How many did God kill vs Satan?

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
How many did God kill vs Satan?

How many people did God kill in the Bible?

It's impossible to say for sure, but plenty. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? There's just no way to count them all. This list doesn't include those figures.

  SAB, Brick Testament Number Killed Cumulative Total
Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, BT 1 2
Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10, BT 1 3
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 3003
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 3005
A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 3006
A man who picked up sticks on the SabbathNum.15:32-36, BT 1 3007
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 3019+
Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35, 26:10, BT 250 3269+
For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 17,969+
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 41,969+
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 131,969+
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 131,974+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 143,974+
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 153,974+
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 153,975+
God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 163,975+
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 283,975+
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,005+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,005+
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 288,005+
"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 313,105+
More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 338,105+
For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19 50,070 388,175+
God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12 20 388,195+
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33 1 388,196+
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 388,197+
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 388,198+
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Sam.12:14-18 1 388,199+
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 388,206+
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 458,206+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 458,207+
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 558,207+
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 585,207+
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 585,208+
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 585,209+
Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 585,311+
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 585,343+
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 585,344+
Jezebel2 Kg.9:33-37 1 585,355+
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 585,358+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 770,358+
Saul 1 Chr.10:14 1 770,359+
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chr.13:15-17 500,000 1,270,359+
Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 1,270,360+
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 2,270,360+
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 2,270,361+
Ezekiel's wife Ezek.24:15-18 1 2,270,362+
Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2,270,364+
Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 2,270,365+


But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

Well SAB can only find ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. Steve's talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job. There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job ... And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. ... And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD ... put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. ... And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house...And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. -- Job 1:1-19 So it seems that both Satan and God share the blame (or the credit) for these killings. If so, then the tally would be:

Lots!

Source/Credit: Steve Wells Skeptics Annotated Bible Check him out:

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Circle vs Sphere

The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chuwg, as described and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Also, another Hebrew word "Duwr" is not exclusively a word for sphere.

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city.


Additionally,

The root of chûgh (or chuwg) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

  • In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"
  • In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".
  • In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.


In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

Now, I think your statement is 'nit-picky' at best.  I don't mean that in a rude way.  Using parenting as an example, parents do hold information back from their children for a number of reasons.  I'm not saying that parents would in any way be on an equal plane with God Almighty, but in regard to reasoning, maturity, and comprehension information is held back.  And just how important would it be to know that the earth was a sphere back then, it certainly wasn't flat, but that's all man could see in the science of that day. [Science = study of things 'observed'.]  My wondering thought is how can anyone not think that our environment wasn't designed - it is marvelous!  Those who hold to the 'chance' theory are misled.

Today mathematics has proved that coincidence does not play a role in the formation of the coded information within DNA, let alone the DNA molecule made up of millions of base pairs. The probability of the coincidental formation of even a single gene out of the 200,000 genes making up DNA is so low that even the notion of impossible remains weak. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, makes the following statement about this 'impossibility':

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

[Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.]

That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 41000, in other words, 1 in 10600. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 in 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice 'zero' probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:The Hebrew

Hesed wrote:

The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chuwg, as described and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Also, another Hebrew word "Duwr" is not exclusively a word for sphere.

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city.


Additionally,

The root of chûgh (or chuwg) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

  • In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"
  • In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".
  • In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.


In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

Now, I think your statement is 'nit-picky' at best.  I don't mean that in a rude way.  Using parenting as an example, parents do hold information back from their children for a number of reasons.  I'm not saying that parents would in any way be on an equal plane with God Almighty, but in regard to reasoning, maturity, and comprehension information is held back.  And just how important would it be to know that the earth was a sphere back then, it certainly wasn't flat, but that's all man could see in the science of that day. [Science = study of things 'observed'.]  My wondering thought is how can anyone not think that our environment wasn't designed - it is marvelous!  Those who hold to the 'chance' theory are misled.

Today mathematics has proved that coincidence does not play a role in the formation of the coded information within DNA, let alone the DNA molecule made up of millions of base pairs. The probability of the coincidental formation of even a single gene out of the 200,000 genes making up DNA is so low that even the notion of impossible remains weak. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, makes the following statement about this 'impossibility':

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

[Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.]

That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 41000, in other words, 1 in 10600. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 in 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice 'zero' probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.

1.So, in spite of the fact that we know more than the writers of the Bible did, we should still accept that they are correct when they claim circle=sphere?

2. How can I think our environment/planet universe is designed? So much of it is inhospitable to us or trying to kill us.

3. Good thing evolution doesn't rely on " 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.", isn't it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Chance?

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chuwg, as described and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Also, another Hebrew word "Duwr" is not exclusively a word for sphere.

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city.


Additionally,

The root of chûgh (or chuwg) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

  • In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"
  • In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".
  • In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.


In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

Now, I think your statement is 'nit-picky' at best.  I don't mean that in a rude way.  Using parenting as an example, parents do hold information back from their children for a number of reasons.  I'm not saying that parents would in any way be on an equal plane with God Almighty, but in regard to reasoning, maturity, and comprehension information is held back.  And just how important would it be to know that the earth was a sphere back then, it certainly wasn't flat, but that's all man could see in the science of that day. [Science = study of things 'observed'.]  My wondering thought is how can anyone not think that our environment wasn't designed - it is marvelous!  Those who hold to the 'chance' theory are misled.

Today mathematics has proved that coincidence does not play a role in the formation of the coded information within DNA, let alone the DNA molecule made up of millions of base pairs. The probability of the coincidental formation of even a single gene out of the 200,000 genes making up DNA is so low that even the notion of impossible remains weak. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, makes the following statement about this 'impossibility':

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

[Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.]

That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 41000, in other words, 1 in 10600. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 in 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice 'zero' probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.

1.So, in spite of the fact that we know more than the writers of the Bible did, we should still accept that they are correct when they claim circle=sphere?

2. How can I think our environment/planet universe is designed? So much of it is inhospitable to us or trying to kill us.

3. Good thing evolution doesn't rely on " 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.", isn't it?

1. See first sentence about the Hebrew language ...

2. Sounds like you don't like this planet, what's the alternative?  For me, this is a wonderful place.  Yes there are many dangers, but for the most part most of us are far from them because our ancestors found a nice place to live.

3.  Point made about DNA is there can't be chance involved, it was designed.  Evolution is chance.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:jcgadfly

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chuwg, as described and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Also, another Hebrew word "Duwr" is not exclusively a word for sphere.

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city.


Additionally,

The root of chûgh (or chuwg) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

  • In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"
  • In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".
  • In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.


In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

Now, I think your statement is 'nit-picky' at best.  I don't mean that in a rude way.  Using parenting as an example, parents do hold information back from their children for a number of reasons.  I'm not saying that parents would in any way be on an equal plane with God Almighty, but in regard to reasoning, maturity, and comprehension information is held back.  And just how important would it be to know that the earth was a sphere back then, it certainly wasn't flat, but that's all man could see in the science of that day. [Science = study of things 'observed'.]  My wondering thought is how can anyone not think that our environment wasn't designed - it is marvelous!  Those who hold to the 'chance' theory are misled.

