would turn his life around a full 180 degrees and do the exact opposite.  He was a very smart man, educated in Judaism and a Pharisee whose zeal for the Law of Moses was unmatched.  Why change?  For him, he had it all.

 

Would you agree kids don't come out of the womb with a set of moral codes instilled in their brains? I am going to say, you agree. Next, I wonder where children get their morals from. I think we would agree they get those morals from their parents, then from school teachers, friends, and from other role models in their lives. As part of the process they develop feelings and ego. And when they fail, they develop empathy. Humans are complex beasts, I agree with you there. But I think morality is another human thing. It's cultural - a hand-me-down set of social rules so fundamental we can barely see around the sides of it. These are our rules. There is no cosmic deity involved in them and why should their be?

Hesed wrote:

I don't know, personally, and truly evil people:  but I could name a few - I think you can as well.  Sin, for me, even as a child, has been couched in terms of 'an affront to God and His Law (read decalogue)'.  If one doesn't recognize there is a creator, then anything recorded as being a test for morality is mute.  No God, no Law, no Law, no sin.  So, when I talk about sin I'm including a 'standard' by which to measure it.  Some are pretty straight forward: Honor mom & dad, Do not murder, no adultery, no stealing, no lying, and no coveting.  The other four need further inspection, but I'm not going to address that right now.  I don't personally see anything wrong with accepting those six - they're good and decent - they address integrity and honesty - who wouldn't want that.  But with all that, we do fail and can't seem to measure up to them.  I really don't think that God put these laws into affect to set us up for failure.  These laws are expectations - right living. 

I find your comment about 'responsible parenting' in the garden funny.  The two got caught and they tried to blame something else.  Isn't that so true today?!  I've done it, I'm sure most everyone else has to.  Far be it for me to implicate myself in a matter; however, when the truth be known I could have done something better like admit my failings.

"We have no way of improving or learning", do you really believe that?  We have so many choices and from what I see, you're a smart person.  I'm thinking you're a college grad, am I right?  If so, is that not improvement?  Did you not learn?  I've heard that humans will never reach a point where their brain will be full... I'd say we have plenty of room to improve/learn.  You mentioned that at the onset of this discussion.

"We just have to accept we are shit and beg for forgiveness."  When I read this, I sensed pain and lack of self-worth.  Maybe I'm wrong, if so I apologize for my analysis and withdraw it.  If we are 'created', then we have 'worth'.  Christian doctrine says (and Judaism follows suit), that our 'righteousness' is as filthy as rags" (Isaiah 64:6).  Meaning that whatever holiness I can subscribe to myself (because I always do the right thing [suspect analysis of self here], I'm better than you are, I deserve, and I am allowed to sit with God.  Scripture also says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).  I don't know about you, those 10 are hard to keep; however, it does not degrade my worth.  All it really means (if I recognize there is a creator and He has a law that I must abide) is that I need to say 'sorry' and do a 180.  Sin in the Bible is likened to turning your back toward that which has declared what is good - that's all.

"The bible's teaching shows god to be more like the bully father who comes home from the pub and beats you senseless for failing a test instead of giving up his free time to help you get a pass."  Reading the OT, it would appear that God has the character of an  ogre, at times:  I agree.  If there is a God Ae, would't it be a good thing  to also ascribe to Him 'sovereignty"?  Also believe that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent?  Omniscient, because He should know everything, then, now, and forever.  Omnipotent, because He should be able to do anything, even create something He can't affect.  Omnipresent, because He should be available everywhere, everyday, every hour, every minute, and every second.  You have mentioned things that have happened to you.  Things, too, have happened to me, some of which were not my choice.  The question for me was, why did it happen.  Why was I raised in a home ruled by alcoholics?  Our lives are not perfect and this world we live in is not perfect.  The Bible claims there is a reason: sin.  The Bible also claims there is a solution.

I really appreciate you talking with me.

 

 

I fall over on the no god, no laws assumption. I think god has nothing to do with human laws. I don't think there is a god but we have laws. I admit god was drummed into me as a kid but the world makes more sense without a god in it. Do you really think if there was no god the world would be like Lord of the Flies? How would this benefit the human race? It would be a disaster for all of us. The ten commandments - I can't help thinking these are simply the thoughts of a person with post conventional moral convictions. What are the primary crimes? Stealing, lying, mudering, wanting someone else's new car (coveting is a dumb commandment in my book - it eliminates all advertising, ever), adultery. Honouring your parents? Well that's not always the right way forward. These are not the rules of an awesome deity. They are basic human rules some one could have invented as part of a missive for their Gold Duke of Edinburgh Award. 

Look - with the parenting thing, god says that because some ancient people ate a magic pear, now I must be tormented for all eternity. I don't need to tell you how bad a parenting exercise that is. It's ridiculous. I wasn't even there. It's a rank injustice. And the crime is stupid, too. The whole story doesn't make good sense. The first immoral thing the couple realised in the garden was that they had no clothes on? That's just too silly for words. Why would a married couple think twice about being naked in each other's company? I'm not even going to get into talking parsel tongue with beelzebub's pet anaconda who wound up in the garden because god allowed him to be there (despite the risk of contaminating his newly created ken and barbie). And if god really was mighty he would have known that special effects aren't everything. He would have paid for a quality script.

Hesed, to me, the core doctrine of christianity is the need to accept that you were born into sin, that you deserve to die, and to beg jesus to forgive you for your terrible sins, including wanking in the shower, stealing dad's barley sugar and perving on Miss Buck at Everyboy's Rally. Most our crimes are pathetic. They don't deserve any punishment at all. Perhaps some sensible direction and proper leadership might help, though. The fact our righteousness is as rags does not make me want to know my manufacturer any better. I am being blamed for bugs in the firmware. The freewill thing is always going to be strained through the seive of our core natures. I did not make my nature. Nor was my nature created in the garden of eden. 