Today mathematics has proved that coincidence does not play a role in the formation of the coded information within DNA, let alone the DNA molecule made up of millions of base pairs. The probability of the coincidental formation of even a single gene out of the 200,000 genes making up DNA is so low that even the notion of impossible remains weak. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, makes the following statement about this 'impossibility':

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

[Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.]

That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 41000, in other words, 1 in 10600. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 in 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice 'zero' probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.

1.So, in spite of the fact that we know more than the writers of the Bible did, we should still accept that they are correct when they claim circle=sphere?

2. How can I think our environment/planet universe is designed? So much of it is inhospitable to us or trying to kill us.

3. Good thing evolution doesn't rely on " 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.", isn't it?

1. See first sentence about the Hebrew language ...

2. Sounds like you don't like this planet, what's the alternative?  For me, this is a wonderful place.  Yes there are many dangers, but for the most part most of us are far from them because our ancestors found a nice place to live.

3.  Point made about DNA is there can't be chance involved, it was designed.  Evolution is chance.

1. I did. Why do you want to go back to a term that is inadequate when we have better terms?

2. No I just deny the anthropic principle (that God made a perfect planet just for humans). Humans adapted to the planet - the planet was not created for us. What formerly unusable areas that have been converted have been so by human ingenuity and inventiveness.

3. You don't know anything about evolution and natural selection or you wouldn't have posted that. Your position is the chance based one - that a omnimax supernatural being got it right the first time (the results also stand against you).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1.  Because if you are

1.  Because if you are going to quote Bible verses then you need to stay in context with the language at hand.  Just because Hebrew doesn't have a word for sphere, it doesn't mean the writer wasn't trying to communicate sphere with the word that closely resembled it.  This problem exists today in most languages as most do not translate perfectly to English.  For instance, if you were to look up English movie titles in Mexico you will find some hilarity!

2.  God didn't say it was perfect, He said it was 'good'.  Human ingenuity and inventiveness are a credit to Him.  Thankfully people who have these kinds of gifts, whether it be in construction, music, arts, whatever, exist.  Otherwise we would still be walking around in animal skins!

3. You're right, I'm no scientist.  I allow scientists to speak and the math bears out as evidence. 

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1.  Because if

Hesed wrote:

1.  Because if you are going to quote Bible verses then you need to stay in context with the language at hand.  Just because Hebrew doesn't have a word for sphere, it doesn't mean the writer wasn't trying to communicate sphere with the word that closely resembled it.  This problem exists today in most languages as most do not translate perfectly to English.  For instance, if you were to look up English movie titles in Mexico you will find some hilarity!

2.  God didn't say it was perfect, He said it was 'good'.  Human ingenuity and inventiveness are a credit to Him.  Thankfully people who have these kinds of gifts, whether it be in construction, music, arts, whatever, exist.  Otherwise we would still be walking around in animal skins!

3. You're right, I'm no scientist.  I allow scientists to speak and the math bears out as evidence. 

1. Only if those titles are misspelled or the diacritical marks are missing/improperly placed. That's not what I asked though. Why do you insist on returning to the view of the Earth as a circle when we know it's not? If the Bible is incorrect in this, why return to it as a source?

2. So your perfect God intentionally left mistakes for us to fix?

3. No, the math does not carry a conclusion of a God or a designer. Long odds don't imply that "magic man done it". They also don't imply that evolution is chance. But I suspect you know that.

It brings this conversation to mind:

Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
Andy Dufresne: Obtuse. Is it deliberate?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1.  Well, if you are going

1.  Well, if you are going to place yourself above language, there's nothing much else to do here.  I challenge you to translate English words ending in "ing" to Spanish.

2.  Mistakes! Good isn't a mistake.  What do you call a mistake on earth?

3.  You are right, the math does not carry a conclusion of a God, even the Hebrew God, but it sure does darken the idea that we came from apes, slimy sludge, or sponges.

"There is a God" Antony Flew

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1.  Well, if

Hesed wrote:

1.  Well, if you are going to place yourself above language, there's nothing much else to do here.  I challenge you to translate English words ending in "ing" to Spanish.

2.  Mistakes! Good isn't a mistake.  What do you call a mistake on earth?

3.  You are right, the math does not carry a conclusion of a God, even the Hebrew God, but it sure does darken the idea that we came from apes, slimy sludge, or sponges.

"There is a God" Antony Flew

1. So they didn't want to use the perfectly good word they had for a spherical object called a ball? . Did the kids play with square balls? Or are you limiting the language to support your argument?

2. Let's see - 13% of the land is capable of growing food, Humans eat through the same hole we breathe through and have an easily confused epiglottis. the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own. Need I go on? If there is a designer, he does poor work. Are you sure you want to make that claim for your God?

3. Again with the straw man? Evolution does not make that claim (despite what Hovind or Comfort claim).

4. Why does it figure that you'd take the word of a man ravaged by senility who had a book written about him by a lying sack of shit named Roy Varghese?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. So they didn't want to

1. So they didn't want to use the perfectly good word they had for a spherical object called a ball? . Did the kids play with square balls? Or are you limiting the language to support your argument?

2. Let's see - 13% of the land is capable of growing food, Humans eat through the same hole we breathe through and have an easily confused epiglottis. the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own. Need I go on? If there is a designer, he does poor work. Are you sure you want to make that claim for your God?

3. Again with the straw man? Evolution does not make that claim (despite what Hovind or Comfort claim).

4. Why does it figure that you'd take the word of a man ravaged by senility who had a book written about him by a lying sack of shit named Roy Varghese?


1. For what it's worth:  http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm

2. Sounds like you would like to live elsewhere.  How about Jupiter or Neptune?  Really, even if you believed God didn't create earth, this is a beautiful planet.  And the construction of the human being is wonderful in my opinion.  BTW, I'd love to live forever without getting old and pick 30 as my age.  However, reality tells me that I don't have a flies chance of making it beyond 100, let alone 70 or 80.  I value life, it is a gift and I had no say in it, yet here I am today.  That's wonderful especially when you consider (in my opinion) the alternative of not existing at all.  For sure, that which is given life, no matter what it is, eventually degrades and dies (or at least goes dormant for awhile).  You don't despise living do you?  I doubt it - haven't met a person yet that isn't thankful for being above ground daily.

3. Evolution claims it can be proven statistically and scientifically - yes?  As you are so quick to ask of a theist, I ask, "where's the proof?"

4. I know nothing about Mr. Varghese, and I certainly wouldn't stoop to what I will term as neanderthal language (not being rude to you, I just don't understand its place and use, doesn't do anything for me except wonder why the person using it can't communicate differently).  I only put the link there in response to the links you shared.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. So they

Hesed wrote:

1. So they didn't want to use the perfectly good word they had for a spherical object called a ball? . Did the kids play with square balls? Or are you limiting the language to support your argument?

2. Let's see - 13% of the land is capable of growing food, Humans eat through the same hole we breathe through and have an easily confused epiglottis. the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own. Need I go on? If there is a designer, he does poor work. Are you sure you want to make that claim for your God?