Sin. I just think there are bad things that happen and you work through them. For me a fundamentalist religious upbringing was one of those bad things. It was an upbringing that severely undermined my sense of self worth as a fairly rational individual with a sense of justice and a slight lack of spiritual imagination. I don't believe in ghosts or gods, or demons or spirits or heaven. As a young person this inability to completely 'buy' the invisible spirit world was a great trial to me. But I am now sure this is not a sin. This is not evil. It's just plain old intellectual honesty. Anything else would be me lying to myself because I was afraid of missing out on the rapture.

You're obviously a good person, Hesed. I hope you can excuse my underlaying cynicism about this. It's a product of being a preacher's son and too much singing from the Keswick Hymnbook. I simply think it's possible, nay preferable, to be a good person without wearing the mental garb of christianity. The personal integrity is the same, the feelings are the same. The humanity is the same. The love for others is the same. The only difference is that it comes without an agenda.

Hesed wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Hesed wrote:

I don't know, personally, and truly evil people:  but I could name a few - I think you can as well.  Sin, for me, even as a child, has been couched in terms of 'an affront to God and His Law (read decalogue)'.  If one doesn't recognize there is a creator, then anything recorded as being a test for morality is mute.  No God, no Law, no Law, no sin.  So, when I talk about sin I'm including a 'standard' by which to measure it.  Some are pretty straight forward: Honor mom & dad, Do not murder, no adultery, no stealing, no lying, and no coveting.  The other four need further inspection, but I'm not going to address that right now.  I don't personally see anything wrong with accepting those six - they're good and decent - they address integrity and honesty - who wouldn't want that.  But with all that, we do fail and can't seem to measure up to them.  I really don't think that God put these laws into affect to set us up for failure.  These laws are expectations - right living. 

I find your comment about 'responsible parenting' in the garden funny.  The two got caught and they tried to blame something else.  Isn't that so true today?!  I've done it, I'm sure most everyone else has to.  Far be it for me to implicate myself in a matter; however, when the truth be known I could have done something better like admit my failings.

"We have no way of improving or learning", do you really believe that?  We have so many choices and from what I see, you're a smart person.  I'm thinking you're a college grad, am I right?  If so, is that not improvement?  Did you not learn?  I've heard that humans will never reach a point where their brain will be full... I'd say we have plenty of room to improve/learn.  You mentioned that at the onset of this discussion.

"We just have to accept we are shit and beg for forgiveness."  When I read this, I sensed pain and lack of self-worth.  Maybe I'm wrong, if so I apologize for my analysis and withdraw it.  If we are 'created', then we have 'worth'.  Christian doctrine says (and Judaism follows suit), that our 'righteousness' is as filthy as rags" (Isaiah 64:6).  Meaning that whatever holiness I can subscribe to myself (because I always do the right thing [suspect analysis of self here], I'm better than you are, I deserve, and I am allowed to sit with God.  Scripture also says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).  I don't know about you, those 10 are hard to keep; however, it does not degrade my worth.  All it really means (if I recognize there is a creator and He has a law that I must abide) is that I need to say 'sorry' and do a 180.  Sin in the Bible is likened to turning your back toward that which has declared what is good - that's all.

"The bible's teaching shows god to be more like the bully father who comes home from the pub and beats you senseless for failing a test instead of giving up his free time to help you get a pass."  Reading the OT, it would appear that God has the character of an  ogre, at times:  I agree.  If there is a God Ae, would't it be a good thing  to also ascribe to Him 'sovereignty"?  Also believe that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent?  Omniscient, because He should know everything, then, now, and forever.  Omnipotent, because He should be able to do anything, even create something He can't affect.  Omnipresent, because He should be available everywhere, everyday, every hour, every minute, and every second.  You have mentioned things that have happened to you.  Things, too, have happened to me, some of which were not my choice.  The question for me was, why did it happen.  Why was I raised in a home ruled by alcoholics?  Our lives are not perfect and this world we live in is not perfect.  The Bible claims there is a reason: sin.  The Bible also claims there is a solution.

I really appreciate you talking with me.

 

 

I fall over on the no god, no laws assumption. I think god has nothing to do with human laws. I don't think there is a god but we have laws. I admit god was drummed into me as a kid but the world makes more sense without a god in it. Do you really think if there was no god the world would be like Lord of the Flies? How would this benefit the human race? It would be a disaster for all of us. The ten commandments - I can't help thinking these are simply the thoughts of a person with post conventional moral convictions. What are the primary crimes? Stealing, lying, mudering, wanting someone else's new car (coveting is a dumb commandment in my book - it eliminates all advertising, ever), adultery. Honouring your parents? Well that's not always the right way forward. These are not the rules of an awesome deity. They are basic human rules some one could have invented as part of a missive for their Gold Duke of Edinburgh Award. 

Look - with the parenting thing, god says that because some ancient people ate a magic pear, now I must be tormented for all eternity. I don't need to tell you how bad a parenting exercise that is. It's ridiculous. I wasn't even there. It's a rank injustice. And the crime is stupid, too. The whole story doesn't make good sense. The first immoral thing the couple realised in the garden was that they had no clothes on? That's just too silly for words. Why would a married couple think twice about being naked in each other's company? I'm not even going to get into talking parsel tongue with beelzebub's pet anaconda who wound up in the garden because god allowed him to be there (despite the risk of contaminating his newly created ken and barbie). And if god really was mighty he would have known that special effects aren't everything. He would have paid for a quality script.