3. Again with the straw man? Evolution does not make that claim (despite what Hovind or Comfort claim).

4. Why does it figure that you'd take the word of a man ravaged by senility who had a book written about him by a lying sack of shit named Roy Varghese?


1. For what it's worth:  http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm

2. Sounds like you would like to live elsewhere.  How about Jupiter or Neptune?  Really, even if you believed God didn't create earth, this is a beautiful planet.  And the construction of the human being is wonderful in my opinion.  BTW, I'd love to live forever without getting old and pick 30 as my age.  However, reality tells me that I don't have a flies chance of making it beyond 100, let alone 70 or 80.  I value life, it is a gift and I had no say in it, yet here I am today.  That's wonderful especially when you consider (in my opinion) the alternative of not existing at all.  For sure, that which is given life, no matter what it is, eventually degrades and dies (or at least goes dormant for awhile).  You don't despise living do you?  I doubt it - haven't met a person yet that isn't thankful for being above ground daily.

3. Evolution claims it can be proven statistically and scientifically - yes?  As you are so quick to ask of a theist, I ask, "where's the proof?"

4. I know nothing about Mr. Varghese, and I certainly wouldn't stoop to what I will term as neanderthal language (not being rude to you, I just don't understand its place and use, doesn't do anything for me except wonder why the person using it can't communicate differently).  I only put the link there in response to the links you shared.

1. Link back at you - http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-really-think-a-sphere-is-a-circle-you-really-think-that/

2. I didn't say it wasn't beautiful. I said that humans adapted to the planet and that it was not designed for us by an omnimax being. It was not well-designed - I gave you examples. "Beautiful" and "wonderful" mean nothing. If something looks good but doesn't work well - it's poorly designed. Saying the human body is poorly designed doesn't imply a death wish either. You might wish me dead but that's another tale. 

3. Bull - Evolution makes no claims of proof. What it has is mountains of evidence in its support that have not been refuted in the last 150 years of scrutiny.

4. Sorry for the language. It ticks me off when people take advantage of those with diminished faculties.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. I agree with your author

1. I agree with your author that "the Scripture isn't there to attest to the Bible's scientific accuracy".  If you did, we would all be grasshoppers (Isaiah 40:22).  I will not argue that the Bible says that the earth and all its surroundings were made in 6-days - I wasn't there - neither were you.  But I will simply state, there is a creator, and there's a reason why we're here today. I would NOT call a box a square - unless you drew it that way on a piece of paper.

2. I didn't claim that you said the earth wasn't beautiful, just seemed you were a bit upset about it.  That's a problem typing words instead of talking face-to-face.  Don't ever assume I wish you dead - you are dead wrong!  <smile>  How would you have designed the universe and its inhabitants?

3. Not qualified to discuss - I just don't believe it, as you don't believe the creation stance.

4. Accepted.  Not sure what you meant by the second sentence, but know that I'm never trying to be smart, overbearing, a know-it-all, or whatever.  I'm just discussing.  If you met me in person, you would know that immediately.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. I agree with

Hesed wrote:

1. I agree with your author that "the Scripture isn't there to attest to the Bible's scientific accuracy".  If you did, we would all be grasshoppers (Isaiah 40:22).  I will not argue that the Bible says that the earth and all its surroundings were made in 6-days - I wasn't there - neither were you.  But I will simply state, there is a creator, and there's a reason why we're here today. I would NOT call a box a square - unless you drew it that way on a piece of paper.

2. I didn't claim that you said the earth wasn't beautiful, just seemed you were a bit upset about it.  That's a problem typing words instead of talking face-to-face.  Don't ever assume I wish you dead - you are dead wrong!  <smile>  How would you have designed the universe and its inhabitants?

3. Not qualified to discuss - I just don't believe it, as you don't believe the creation stance.

4. Accepted.  Not sure what you meant by the second sentence, but know that I'm never trying to be smart, overbearing, a know-it-all, or whatever.  I'm just discussing.  If you met me in person, you would know that immediately.

1. It still doesn't explain why Isaiah chose to use the word for "circle" when he knew and had used the word for "ball". I mean, if a god was telling me about all the things he did, I'd want to get the words right. That way, interpreters wouldn't have to jump through hoops to say "Well, God really didn't mean that..."

2. Not upset in the least. I just don't believe that the world was made expressly for humans to live on. I also have a hard time with why a "perfect" being would make something that he just considered "good". How would I have designed it? If I had full access to the knowledge that God supposedly has, I'd like to think I'd put something more efficient together. Interchangeable parts, comes to mind - also getting rid of the need to eat and breathe through the same opening. Taking the entertainment system out of the waste treatment business would also be a plus.

3. I don't believe creation because the evidence for a creator isn't there. I accept evolution because there is evidence that it happened and is still going on.

4. Flew was losing his mental faculties and began to consider himself a Deist. I have no problem with Deism. Varghese wrote a book saying that Flew accepted the Christian God and slapped Flew's name on it. Flew didn't remember much of what was put in the book. WLC and other Christian apologists ran like crazy with this lie.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1.  Can be as easy as the

1.  Can be as easy as the language available at that time.  It's a mute point for me.  There was a point in human history where the King's English reigned supreme, thee's, thy's, and thou,s and interesting words like "leasing".  We don't use them any more.  I guess you can see that I really don't have a problem with the word 'circle.'  The Bible isn't written by God, it is written by men inspired by God.  So, you will find bad advice (in the case of the Book of Job), and other ideas that people spoke that do not line up with orthodoxy.  Oh heck, why didn't they just say planet!

2.  This earth wasn't made expressly for humans to inhabit.  God just told them to take care of it.

3.  Ok!

4.  Ah, ok, I'm back on track - phew!  Opinion about Blaise Pascal (not his wager).

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1.  Can be as

Hesed wrote:

1.  Can be as easy as the language available at that time.  It's a mute point for me.  There was a point in human history where the King's English reigned supreme, thee's, thy's, and thou,s and interesting words like "leasing".  We don't use them any more.  I guess you can see that I really don't have a problem with the word 'circle.'  The Bible isn't written by God, it is written by men inspired by God.  So, you will find bad advice (in the case of the Book of Job), and other ideas that people spoke that do not line up with orthodoxy.  Oh heck, why didn't they just say planet!

2.  This earth wasn't made expressly for humans to inhabit.  God just told them to take care of it.

3.  Ok!

4.  Ah, ok, I'm back on track - phew!  Opinion about Blaise Pascal (not his wager).

1. I might agree with you if Isaiah hadn't used the word for ball in his work. Or are you saying Isaiah was written over a long period?

2. Good - you're not into the anthropic principle. Did he tell them to take care of it or hold dominion over it and subdue it? Two different things. 

4. Pascal? I don't have a major problem with substance dualism (I'm not a pure materialist). When you add in the soul, though, you break with substance dualism and that becomes a problem for me. It means you have to add in another step for a god to enter.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. Best estimate for the

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
RE: How many did God kill vs Satan?