Hesed, to me, the core doctrine of christianity is the need to accept that you were born into sin, that you deserve to die, and to beg jesus to forgive you for your terrible sins, including wanking in the shower, stealing dad's barley sugar and perving on Miss Buck at Everyboy's Rally. Most our crimes are pathetic. They don't deserve any punishment at all. Perhaps some sensible direction and proper leadership might help, though. The fact our righteousness is as rags does not make me want to know my manufacturer any better. I am being blamed for bugs in the firmware. The freewill thing is always going to be strained through the seive of our core natures. I did not make my nature. Nor was my nature created in the garden of eden. 

Sin. I just think there are bad things that happen and you work through them. For me a fundamentalist religious upbringing was one of those bad things. It was an upbringing that severely undermined my sense of self worth as a fairly rational individual with a sense of justice and a slight lack of spiritual imagination. I don't believe in ghosts or gods, or demons or spirits or heaven. As a young person this inability to completely 'buy' the invisible spirit world was a great trial to me. But I am now sure this is not a sin. This is not evil. It's just plain old intellectual honesty. Anything else would be me lying to myself because I was afraid of missing out on the rapture.

You're obviously a good person, Hesed. I hope you can excuse my underlaying cynicism about this. It's a product of being a preacher's son and too much singing from the Keswick Hymnbook. I simply think it's possible, nay preferable, to be a good person without wearing the mental garb of christianity. The personal integrity is the same, the feelings are the same. The humanity is the same. The love for others is the same. The only difference is that it comes without an agenda.

  

 

A sidenote: I see you're British (what flavor?)  I have Irish roots.

You said, "funadmentalist religious upbringing."  I'm thinking here that your upbringing included what I term "harsh legalism", i.e., you can't be holy if you participate in the world.  Am I right?

You said, "As a young person this inability to completely 'buy' the invisible spirit world was a great trial to me. But I am now sure this is not a sin."  It's not, are you referring to Matthew 12:31,32?  Faith is well-defined in Hebrews 11:1.  There's nothing super-human about it, it's merely a state of "I'm convinced." I believe there is good, and I believe there is evil (which includes a spirit realm we cannot see).

You said, "coveting is a dumb commandment".  In the Bible, coveting is there as a 'faith/dependence' issue.  If I truly believed in God and He is my help, why would I covet something else when He owns all of it.  Better to depend on Him than spend my time figuring out how I can get my neighbors property.

You said, "The first immoral thing the couple realised in the garden was that they had no clothes on?"  It wasn't 'immoral'.  They were naked prior to that and lived with no shame or fear.  No, I’m not condoning nudist colonies! <smile> The Bible says, they realized this because they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  They covered themselves (shame) and hid (fear):  they knew they disobeyed.  I didn't bring this up for discussion sake, just wanted to make a small correction.

You said, "because some ancient people ate a magic pear, now I must be tormented for all eternity. I don't need to tell you how bad a parenting exercise that is. It's ridiculous. I wasn't even there. It's a rank injustice."  I agree with most of what you said, i.e., it's ridiculous and a rank injustice that I have this imputed to me.  Job (31:33) and Hosea (6:7) talk about it. It is unfair; however, if I am to accept the collection of scrolls and letters contained in the Bible, then it makes sense.  We are left in Genesis 3 with what the effects of that sin (imputed to the earth and man).  What was perfect became imperfect.  I'm not preaching at you, just recounting.  And, again, if one places themselves under the auspices of Scripture contained in the Bible, then one must then accept what it says. The NT supplies a solution for the sin of Adam.

You said, “You're obviously a good person, Hesed. I hope you can excuse my underlaying cynicism about this. It's a product of being a preacher's son and too much singing from the Keswick Hymnbook.” Good, yes, in human terms; however, I acknowledge that I’m not perfect and I am a work in progress and believe that I’ll never measure up to the model the Bible lays out in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a. I don’t mind your cynicism, I enjoy your humor, and I am enjoying our discussion. I hope the feeling is mutual.

Question: Is the Bible authentic or it is just a collection of writings from individuals marketing falsehood?

 

Authentic as in "it's a book that people wrote/compiled" - yep.

Are the characters in it real? Some may have had a real basis but then they god screwed into mythological characters.

Some of the Bible (the parts they stole from earlier legal codes) is pretty good. The "divine superbeings" part (particularly Paul's creation of Jesus as divinity) - not so much.

There's the famous copy of the story of Gilgamesh great flood. Of course biblical proponents have said that this story was not stolen, it's just the same event retold by different people, which only reinforces Biblical inerrancy.

I have a problem with the Bible too you see... and I'm not even an atheist. I just don't believe in inerrancy and in a God which orders genocide as in Kings book. 

Hesed wrote:

I'm aware of the Gilgamesh story, as well as others.  Some would say these stories appear to corroborate and attest that there was a flood.  Never thought of the authors (in this case probably Moses) copying from other stories.  Would he had access to such information?

Question: If there is a God, should he be confined to a box?

Wait, you actually think Moses wrote those books?!

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

I'm aware of the Gilgamesh story, as well as others.  Some would say these stories appear to corroborate and attest that there was a flood.  Never thought of the authors (in this case probably Moses) copying from other stories.  Would he had access to such information?

Question: If there is a God, should he be confined to a box?

Wait, you actually think Moses wrote those books?!

<smile> I believe I used the word 'probably' which also conveys the meaning of 'not completely sure.'

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

I'm aware of the Gilgamesh story, as well as others.  Some would say these stories appear to corroborate and attest that there was a flood.  Never thought of the authors (in this case probably Moses) copying from other stories.  Would he had access to such information?

Question: If there is a God, should he be confined to a box?

Wait, you actually think Moses wrote those books?!

<smile> I believe I used the word 'probably' which also conveys the meaning of 'not completely sure.'

That's a small fall forward I guess...

According to Jewish and therefore also Christian tradition, the Torah was written by Moses.  In the NT, Jesus Himself affirms Moses as the author of the Torah.  In Mark 7:10 Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the words to Moses.  Later in the gospel of Mark, we read where Jesus asked the Sadducees, “"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush ... ”.  But, perhaps the most convincing passage of all is found in John 5:46-47 where Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me."

As today, the concept of authorship included the possibilities of ghost writers and editors working under the author’s supervision. Therefore, neither Christians nor Jews had a problem with those passages of the Torah that describe Moses’ death and the ultimate disposition of his body.  Although it was obvious to people then as now that Moses could not have penned those sections, it did not impugn Moses’ authorship.  Even today, if an author dies after completing the bulk of a work and someone else finishes off the final chapter from the author’s notes and adds a few concluding comments about the death of the author, so I really don't have a problem attributing the whole work to the original author.  Can I be 100% sure, no.

Can anyone tell me what these points are that I am amassing in my profile here?

I'm going to try to combine your replies to me in this one.

Other texts that were stolen/borrowed for the Bible - the ten commandments (except for the paranoid Yahweh parts) were taken from legal codes that were old when the Hebrews were young. This is in addition to Gilgamesh and the Canaanite myths they (the OT authors) built from.

Now, the passages in the Gospels where the author put those words in Jesus mouth were written many years after Paul's body of work was written (the authors may well have had copies of Paul's work to build from). They had no idea whether Moses was talking about Jesus or not but they needed to form a connection between Judaism and Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion of Christianity. Who better to lend credibility to the effort than Moses?

Again, "Messiah" does not imply divinity - It was a title used by all kings in the Davidic line.

2. Well, what Jesus rode depends on who you read - one gospel said he rode a donkey, another a colt and still another said he rode both simultaneously. For synoptic Gospels they couldn't get their stories straight.

Hesed wrote:

 

A sidenote: I see you're British (what flavor?)  I have Irish roots.

You said, "funadmentalist religious upbringing."  I'm thinking here that your upbringing included what I term "harsh legalism", i.e., you can't be holy if you participate in the world.  Am I right?

You said, "As a young person this inability to completely 'buy' the invisible spirit world was a great trial to me. But I am now sure this is not a sin."  It's not, are you referring to Matthew 12:31,32?  Faith is well-defined in Hebrews 11:1.  There's nothing super-human about it, it's merely a state of "I'm convinced." I believe there is good, and I believe there is evil (which includes a spirit realm we cannot see).

You said, "coveting is a dumb commandment".  In the Bible, coveting is there as a 'faith/dependence' issue.  If I truly believed in God and He is my help, why would I covet something else when He owns all of it.  Better to depend on Him than spend my time figuring out how I can get my neighbors property.

You said, "The first immoral thing the couple realised in the garden was that they had no clothes on?"  It wasn't 'immoral'.  They were naked prior to that and lived with no shame or fear.  No, I’m not condoning nudist colonies! <smile> The Bible says, they realized this because they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  They covered themselves (shame) and hid (fear):  they knew they disobeyed.  I didn't bring this up for discussion sake, just wanted to make a small correction.

You said, "because some ancient people ate a magic pear, now I must be tormented for all eternity. I don't need to tell you how bad a parenting exercise that is. It's ridiculous. I wasn't even there. It's a rank injustice."  I agree with most of what you said, i.e., it's ridiculous and a rank injustice that I have this imputed to me.  Job (31:33) and Hosea (6:7) talk about it. It is unfair; however, if I am to accept the collection of scrolls and letters contained in the Bible, then it makes sense.  We are left in Genesis 3 with what the effects of that sin (imputed to the earth and man).  What was perfect became imperfect.  I'm not preaching at you, just recounting.  And, again, if one places themselves under the auspices of Scripture contained in the Bible, then one must then accept what it says. The NT supplies a solution for the sin of Adam.

You said, “You're obviously a good person, Hesed. I hope you can excuse my underlaying cynicism about this. It's a product of being a preacher's son and too much singing from the Keswick Hymnbook.” Good, yes, in human terms; however, I acknowledge that I’m not perfect and I am a work in progress and believe that I’ll never measure up to the model the Bible lays out in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a. I don’t mind your cynicism, I enjoy your humor, and I am enjoying our discussion. I hope the feeling is mutual.

Question: Is the Bible authentic or it is just a collection of writings from individuals marketing falsehood?

Yes, it's always fun to thrash out the bible.

I'm Australian/NZ - ancestry is scots - my grandfather's name on my mother's side was William Wallace. Dad's side is McGregor, Cameron and what not. There will be Irish in there, too. The Irish and Scots have the sibling thing going, alternatively hugging and punching each other on the nose.

The godly upbringing was simpler than I think you are suggesting. Just typical evangelical presbyterian, replete with a lot of beatings interspersed with howling at the lord and eating honey and wasp sandwiches at a barrage of christian camps as young, gleaming white people earnestly strummed three chords and wailed insistently that they'd never say to a hooded, sun-glassed jesus: "I cannot come to the banquet, don't bother me now, I have got me a wife, I have married a cow. .."