Yes, the God of the Bible has been responsible for many deaths (in accordance with His method of justice).  I might be a bit thick here (won't be the first time), but are you suggesting that if I am to believe that there is an Almighty God, and that He created man, that God is ultimately responsible for the death of all men?

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. Best estimate

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hesed

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:jcgadfly

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hesed

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:jcgadfly

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hesed

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:jcgadfly

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hesed

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:jcgadfly

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hesed

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

1. Maryland, retired, but I'm a sleezy contractor.

2. Christians & forgiveness...Christians do need to repent.  Hebrews 6:1 tells us that, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God".  Ephesians 4:31 tells us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."  And, one more, 1 John 1:8-10 says, " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. I am a sinner and I have a carnal mind, I am reminded of it daily as, like Paul describes in Romans 7, I, too, see that at work in me.  I am far from perfect and I do need to forgive, be forgiven, and repent.  Repent meaning do a 180 degree turn around and leave that issue behind.  Yes, it seems as though it's an exercise in hand-washing, but it really is more than that.

3. Glad I'm recognized as different!  Glad you are still here discussing.

4. Sorry, I should have included "is God" in my Islam statement.  "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9-11). IRT Trinitarianism...well, it's not something you are going to find as a doctrine espoused by anyone in the Bible; however, you and I both know that it does have roots in certain passages of the NT where all three are present or appear as working on their own, but as one.  I believe there is validity; however, I can't really prove it.  All I can attest to is Him working in me (externally and internally).

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:jcgadfly

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

1. Maryland, retired, but I'm a sleezy contractor.

2. Christians & forgiveness...Christians do need to repent.  Hebrews 6:1 tells us that, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God".  Ephesians 4:31 tells us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."  And, one more, 1 John 1:8-10 says, " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. I am a sinner and I have a carnal mind, I am reminded of it daily as, like Paul describes in Romans 7, I, too, see that at work in me.  I am far from perfect and I do need to forgive, be forgiven, and repent.  Repent meaning do a 180 degree turn around and leave that issue behind.  Yes, it seems as though it's an exercise in hand-washing, but it really is more than that.

3. Glad I'm recognized as different!  Glad you are still here discussing.

4. Sorry, I should have included "is God" in my Islam statement.  "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9-11). IRT Trinitarianism...well, it's not something you are going to find as a doctrine espoused by anyone in the Bible; however, you and I both know that it does have roots in certain passages of the NT where all three are present or appear as working on their own, but as one.  I believe there is validity; however, I can't really prove it.  All I can attest to is Him working in me (externally and internally).

Christians need to repent even though:

The verse you cite in Hebrews speaks against it? It says one should press on toward maturity and leave repentance behind.

The verse in Ephesians says to not continue to do those things - where does it say you have to own up to your past misdeeds against others?

The i John passage and Romans 7 seem to support my view of forgiveness? - "forgive me Lord, I can't help it - I have a carnal mind"

---

You also have to remember who wrote the majority of the NT - Paul and his converts. They wanted to deify Jesus and wrote to that effect. Paul wasn't writing about a person in his works.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2407
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Try this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

1. Maryland, retired, but I'm a sleezy contractor.

2. Christians & forgiveness...Christians do need to repent.  Hebrews 6:1 tells us that, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God".  Ephesians 4:31 tells us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."  And, one more, 1 John 1:8-10 says, " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. I am a sinner and I have a carnal mind, I am reminded of it daily as, like Paul describes in Romans 7, I, too, see that at work in me.  I am far from perfect and I do need to forgive, be forgiven, and repent.  Repent meaning do a 180 degree turn around and leave that issue behind.  Yes, it seems as though it's an exercise in hand-washing, but it really is more than that.

3. Glad I'm recognized as different!  Glad you are still here discussing.

4. Sorry, I should have included "is God" in my Islam statement.  "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9-11). IRT Trinitarianism...well, it's not something you are going to find as a doctrine espoused by anyone in the Bible; however, you and I both know that it does have roots in certain passages of the NT where all three are present or appear as working on their own, but as one.  I believe there is validity; however, I can't really prove it.  All I can attest to is Him working in me (externally and internally).

Christians need to repent even though:

The verse you cite in Hebrews speaks against it? It says one should press on toward maturity and leave repentance behind.

The verse in Ephesians says to not continue to do those things - where does it say you have to own up to your past misdeeds against others?

The i John passage and Romans 7 seem to support my view of forgiveness? - "forgive me Lord, I can't help it - I have a carnal mind"

---

You also have to remember who wrote the majority of the NT - Paul and his converts. They wanted to deify Jesus and wrote to that effect. Paul wasn't writing about a person in his works.

 

 

                  Stop hitting the quote button and just reference the post number.   Just an idea.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:jcgadfly

Jeffrick wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

1. Maryland, retired, but I'm a sleezy contractor.

2. Christians & forgiveness...Christians do need to repent.  Hebrews 6:1 tells us that, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God".  Ephesians 4:31 tells us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."  And, one more, 1 John 1:8-10 says, " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. I am a sinner and I have a carnal mind, I am reminded of it daily as, like Paul describes in Romans 7, I, too, see that at work in me.  I am far from perfect and I do need to forgive, be forgiven, and repent.  Repent meaning do a 180 degree turn around and leave that issue behind.  Yes, it seems as though it's an exercise in hand-washing, but it really is more than that.

3. Glad I'm recognized as different!  Glad you are still here discussing.

4. Sorry, I should have included "is God" in my Islam statement.  "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9-11). IRT Trinitarianism...well, it's not something you are going to find as a doctrine espoused by anyone in the Bible; however, you and I both know that it does have roots in certain passages of the NT where all three are present or appear as working on their own, but as one.  I believe there is validity; however, I can't really prove it.  All I can attest to is Him working in me (externally and internally).

Christians need to repent even though:

The verse you cite in Hebrews speaks against it? It says one should press on toward maturity and leave repentance behind.

The verse in Ephesians says to not continue to do those things - where does it say you have to own up to your past misdeeds against others?

The i John passage and Romans 7 seem to support my view of forgiveness? - "forgive me Lord, I can't help it - I have a carnal mind"

---

You also have to remember who wrote the majority of the NT - Paul and his converts. They wanted to deify Jesus and wrote to that effect. Paul wasn't writing about a person in his works.

 

 

                  Stop hitting the quote button and just reference the post number.   Just an idea.

You mean the way you did just to toss in your two cents?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2407
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
to #329

 

 

 

 

                                      Yes!