On the topic of faith, the ability to say "I'm convinced" and then to suddenly be aware there is good and there is evil and there is a spirit world has badly sprained my prefrontal cortex. I think good and evil are complex states of mind relating to learned social behaviours that take a lifetime to get yourself around. I am still changing my mind now about behaviours I thought were okay when I was young. It's not god. Sometimes lessons in my life show me that the way I behave discounts others and I don't like feeling that. I think the burden varies. Many sweet people are born with qualities society calls good but these cheery folks are not right with the lord, they are simply lucky enough to be positive, caring, loving, gentle, good with kids and whatever other characteristics you care to plug in. It's the grumps who are hardly done by.

With the garden of eden, I still battle with being naked as the touchstone example of good and evil. It makes very little sense to me. Adam and Eve, having strolled about the garden eating whatever they liked and shagging on every mossy patch as the brooks bubbled away could have had no great sense of right and wrong. They had not lived, they had no associations, they had no possessions, they had learned no morality. They were children. Perhaps they deserved some form of correction. Eve, a spanking perhaps, with Adam forced to watch. In any case, to charge the whole of subsequent humanity for this 'crime' is just bizarre. Are you suggesting here you really believe the mythology of the garden? The 'stain' of Eve? This story is deeply flawed.

I think the bible is a collection of myths, history, wishful thinking, ancient 'science' and philosophy scrambled up with moral lessons and multiple cults. In some ways the bible is a history of middle eastern religion. It's a frankenstein monster of a thing with the jews' inherited philistine war god Yahweh being modified over time and a Judeo-Roman jesus-myth bolted onto it like a sort of supercharger. The similarities to older Egyptian gods are profound. The King of the gods, Amon-Re, Osiris the Creator, Horus, his virgin-born son. There are parallels with so many ancient middle eastern and Mediterranean religions. In fact it's so much a formula you'd be working hard not to see it.

Is the bible a deliberate falsehood? Probably not. But the threat built into it suggests layers of malicious intent. Believe my opinion or die. You are born evil. Don't think for yourself, just believe. Whichever way you slice it, the biblical god is definitely not love. And the faux sacrifice of the godlet jesus, who is immortal, doesn't make the overarching violence easier to swallow.

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

I'm aware of the Gilgamesh story, as well as others.  Some would say these stories appear to corroborate and attest that there was a flood.  Never thought of the authors (in this case probably Moses) copying from other stories.  Would he had access to such information?

Question: If there is a God, should he be confined to a box?

Wait, you actually think Moses wrote those books?!

<smile> I believe I used the word 'probably' which also conveys the meaning of 'not completely sure.'

That's a small fall forward I guess...

According to Jewish and therefore also Christian tradition, the Torah was written by Moses.  In the NT, Jesus Himself affirms Moses as the author of the Torah.  In Mark 7:10 Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the words to Moses.  Later in the gospel of Mark, we read where Jesus asked the Sadducees, “"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush ... ”.  But, perhaps the most convincing passage of all is found in John 5:46-47 where Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me."

As today, the concept of authorship included the possibilities of ghost writers and editors working under the author’s supervision. Therefore, neither Christians nor Jews had a problem with those passages of the Torah that describe Moses’ death and the ultimate disposition of his body.  Although it was obvious to people then as now that Moses could not have penned those sections, it did not impugn Moses’ authorship.  Even today, if an author dies after completing the bulk of a work and someone else finishes off the final chapter from the author’s notes and adds a few concluding comments about the death of the author, so I really don't have a problem attributing the whole work to the original author.  Can I be 100% sure, no.

Can anyone tell me what these points are that I am amassing in my profile here?

I'm going to try to combine your replies to me in this one.

Other texts that were stolen/borrowed for the Bible - the ten commandments (except for the paranoid Yahweh parts) were taken from legal codes that were old when the Hebrews were young. This is in addition to Gilgamesh and the Canaanite myths they (the OT authors) built from.

Now, the passages in the Gospels where the author put those words in Jesus mouth were written many years after Paul's body of work was written (the authors may well have had copies of Paul's work to build from). They had no idea whether Moses was talking about Jesus or not but they needed to form a connection between Judaism and Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion of Christianity. Who better to lend credibility to the effort than Moses?

Again, "Messiah" does not imply divinity - It was a title used by all kings in the Davidic line.

Yes, the word “Messiah” (mashiach) comes from the verb mashach, which means to smear or anoint with oil, usually for the purpose of dedicating or consecrating something (such as a temple vessel) or someone (such as a prophet, priest or king) for the service of Adonai.  The word Adonai is used as a substitute for the sacred Tetragrammaton; emphatic form of ’Adon (Isaiah 6:1). Occurs 300 times in the Tanakh. The first use appears in Genesis 15:2 where Abram addresses God as “Adonai YHVH.” Israel is still waiting for a mashiach, will he be a 'deliverer' (Daniel 7:13) such as David, from the Davidic line, or did he already come riding on the colt of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)?

"Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion", how did Paul cancel the Torah?

1. By "emphatic" don't you mean "plural" similar to Elohim? Why add a convoluted explanation and just admit that the Jews borrowed the Canaanite pantheon?

2. Well, what Jesus rode depends on who you read - one gospel said he rode a donkey, another a colt and still another said he rode both simultaneously. For synoptic Gospels they couldn't get their stories straight.

3. Paul canceled the Torah in Romans 4 and 5 when he placed himself above the Torah and said that the Law (all of it) was no longer needed and didn't have to be followed (as it was replaced by grace and the newly deified Jesus Christ).

No, I do not mean 'plural'.  The word Adonai is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (empatic form of Adon) meaning YHVH.

Zechariah wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). Matthew, writing to the Jews he focuses on the fulfillment of the Old Testament, even quoting from it sixty-two times, which is more than any other Gospel writer.  First, notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.  Why?  Again, because he wanted to emphasize 'fulfillment' of Scripture.

IRT to Paul.  I don't have any problem with what you have said.  The mashiac (deliverer) was to save Israel.  The NT's message is Jesus is that deliverer, but He wasn't what the Jews were expecting.  The Law was in motion (not only the 10, but the 613 too).  Jews were required to atone via the blood of a spotless lamb - Jesus became that substitute.  The Jews would bring a spotless lamb (or buy one at the temple) and have it sacrificed.  The temple is gone.  Judaism has no ability to continue the sacrificial law.  There's nothing wrong about grace.  Is there a possibility where you held back from someone the full force of what they really deserved?  Grace says, you deserve my wrath, but I choose to withhold it.  Why?  Because of love (NT speak).  NT's message is God sacrifices in our stead because of love (Abram parallel here). 

If we did introspection we would quickly realize we are not perfect (1 Corinthians 13 looks like perfection - an unachievable utopia if you will).  I don't know about you, but I've tried to no avail.  I know my past - it isn't pretty.  If I were to take the Bible as a whole and the message it carries as a whole, I believe I can only come to one conclusion.  None of us asked for it.  I've seen it said here that 'permission wasn't requested of us', but if it did happen then we have to respond.  If we take the Bible as a whole, then there are only two responses.

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

I'm aware of the Gilgamesh story, as well as others.  Some would say these stories appear to corroborate and attest that there was a flood.  Never thought of the authors (in this case probably Moses) copying from other stories.  Would he had access to such information?

Question: If there is a God, should he be confined to a box?

Wait, you actually think Moses wrote those books?!

<smile> I believe I used the word 'probably' which also conveys the meaning of 'not completely sure.'

That's a small fall forward I guess...

According to Jewish and therefore also Christian tradition, the Torah was written by Moses.  In the NT, Jesus Himself affirms Moses as the author of the Torah.  In Mark 7:10 Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the words to Moses.  Later in the gospel of Mark, we read where Jesus asked the Sadducees, “"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush ... ”.  But, perhaps the most convincing passage of all is found in John 5:46-47 where Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me."

As today, the concept of authorship included the possibilities of ghost writers and editors working under the author’s supervision. Therefore, neither Christians nor Jews had a problem with those passages of the Torah that describe Moses’ death and the ultimate disposition of his body.  Although it was obvious to people then as now that Moses could not have penned those sections, it did not impugn Moses’ authorship.  Even today, if an author dies after completing the bulk of a work and someone else finishes off the final chapter from the author’s notes and adds a few concluding comments about the death of the author, so I really don't have a problem attributing the whole work to the original author.  Can I be 100% sure, no.

Can anyone tell me what these points are that I am amassing in my profile here?

I'm going to try to combine your replies to me in this one.

Other texts that were stolen/borrowed for the Bible - the ten commandments (except for the paranoid Yahweh parts) were taken from legal codes that were old when the Hebrews were young. This is in addition to Gilgamesh and the Canaanite myths they (the OT authors) built from.

Now, the passages in the Gospels where the author put those words in Jesus mouth were written many years after Paul's body of work was written (the authors may well have had copies of Paul's work to build from). They had no idea whether Moses was talking about Jesus or not but they needed to form a connection between Judaism and Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion of Christianity. Who better to lend credibility to the effort than Moses?

Again, "Messiah" does not imply divinity - It was a title used by all kings in the Davidic line.

Yes, the word “Messiah” (mashiach) comes from the verb mashach, which means to smear or anoint with oil, usually for the purpose of dedicating or consecrating something (such as a temple vessel) or someone (such as a prophet, priest or king) for the service of Adonai.  The word Adonai is used as a substitute for the sacred Tetragrammaton; emphatic form of ’Adon (Isaiah 6:1). Occurs 300 times in the Tanakh. The first use appears in Genesis 15:2 where Abram addresses God as “Adonai YHVH.” Israel is still waiting for a mashiach, will he be a 'deliverer' (Daniel 7:13) such as David, from the Davidic line, or did he already come riding on the colt of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)?

"Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion", how did Paul cancel the Torah?

1. By "emphatic" don't you mean "plural" similar to Elohim? Why add a convoluted explanation and just admit that the Jews borrowed the Canaanite pantheon?

2. Well, what Jesus rode depends on who you read - one gospel said he rode a donkey, another a colt and still another said he rode both simultaneously. For synoptic Gospels they couldn't get their stories straight.

3. Paul canceled the Torah in Romans 4 and 5 when he placed himself above the Torah and said that the Law (all of it) was no longer needed and didn't have to be followed (as it was replaced by grace and the newly deified Jesus Christ).

No, I do not mean 'plural'.  The word Adonai is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (empatic form of Adon) meaning YHVH.

Zechariah wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). Matthew, writing to the Jews he focuses on the fulfillment of the Old Testament, even quoting from it sixty-two times, which is more than any other Gospel writer.  First, notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.  Why?  Again, because he wanted to emphasize 'fulfillment' of Scripture.

IRT to Paul.  I don't have any problem with what you have said.  The mashiac (deliverer) was to save Israel.  The NT's message is Jesus is that deliverer, but He wasn't what the Jews were expecting.  The Law was in motion (not only the 10, but the 613 too).  Jews were required to atone via the blood of a spotless lamb - Jesus became that substitute.  The Jews would bring a spotless lamb (or buy one at the temple) and have it sacrificed.  The temple is gone.  Judaism has no ability to continue the sacrificial law.  There's nothing wrong about grace.  Is there a possibility where you held back from someone the full force of what they really deserved?  Grace says, you deserve my wrath, but I choose to withhold it.  Why?  Because of love (NT speak).  NT's message is God sacrifices in our stead because of love (Abram parallel here). 