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote button

Sorry about that...often when I try to reply the mechanism that launches the text editor doesn't allow me to respond.  I get a white text box and I can't type into it.  I can only add a subject and that's it.  Same thing happens if I do a 'reply'.  Nutty...  Any of you having that problem?  I use Firefox.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. No one is sure if Paul

1. No one is sure if Paul wrote Hebrews; however, one of Paul's messages to the church was 'grow up', become mature.  You should be eating meat, yet you are still drinking milk as a babe.  Why put Christ back up on the cross in order to repent, again (Hebrews 6:6)?  That's what sin does.  His act on the cross was supposed to make the believer clean.  If the believer sins...they are unclean and despise the very blood of Christ shed for them.  The goal is to become more like Christ.  Leaving the past life of sin behind and be transformed into His likeness.  The message of Hebrews isn't suggesting that a believer depart from repentance, it is encouraging the believer to move on from carnality and be transformed.  Will a believer ever achieve that?  The answer is 'no'.  However, there is nothing stopping a believer from trying to respond to righteousness instead of carnality.  I quoted Ephesians to bring home the point of "get rid of".   How does one do that?  Take a bath?  Shower and scrub really hard until you rip your skin and bleed?  No, you ask for forgiveness and turn away from it (turning away is the act of repentance).  1 John and Romans 7 bring home the point that a believer is a sinners - not really different than those who don't believe and will struggle with sin.  Christians are not perfect people.  If that were true - it would really show - don't you think?  Becoming a believer isn't a fairy wand act of God.  Yes, belief provides forgiveness and belief provides justification (I am now justified in Christ - I have been judged and found clean through belief).  Now I must be sanctified (made holy) - this is impossible in human terms, that's why the blood of Christ is so important.  The righteousness of God is imputed to the believer through the atonement sacrifice of Christ available to anyone who would believe (John 3:16).

2. IRT to your suggestion that Paul's message deifies Christ - well, they believed Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man.  Man doesn't raise the dead, God does.  Man can't make a leper clean, the lame walk, or the blind see, God does.  God doesn't sin or bleed, man does.  God doesn't ask to be saved, man does ("take this cup away from me&quotEye-wink.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
All these assertions must feel emphatically true

Hesed wrote:

Man doesn't raise the dead, God does.  Man can't make a leper clean, the lame walk, or the blind see, God does.  God doesn't sin or bleed, man does.  God doesn't ask to be saved, man does ("take this cup away from me&quotEye-wink.

Hes, but I contest the order of your assertions. God doesn't raise the dead, clean the leper, give the blind back their sight - but man does. God doesn't answer prayer but man does. God does not save but man does. God does not run into a burning building to save his fellow man but man does. God never sacrificed his life for those he loved but man does. God does not cure cancer but man does. God does not reach into the womb to save the life of an unborn child but man does.

When you're on a surgeon's table Hes, ask yourself who it is you're really depending on for your life. And stop trademarking the best parts of humanity. It belittles you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
AE!  Hi.  Well, I can see

AE!  Hi.  Well, I can see your point.  We see in the natural, we're blind to the supernatural.  So, the surgeon, yeah, he went and got an education, but that doesn't make him/her a Ben Carson, MD.  Nor does it make him/her a cardiac specialist.  I believe that man can learn anything, but he will always be outdone by another who actually has a gift in a certain area, such as the human heart.  I play at guitar, but I recognize that although I can play it (somewhat) I'll never reach the heights of the Spaniard who plays for pleasure in Plaza Mayor in Madrid or even come close to the musicianship of Michael Hedges.  I'm one of these jack of all trades people (master at none), but I do know people who are musicians, artists, singers, craftsmen, who don't have my skills and I theirs.  Where does the ability for a 6-year old child to play piano at Carnegie Hall come from?  How about Mozart?  Maybe I'm not realizing my capacity to learn, after all the brain is magnificent and under utilized for sure, and maybe I can achieve, but something else is making me tick, pushing me toward something I didn't think I had a talent to do so.  You are intelligent, and from what I gather, have a knack for writing and editing, not only that but also focus on electronics/technology.  I know computers, been in them and around them all my life, but I could never write about them - just fix them.  That was a learned skill; however, I have a knack for fixing electronic things, always had a deep interest in radios and propagation - unlearned, so I decided to follow it.  It took me a long way.  Yes, I had to learn along the way, but it was easy.  So while you and I can expound on the best parts of humanity, and how wonderful it is, I will also say that there's something behind it that we cannot see, but we can acknowledge, and those things given serve man for a purpose.

Always a pleasure talking with you.  Hey, put in a good word down there, I want to see "The Hobbit" produced!!!  Smiling

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. No one is

Hesed wrote:

1. No one is sure if Paul wrote Hebrews; however, one of Paul's messages to the church was 'grow up', become mature.  You should be eating meat, yet you are still drinking milk as a babe.  Why put Christ back up on the cross in order to repent, again (Hebrews 6:6)?  That's what sin does.  His act on the cross was supposed to make the believer clean.  If the believer sins...they are unclean and despise the very blood of Christ shed for them.  The goal is to become more like Christ.  Leaving the past life of sin behind and be transformed into His likeness.  The message of Hebrews isn't suggesting that a believer depart from repentance, it is encouraging the believer to move on from carnality and be transformed.  Will a believer ever achieve that?  The answer is 'no'.  However, there is nothing stopping a believer from trying to respond to righteousness instead of carnality.  I quoted Ephesians to bring home the point of "get rid of".   How does one do that?  Take a bath?  Shower and scrub really hard until you rip your skin and bleed?  No, you ask for forgiveness and turn away from it (turning away is the act of repentance).  1 John and Romans 7 bring home the point that a believer is a sinners - not really different than those who don't believe and will struggle with sin.  Christians are not perfect people.  If that were true - it would really show - don't you think?  Becoming a believer isn't a fairy wand act of God.  Yes, belief provides forgiveness and belief provides justification (I am now justified in Christ - I have been judged and found clean through belief).  Now I must be sanctified (made holy) - this is impossible in human terms, that's why the blood of Christ is so important.  The righteousness of God is imputed to the believer through the atonement sacrifice of Christ available to anyone who would believe (John 3:16).

2. IRT to your suggestion that Paul's message deifies Christ - well, they believed Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man.  Man doesn't raise the dead, God does.  Man can't make a leper clean, the lame walk, or the blind see, God does.  God doesn't sin or bleed, man does.  God doesn't ask to be saved, man does ("take this cup away from me&quotEye-wink.

1. Put Christ back up on the cross? In modern Christianity, they never give him a chance to leave. Look at the hymnody - "There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel's veins", "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the Blood of Jesus","Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood; Would you o’er evil a victory win? There’s wonderful power in the blood."

They may talk about how cool the resurrection was but they sing about an ubelievable blood hunger.

2. If by they, you mean "Followers of Paul's new religion", I agree. If you include the people who followed Jesus as the Messiah (including the disciples he traveled with) such a thought was an abomination.

3. God gets a lot of credit for man's work in science and medicine that he doesn't deserve. You also forget that Jesus was god as well (if you follow the story) when he asked for the cup to pass - did he lose Godhood at that moment?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
We're blind to the supernatural

 

Hesed wrote:

AE!  Hi.  Well, I can see your point.  We see in the natural, we're blind to the supernatural.  So, the surgeon, yeah, he went and got an education, but that doesn't make him/her a Ben Carson, MD.  Nor does it make him/her a cardiac specialist.  I believe that man can learn anything, but he will always be outdone by another who actually has a gift in a certain area, such as the human heart.  I play at guitar, but I recognize that although I can play it (somewhat) I'll never reach the heights of the Spaniard who plays for pleasure in Plaza Mayor in Madrid or even come close to the musicianship of Michael Hedges.  I'm one of these jack of all trades people (master at none), but I do know people who are musicians, artists, singers, craftsmen, who don't have my skills and I theirs.  Where does the ability for a 6-year old child to play piano at Carnegie Hall come from?  How about Mozart?  Maybe I'm not realizing my capacity to learn, after all the brain is magnificent and under utilized for sure, and maybe I can achieve, but something else is making me tick, pushing me toward something I didn't think I had a talent to do so.  You are intelligent, and from what I gather, have a knack for writing and editing, not only that but also focus on electronics/technology.  I know computers, been in them and around them all my life, but I could never write about them - just fix them.  That was a learned skill; however, I have a knack for fixing electronic things, always had a deep interest in radios and propagation - unlearned, so I decided to follow it.  It took me a long way.  Yes, I had to learn along the way, but it was easy.  So while you and I can expound on the best parts of humanity, and how wonderful it is, I will also say that there's something behind it that we cannot see, but we can acknowledge, and those things given serve man for a purpose.

Always a pleasure talking with you.  Hey, put in a good word down there, I want to see "The Hobbit" produced!!!  Smiling

 

"We see in the natural, we're blind to the supernatural..."

 

This is a sort of cognitive get out of gaol free card that allows all knowable truth to be shunted off into a siding in favour of your beautiful feeling, Hes. When you dive down that rabbit hole I can't bring myself to follow you into the realms of what is truly, imagination.

We really are god, you know. He has the best qualities we have - only all the time. God really is made in the likeness of man. He loves like us, he angers like us, he (allegedly) forgives like us, he creates like us, he's even tempted as we are. Name one definable quality god has that is not possessed by humans - discounting the undefinable things like omniscience, omniprescience, holiness, perfection (on a scale of what?), eternal (oh - that's off the scale), and so on.

I've been reading a bunch of great paleontology books lately. You know - people who spend their lives on hands and knees in Greenland looking for fish with wrists. If you're going to dice with the historical-critical method and swallow Eusebius' personal version of The Jewish Wars you can't discount the truth laid down in sedimentary rocks.

Yeah - look. They'll make The Hobbit. No doubt they'll wring every drop of juice out of it and grind its bones to make more bread. I liked Lord of the Rings but it was adventures in stupid. Who would have thought Edoras would be the size of Boughton-on-the-Water? And sending horses against those Oliphant contraptions - why? The cavalry should have scuttled into the castle and left the Loxodonta's scrabbling at the 600-foot high walls with their weeny trunks.

Still - there's a simplicity to the Hobbit tale that should make it a more intimate and enjoyable experience than LOTR's annoying struggle between good and evil played out over the re-sizing of some cloaken twat's whispering horcrux.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. Christianity is not made

1. Christianity is not made up of cannibals and/or vampires and some might think.  This song, as well as others are not espousing a hunger for blood, it's a remark of thankfulness and praise for the shedding of that blood for sin.  As in the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt where the Angel of Death 'passed over' those homes where the door post and lintel were covered in the blood of a spotless (no defects) lamb, so those that believe in Jesus Christ today are covered by the blood of a spotless lamb led to the slaughter (Isaiah 53).  He's not on the cross, He's not in the grave, He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and one day, He'll return.  That is the promise of Christianity.

3. So Luke, in the first chapter is espousing Paul's religion when he plays back the meeting between Gabriel and Mary saying, "the holy Child shall be called the Son of God" and Matthew, too, when he replays the Angel of the Lord saying to Joseph, "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:   The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us".  And Mark, quoting Peter's response to the question of Jesus, "Who do you say I am?", "You are the Christ" and John - "You are the Holy One of God" and to Martha prior to the raising of Lazarus, ""Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."  The only people recorded in the Bible judging this belief as blasphemy were the scribes, pharisees, and sadducees.

3. God gets acknowledgment, man works, and anyone here worth their salt works hard.  No, Jesus did not lose His Godhood at that moment.  It was a human response to knowledge of what He knew what was about to happen.  He was separated from God at the cross and He acknowledged the separation when He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The separation (as brief as it was) had to occur as God separates Himself from sin, and the sin of the entire world was upon His Son when He was on the cross. The High Priest Caiaphas recognized that when he was quoted to say that, "that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people."

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. Christianity

Hesed wrote:

1. Christianity is not made up of cannibals and/or vampires and some might think.  This song, as well as others are not espousing a hunger for blood, it's a remark of thankfulness and praise for the shedding of that blood for sin.  As in the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt where the Angel of Death 'passed over' those homes where the door post and lintel were covered in the blood of a spotless (no defects) lamb, so those that believe in Jesus Christ today are covered by the blood of a spotless lamb led to the slaughter (Isaiah 53).  He's not on the cross, He's not in the grave, He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and one day, He'll return.  That is the promise of Christianity.

3. So Luke, in the first chapter is espousing Paul's religion when he plays back the meeting between Gabriel and Mary saying, "the holy Child shall be called the Son of God" and Matthew, too, when he replays the Angel of the Lord saying to Joseph, "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:   The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us".  And Mark, quoting Peter's response to the question of Jesus, "Who do you say I am?", "You are the Christ" and John - "You are the Holy One of God" and to Martha prior to the raising of Lazarus, ""Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."  The only people recorded in the Bible judging this belief as blasphemy were the scribes, pharisees, and sadducees.

3. God gets acknowledgment, man works, and anyone here worth their salt works hard.  No, Jesus did not lose His Godhood at that moment.  It was a human response to knowledge of what He knew what was about to happen.  He was separated from God at the cross and He acknowledged the separation when He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The separation (as brief as it was) had to occur as God separates Himself from sin, and the sin of the entire world was upon His Son when He was on the cross. The High Priest Caiaphas recognized that when he was quoted to say that, "that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people."

1. Never said they were blood-drinkers. It is odd that they spend so much time on it though (especially since blood sacrifices are no longer required). It's almost as if Christians are saying "Come to Jesus and be saved. All you have to do is pray for forgiveness and He'll open a vein to cover your sins. If you sin, you can come back and get more - as many times as you need it."

2. Luke was providing a backstory that made Jesus as one of the savior-gods that he ans Paul knew so well  Remember, this religion was created by a Roman and fleshed out by Greeks. Not a Jew in the bunch. The Gospels were also notoriously anti-Pharisee because villains were needed to give Paul's religion a paranoid feel - "they know I'm right - that's why they're attacking me." In reality, the Pharisees didn't really care that much about the Jesus movement because they were still following the Torah. Jesus actually embraced many Pharisaic teachings. Why would the Pharisees attack a brother who taught as they did?