If we did introspection we would quickly realize we are not perfect (1 Corinthians 13 looks like perfection - an unachievable utopia if you will).  I don't know about you, but I've tried to no avail.  I know my past - it isn't pretty.  If I were to take the Bible as a whole and the message it carries as a whole, I believe I can only come to one conclusion.  None of us asked for it.  I've seen it said here that 'permission wasn't requested of us', but if it did happen then we have to respond.  If we take the Bible as a whole, then there are only two responses.

Adonai is a plural form as is Elohim - why use a plural form when discussing a singular being?

So you believe that Jesus rode both of them at the same time? Never mind that the disciples stole them in the first place. Other than that I admire the mental gymnastics you have to perform to make this work.

It is not that Jesus was not the deliverer that was expected. It's that Paul's ideas of fusing Jesus with the savior gods he grew up with (not only was he not a Pharisee he likely wasn't Jewish by birth). For example, he claimed the Eucharist (eating the body and blood of Jesus) came from instructions he got from Jesus but the group in Jerusalem led by Peter James and John never performed this ritual. Paul split from Jesus and his messianic movement the moment he declared himself a Roman citizen (which he likely purchased and wasn't born into) to save himself.

 

Adonai is the plural of Adon, meaning “Lord, Lord, LORD, master, or owner” (the word Adon derives from a Ugaritic word meaning “lord” or “father&rdquo.  In the Tanakh, the word Adon can refer to men and angels as well as to the LORD God of Israel (e.g., Exodus 34:23). God is called the “Lord of lords”(Deuteronomy 10:17) and Psalm 8:1 mentions God as “YHVH our Lord.”

The plural form Adonai, like the plural form Elohim, is regularly used with singular verbs and modifiers, so it is best to construe the Name as an “emphatic plural” or “plural of majesty.” When the plural is formed using a singular possessive ending (“my Lords&rdquo, it always refers to God, and occurs over 300 times in the Tanakh in this form.

IRT the donkey/colt - some believe that He road both, I'm having a hard time envisioning that.  I suspect there's a possibility they were together, but He road the colt only.  It's hard enough riding one.  Donkey basketball is hilarious!

If we are to believe Luke's writings, Jesus, after breaking the bread, said, "Do this in remembrance of me."  You'll probably counter that Luke took that from Paul's writings.

During the time of Pompey (67 B.C.), Tarsus was made capital over the Roman province of Cilicia, and Jews began to receive Roman citizenship.

If you had an 'out' that would save you from a situation, would you not take advantage of it?

Are Paul's writings authentic?

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Hesed wrote:

I'm aware of the Gilgamesh story, as well as others.  Some would say these stories appear to corroborate and attest that there was a flood.  Never thought of the authors (in this case probably Moses) copying from other stories.  Would he had access to such information?

Question: If there is a God, should he be confined to a box?

Wait, you actually think Moses wrote those books?!

<smile> I believe I used the word 'probably' which also conveys the meaning of 'not completely sure.'

That's a small fall forward I guess...

According to Jewish and therefore also Christian tradition, the Torah was written by Moses.  In the NT, Jesus Himself affirms Moses as the author of the Torah.  In Mark 7:10 Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the words to Moses.  Later in the gospel of Mark, we read where Jesus asked the Sadducees, “"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush ... ”.  But, perhaps the most convincing passage of all is found in John 5:46-47 where Jesus said: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me."

As today, the concept of authorship included the possibilities of ghost writers and editors working under the author’s supervision. Therefore, neither Christians nor Jews had a problem with those passages of the Torah that describe Moses’ death and the ultimate disposition of his body.  Although it was obvious to people then as now that Moses could not have penned those sections, it did not impugn Moses’ authorship.  Even today, if an author dies after completing the bulk of a work and someone else finishes off the final chapter from the author’s notes and adds a few concluding comments about the death of the author, so I really don't have a problem attributing the whole work to the original author.  Can I be 100% sure, no.

Can anyone tell me what these points are that I am amassing in my profile here?

I'm going to try to combine your replies to me in this one.

Other texts that were stolen/borrowed for the Bible - the ten commandments (except for the paranoid Yahweh parts) were taken from legal codes that were old when the Hebrews were young. This is in addition to Gilgamesh and the Canaanite myths they (the OT authors) built from.

Now, the passages in the Gospels where the author put those words in Jesus mouth were written many years after Paul's body of work was written (the authors may well have had copies of Paul's work to build from). They had no idea whether Moses was talking about Jesus or not but they needed to form a connection between Judaism and Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion of Christianity. Who better to lend credibility to the effort than Moses?

Again, "Messiah" does not imply divinity - It was a title used by all kings in the Davidic line.

Yes, the word “Messiah” (mashiach) comes from the verb mashach, which means to smear or anoint with oil, usually for the purpose of dedicating or consecrating something (such as a temple vessel) or someone (such as a prophet, priest or king) for the service of Adonai.  The word Adonai is used as a substitute for the sacred Tetragrammaton; emphatic form of ’Adon (Isaiah 6:1). Occurs 300 times in the Tanakh. The first use appears in Genesis 15:2 where Abram addresses God as “Adonai YHVH.” Israel is still waiting for a mashiach, will he be a 'deliverer' (Daniel 7:13) such as David, from the Davidic line, or did he already come riding on the colt of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)?

"Paul's new Torah canceling mystery religion", how did Paul cancel the Torah?

1. By "emphatic" don't you mean "plural" similar to Elohim? Why add a convoluted explanation and just admit that the Jews borrowed the Canaanite pantheon?

2. Well, what Jesus rode depends on who you read - one gospel said he rode a donkey, another a colt and still another said he rode both simultaneously. For synoptic Gospels they couldn't get their stories straight.

3. Paul canceled the Torah in Romans 4 and 5 when he placed himself above the Torah and said that the Law (all of it) was no longer needed and didn't have to be followed (as it was replaced by grace and the newly deified Jesus Christ).

No, I do not mean 'plural'.  The word Adonai is a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (empatic form of Adon) meaning YHVH.

Zechariah wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). Matthew, writing to the Jews he focuses on the fulfillment of the Old Testament, even quoting from it sixty-two times, which is more than any other Gospel writer.  First, notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.  Why?  Again, because he wanted to emphasize 'fulfillment' of Scripture.

IRT to Paul.  I don't have any problem with what you have said.  The mashiac (deliverer) was to save Israel.  The NT's message is Jesus is that deliverer, but He wasn't what the Jews were expecting.  The Law was in motion (not only the 10, but the 613 too).  Jews were required to atone via the blood of a spotless lamb - Jesus became that substitute.  The Jews would bring a spotless lamb (or buy one at the temple) and have it sacrificed.  The temple is gone.  Judaism has no ability to continue the sacrificial law.  There's nothing wrong about grace.  Is there a possibility where you held back from someone the full force of what they really deserved?  Grace says, you deserve my wrath, but I choose to withhold it.  Why?  Because of love (NT speak).  NT's message is God sacrifices in our stead because of love (Abram parallel here). 

If we did introspection we would quickly realize we are not perfect (1 Corinthians 13 looks like perfection - an unachievable utopia if you will).  I don't know about you, but I've tried to no avail.  I know my past - it isn't pretty.  If I were to take the Bible as a whole and the message it carries as a whole, I believe I can only come to one conclusion.  None of us asked for it.  I've seen it said here that 'permission wasn't requested of us', but if it did happen then we have to respond.  If we take the Bible as a whole, then there are only two responses.

Adonai is a plural form as is Elohim - why use a plural form when discussing a singular being?

So you believe that Jesus rode both of them at the same time? Never mind that the disciples stole them in the first place. Other than that I admire the mental gymnastics you have to perform to make this work.

It is not that Jesus was not the deliverer that was expected. It's that Paul's ideas of fusing Jesus with the savior gods he grew up with (not only was he not a Pharisee he likely wasn't Jewish by birth). For example, he claimed the Eucharist (eating the body and blood of Jesus) came from instructions he got from Jesus but the group in Jerusalem led by Peter James and John never performed this ritual. Paul split from Jesus and his messianic movement the moment he declared himself a Roman citizen (which he likely purchased and wasn't born into) to save himself.

 

Adonai is the plural of Adon, meaning “Lord, Lord, LORD, master, or owner” (the word Adon derives from a Ugaritic word meaning “lord” or “father&rdquo.  In the Tanakh, the word Adon can refer to men and angels as well as to the LORD God of Israel (e.g., Exodus 34:23). God is called the “Lord of lords”(Deuteronomy 10:17) and Psalm 8:1 mentions God as “YHVH our Lord.”

The plural form Adonai, like the plural form Elohim, is regularly used with singular verbs and modifiers, so it is best to construe the Name as an “emphatic plural” or “plural of majesty.” When the plural is formed using a singular possessive ending (“my Lords&rdquo, it always refers to God, and occurs over 300 times in the Tanakh in this form.

IRT the donkey/colt - some believe that He road both, I'm having a hard time envisioning that.  I suspect there's a possibility they were together, but He road the colt only.  It's hard enough riding one.  Donkey basketball is hilarious!

If we are to believe Luke's writings, Jesus, after breaking the bread, said, "Do this in remembrance of me."  You'll probably counter that Luke took that from Paul's writings.

During the time of Pompey (67 B.C.), Tarsus was made capital over the Roman province of Cilicia, and Jews began to receive Roman citizenship.

If you had an 'out' that would save you from a situation, would you not take advantage of it?

Are Paul's writings authentic?

1. I know of the "emphatic plural" and it sounds more like it was an explanation written by Christians who couldn't deal with their own polytheism (much like the doctrine of Trinitarianism).

2. YHVH is the short form of the name of the Canaanite deity Yahweh. Sorry to offend but it is what it is.

3. As far as the colt and the donkey - unless he did a Roman ride (standing with a foot on each animal's back) I'd have a hard time seeing it also. You wish these guys who were supposedly inspire by God could get their stuff together.

4. The dating bears out that Paul's works were written first so I am not all that surprised that the Gospel writers (Pauline converts) had their master's work nearby.

5.  Roman citizenship came to Tarsus after Paul completed his writings so either Luke gave him Roman citizenship as a plot device or Paul had purchased it beforehand.

Paul's writings are split between Paul himself and a convert who acted as his scribe. The Christ and the religion he built from it are wholly Paul's imaginings.

Your grandfather is THE William Wallace!?!

Hesed wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Captain Pineapple will blow you a kiss....

Any relation to SpongeBob?

 

The good Captain is a member here.

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Hesed wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Captain Pineapple will blow you a kiss....

Any relation to SpongeBob?

 

The good Captain is a member here.

 

 

LOL!!!  I hope he's not offended.  Thanks for the heads up, that way I don't mis-use his name!

[/quote

Hesed wrote:

Your grandfather is THE William Wallace!?!

 

The William Wallace was late 13th century and this guy was born 1905. But I do have a puritan bishop in the family tree, as well as one of the founders of the New Zealand pentecostal movement. Exciting stuff!