3 It is interesting that you invoke Jesus as the sin offering because it so violated the rules of the sin offering. Jesus wasn't female and he didn't claim rulership over Israel. If you want to call him the scapegoat, he shouldn't have died.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. Didn't accuse you of such

1. Didn't accuse you of such - just remarked.  It depends on what church and how you were brought up.  Christianity is saying that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  He doesn't have to open a vein, His blood has already been shed

2. They attacked Jesus because He made Himself out to be God (as they understood God to be).  False prophets were to be stoned according to Jewish Law.

3. The scapegoat was used to confess the sins of the people transferring their blame upon it, then the goat was set free into the wilderness where God would choose not to remember their sins no more.  Christ was not the Scapegoat, but it was symbolic of His act.  Jesus is the sacrificial Pesach Lamb.  He was led outside the camp (Jerusalem) and slaughtered.  His blood, like the Pesach's lamb, can be applied to anyone professing belief.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. Didn't accuse

Hesed wrote:

1. Didn't accuse you of such - just remarked.  It depends on what church and how you were brought up.  Christianity is saying that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  He doesn't have to open a vein, His blood has already been shed

2. They attacked Jesus because He made Himself out to be God (as they understood God to be).  False prophets were to be stoned according to Jewish Law.

3. The scapegoat was used to confess the sins of the people transferring their blame upon it, then the goat was set free into the wilderness where God would choose not to remember their sins no more.  Christ was not the Scapegoat, but it was symbolic of His act.  Jesus is the sacrificial Pesach Lamb.  He was led outside the camp (Jerusalem) and slaughtered.  His blood, like the Pesach's lamb, can be applied to anyone professing belief.

1. Blood drinkers - blood bathers. Is there that much of a difference. It's still ghoulish to bring it up. Especially if it's unnecessary.

2. Except that Jesus didn't make himself out to be God until the Gospels were written (long after his death). If Jesus was  existed, he would have called anyone accusing him of being God a blasphemer as well.

3. Passover now, eh? Problem there is that lamb isn't a sacrifice. It does lead in to the Catholic belief of eating Jesus though. Also, if you want to lead people away from Christianity as a blood cult, you shouldn't use the example where blood was used like exterior latex.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. Well, I'm not sure what

1. Well, I'm not sure what church(es) you might be referring to.  The one that I have been part to has sang about the blood of Christ maybe 10 times in 20 years.  And the songs are more about the power and cleansing.  It's not that people are ghoulish or thirsty, it's more of an exclamation and thanksgiving to the blood shed that day.

2. I don't agree with you.  Too many statements made by Him about His relationship to the Father, and what was recorded does not show Him denying that He is from God.  The Jews understood.  If they blew Him off, he would have never been accused of blasphemy.

3. Right!  No temple, no sacrifice - so the Jews have a problem atoning for sin under the Levitical Law.  The Catholic belief (Transubstantiation) takes a lot of faith in my opinion.  They have taken a couple of Scriptures to make their case that is difficult especially in light of Him saying, "Do this in remembrance of me."

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:1. Well, I'm not

Hesed wrote:

1. Well, I'm not sure what church(es) you might be referring to.  The one that I have been part to has sang about the blood of Christ maybe 10 times in 20 years.  And the songs are more about the power and cleansing.  It's not that people are ghoulish or thirsty, it's more of an exclamation and thanksgiving to the blood shed that day.

2. I don't agree with you.  Too many statements made by Him about His relationship to the Father, and what was recorded does not show Him denying that He is from God.  The Jews understood.  If they blew Him off, he would have never been accused of blasphemy.

3. Right!  No temple, no sacrifice - so the Jews have a problem atoning for sin under the Levitical Law.  The Catholic belief (Transubstantiation) takes a lot of faith in my opinion.  They have taken a couple of Scriptures to make their case that is difficult especially in light of Him saying, "Do this in remembrance of me."

1. I grew up in the Pentecostal Holiness tradition. They love them some "Blood" songs. I don't think I went a service without singing at least 3-5.

2. No surprise in your disagreement. The gospels were written with an anti-Jewish (particularly anti-Pharisee) bent. After all, they were Pauline converts and Paul was a wanna-be Pharisee who didn't have the skills. So he embellished his resume and made the Pharisees out to be the bad guys (with the help of his converts).

3. My problem doesn't stem from that. It stems from if you want to use Jesus as the Passover lamb or the sin offering in a way that the Jews would understand it, don't you have to at least make an effort to play by their rules? This shows more of Christianity as being a replacement for Judaism (the creator's (Paul) intent) as opposed to Judaism with Jesus being messiah (Jesus and his disciples' intent).

Much of points 2 and 4 came from Maccoby's "The Mythmaker". so you know I'm not pulling entirely from between the glutes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
1. I missed out on all

1. I missed out on all that.  I am part of a Pentecostal church (Assemblies of God).  Our music service is more contemporary and includes hymns.

2. Your comment regarding Pauline converts doesn't make sense to me.  It seems the basis for the argument is on archeological find, i.e., we have letters of Paul that are written earlier (not much) than the Gospel accounts.  The possibility exists that more copies of these accounts can or will be found - what happens to the argument when an earlier Gospel account is unearthed?  Meanwhile, we have martyr's (too numerous to count - although Foxes Book is good and Voice of the Marytr's is keeping record), over 65M members in the AoG alone, etc.  It just doesn't make sense or line up with me to have something so false and so many converts.  In my time on earth I've seen false movements rise and fall, and none of them has sustained the record of Christianity (This includes secular notables).  These statistics isn't what drew me in.

3. As some have noted within these forums, God may meet expectations, but He certainly doesn't have to satisfy them.  The God of the Bible set up the rules of Passover, not the Jews (they were just to keep the festival going, and did so poorly).  There are numerous prophetic statements regarding a person that will come (throughout the OT), some detailed, some allusions, etc.  The NT is a witness to those prophetic statements.  Each year that goes by archeologists are unearthing more evidence mentioned in the Bible.  There is a very interesting dig going on now that is located in east Jerusalem.  Passover is the marking of the door posts and lintels with the blood of a spotless lamb.  Those that did escaped death.  According to the Bible, Jesus is that lamb.  Very hard, in fact down right difficult for me to be convinced that the Bible is just a book of conspiracy with a little truth added for flavor.

I have found some interesting references to Maccoby and that book.  I'm looking into it more.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
2a. Paul's accounts preceded

2a. Paul's accounts preceded the gospels. The writers of the gospel were Greek and not Jewish. For me that makes it more likely that they were converted by Paul than by Jesus who they never met. Paul preached Christianity. Jesus and the apostles followed Judaism.

2b. The "no one would die for something they knew to be false" is a good one...if they knew it to be false. If the followers don't know their beliefs to be false, it's amazing what those beliefs can do. Whether they salesman of Christianity knew it was false, that's another issue. I believe Paul knew what he was creating and why he created it. He wanted to be known as the founder of the religion that replaced Judaism.

3a. Again, your claim that God set up the rules for painting with blood doesn't help you in your claim that the Abrahamic religions look like blood cults.

3b. There is another possibility concerning the OT prophecies being fulfilled in the NT - good researchers. The gospel writers had access to the OT and wanted to show Jesus as the son of God as Paul taught so they went through the p"prophecies and wrote Jesus so he fulfilled them.

3c. I find it harder to believe that one man and one man alone was able to fit all of those claims with 100% perfection (as is claimed) without a little help from his fan club and his ghost writers.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
2a.  Your argument only

2a.  Your argument only holds because early manuscripts have not been found.  I find this argument weak.  For me, Paul's writings follow the Gospels, not vice versa.  Yes, Jesus and His Apostles were Jewish.  Jesus spoke against the white-washed walled religiousity of Judaism.

2b. Christian martyr's died for something they believed true.  I agree with your statements about misguided beliefs (Jonestown comes to mind).

3a. I don't remember claiming that from the times of Abraham Jews were blood thirsty.  They were following a law concerning sin - that's all.  The Bible clearly shows that God set that law in action.

3b. Good researchers...I find it interesting the amount of credibility given to Nostradomus.  Yes, Gospel writers probably did have access to OT writings.  What did OT writers have access to?

3c. Well, that's it isn't it.  The NT proclaims Jesus Christ, 100% man, 100% God, lived sinless, died for the sins of the world, and defeated death.  Man could never accomplish such a feat.  If I could, I would, but I know I can't, can't even measure up - all I can do is bow down.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:2a.  Your

Hesed wrote:

2a.  Your argument only holds because early manuscripts have not been found.  I find this argument weak.  For me, Paul's writings follow the Gospels, not vice versa.  Yes, Jesus and His Apostles were Jewish.  Jesus spoke against the white-washed walled religiousity of Judaism.

2b. Christian martyr's died for something they believed true.  I agree with your statements about misguided beliefs (Jonestown comes to mind).

3a. I don't remember claiming that from the times of Abraham Jews were blood thirsty.  They were following a law concerning sin - that's all.  The Bible clearly shows that God set that law in action.

3b. Good researchers...I find it interesting the amount of credibility given to Nostradomus.  Yes, Gospel writers probably did have access to OT writings.  What did OT writers have access to?

3c. Well, that's it isn't it.  The NT proclaims Jesus Christ, 100% man, 100% God, lived sinless, died for the sins of the world, and defeated death.  Man could never accomplish such a feat.  If I could, I would, but I know I can't, can't even measure up - all I can do is bow down.

2a. Only because Paul's converts placed those words in Jesus' mouth. As for earlier manuscripts, I don't see that happening but it would be interesting to see what changes were made from then to now.

2b. People dying for their beliefs doesn't make those beliefs true. We don't know for sure that Paul was martyred (we only have Christian tradition and even then we have Paul claiming his purchased Roman citizenship to his benefit.

3a. I never claimed the Jews were bloodthirsty. I said the Jewish God and the religion it spawned was bloodthirsty. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

3b. The OT researchers likely had access to the myths and laws that were old when their civilization was young. Why do you assume they lived in a cultural vacuum?

3c. Yep, that's it all right. You have your belief and that's cool. I couldn't change your mind if I wanted to. I can still wonder why you claim Jesus as the figurehead for a belief system he would find heretical.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wondering Soul (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Who is God

I find it interesting, that so much death is based on God, yes even so.

My thought is this God is from the heavens and cloned us and did alot of things to us, such as our lifespan.

So it is a technological God, and now we are seeing this thru our own advances. And we would be Gods to some other people with technolohgies.

So it is a FACT that we have been visited by others and they control us, now it is the time to fiquire out who and what is involved. And to overcome that which enslaves us to want to be divided among ourselves and fight always , just as the hebrews did and still do.


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
2a. Very hard to believe for

2a. Very hard to believe for me.  The Isaiah manuscripts found in the Qumran caves would seem to indicate there was great care in preserving the original text.  We'll see ...

2b. Whether they died for a true/false belief, the reason they did deserves closer inspection and respect (not suggesting you are showing disrespect).  Jonestown people were deceived and some got away and now we know better.  To choose death, imo, takes real substance, belief, and courage.  Japanese Kamikaze pilots are a good measuring point.  They died for something they were convinced was right.  US military veteran's have also paid the price for an equal belief, although most deaths were a result of action and not suicide (as Kamikaze pilots).  Some US veteran's did choose to die so others might live.  Paul did not purchase his citizenship.  He was born in a Roman province.  Here's the text I believe you are referring to.  It was taken from the NASB (Acts chapter 22), "25 But when they stretched him [PAUL] out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned ?" 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, "What are you about to do ? For this man is a Roman." 27 The commander came and said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman ?" And he said, "Yes." 28 The commander answered, "I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money." And Paul said, "But I was actually born a citizen."  It was the Roman commander who said that HE acquired Roman citizenship through money, not Paul.

3a. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, just trying to flush out the subject.  I apologize.

3b. I don't assume that anyone lived in a vacuum, although we do know that some did.  We have OT prophets telling their scribes to write.  Looking at the time span and what might have been available to them seems incredulous that Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc would have had access to anything more than the Torah.  Both Isaiah and Jeremiah had minor prophet contemporaries such as Micah and Habbakuk, and others, but not each other.

3c. Yeah <smile>, you're right - I'm convinced, just as, or dare I say even more, convinced that you in your beliefs.  For sure, Christianity, as I have found, isn't all about head knowledge.  For what good is head knowledge if the 18" connection to the heart is severed.  I, as well as others, were not convinced because of what the Bible says, we were convinced through experience, then knowledge.  The note found sown in Pascal's jacket is quite interesting.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
There was nowhere near the

There was nowhere near the care taken for the NT as the OT. The ones who like to talk about the "great number of copies" we have of the Bible also like to count fractions of pages as full copies.

As for why people die for beliefs, in this case isn't it obvious? They believed they were going to a place of eternal happiness to be with their deities. The Kamikazes and the guys who flew into the WTC and the Pentagon felt the same way.

As for Paul's Roman citizenship by birth - he was lying. It also didn't hurt to have a friend rewrite the resume. The people of Tarsus weren't granted Roman citizenship until after Paul was born and it wasn't retroactive. There were plenty of instance recorded where he was willing to lie to save his bacon.

So do you affirm or deny that the religion fronted by Yahweh is bloodthirsty?

They had the myths of other civilizations and some of it could just be imaginative fiction. The prophets weren't trying to be prophets originally. They got retrofitted in the role.

When the head is removed, heart knowledge doesn't help either. Personal experience would be easier to buy if it didn't vary with the person - especially if this God is trying to the same thing for each. I have a hard time with anyone who is trying to sell me something by saying "Buy it first and then I'll tell you what it's for".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Hes

Hesed wrote:

For what good is head knowledge if the 18" connection to the heart is severed.  I, as well as others, were not convinced because of what the Bible says, we were convinced through experience, then knowledge. 

 

Could you define the word 'heart' for me in this context? How can there be a division between head and heart?

There's knowledge and there's knowledge. One is data about reality. The other is the knowledge you are talking about - the interpretation of events in the real world as having an additional spiritual/supernatural context.

These 2 things are not the same at all.

Reifying the physical world around you is all very well but only if you recognise that this is what you are doing.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck