Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Adam did not have a biological father.And neither did Jesus according to you and the bible. Go back and read what YOU wrote earlier in this thread.
Wow! You are finally starting to get it. (Smile and a Gold Star for you) Jesus did not have a biological father. He had a biological Mother. Not so a father. His Father is spiritual. No biology there.
Yet Luke 3:38 records that Adam was the son of God.Yes it does, doesn't it. So your only son of god- begotten or otherwise doesn't really hold water does it..
I guess you will need to explain why you come to that conclusion. God the Holy Spirit breathed into Mary and she conceived. Jesus was begotten. He certainly came from somewhere. He was not a figment of anyone's imagination. Mary carried him for 9 months. Yet as you point out - there was no biological father.
Begotten - I suppose means sired. From the same substance.Which indicates a male a reproductive male when speaking of birth.It simply means bring into being or existence, cause to bring about,including sired: cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth.
I suppose it could mean a male reproductive person. And if we were talking about a human father, everything you wrote makes sense. Except the bible doesn't say the father was human. Jesus had no biological Father. From the same substance is important. I doubt that you have read any of the discussions at the Council of Nicaea - but the matter of whether Jesus' substance was of the same as God the Father was a focal point.
I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that says Adam was "begotten".There are a lot of things that the bible falls short on (those half stories I often mention) and you often object that atheist plea to silence..
It is true that an argument from silence is not compelling for or against. You asked the question about Adam and put "begot" into the same sentence. I don't think he was begotten biologically. Adam was made by God but he was not begotten in that sense since he did not have a mother. He was formed from the earth and God breathed into him. Jesus had a biological Mother - but no biological Father. Adam had neither biological parent but he did have a creator.
Interestingly,....the Council of Nicaea, the discussions in relation to how to describe the birth of Jesus, was around whether to say he was made or begotten.Maybe the didn't understand synonyms?
If you read the scripts - you will know that they very much did understand synonyms and very much it was a focal point of their discussions about whether to say Jesus was made or whether he was begotten.
Arius wanted the word made. The Council ruled against him. Eternally begotten was the wording determined for the creed.Arias had his reasons - and so did Athanasius, both were careful students of the Scriptures and came to different conclusions.So even they couldn't make their minds up and simply came to a compromise then?
I am sure you can read. The Council did make up their minds and did not come to a compromise. Arius was turfed out as a heretic and Athanasius won the day. The Church council concluded rightly in my view that Jesus was eternally begotten. Not made or created. He was of one substance with the Father. And eternal.
And using your own guesses and pleas to silence, someone had to have biologically fathered the child even if we are are talking test-tube babies or artificial insemination.
Wow - it appears you have now gone back on what the rational and reasonable conclusion. Jesus had no biological father.
Point is your ONLY son of god is proven to be bullshite and you know it.
Not at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Adam did not have a biological father. Yet Luke 3:38 records that Adam was the son of God.
Begotten - I suppose means sired. From the same substance.
I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that says Adam was "begotten". He was said to be made or created.
Interestingly, reading the dialogues that occurred during the Council of Nicaea, the discussions in relation to how to describe the birth of Jesus, was around whether to say he was made or begotten. Arius wanted the word made. The Council ruled against him. Eternally begotten was the wording determined for the creed.
Arias had his reasons - and so did Athanasius, both were careful students of the Scriptures and came to different conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Throwing more derogatory names at me makes this your second childish posts in a row.
What derogatory name did I call you? I don't believe I called you any such terms.
The closest thing to derogatory was in relation to a comment you made - which I said about the comment - was it was a bigoted comment to make. Yet it didn't infer or imply that you were bigoted. Although I suppose an overly sensitive person might see it that way.
Let me correct your thinking that I was calling Joseph a deadbeat dad.I was calling the genocidal prick Yahweh that.
Ah that is what you meant. Ok. I disagree but that is your opinion. Good for you.
Now go away as I have no time for those like you.I am trying to improve my style and you are not worth my time.
Given this is a topic I posted - I am not going away. Please feel free to ignore me but that is a matter for you.
I concur it would be good for you to improve your style. As for me being worth your time, well, again that is a matter for you. You decide for you - what is valuable for you. Yet if you post on this topic, I am and will respond if I think it is necessary to correct your errors. Have a pleasant afternoon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecret wrote: Joseph was not a deadbeat. He taught Jesus his trade. He was THE carpenter in town. Not just a carpenter.Why would Joseph need to teach Jesus, a Royal in the line of David and Solomon, the craft of carpentry?
Hello Stephen, long time no banter. At least here you ask a genuine question. And I am prepared to answer.
Joseph was a carpenter, despite being of the royal line of David. Yet there is no indication that this meant that their every need was supplied by the public purse. Teaching Jesus the same craft was about many things. It is good to work and earn money. Again there is no evidence that the line of David was receiving any funds from the public purse. Working to earn money - however they might be - was necessary. Especially given that they did not have welfare like we do in many countries today.
Tradesecret wrote: God had one son.Not according to the bible. You are simple plain lying.
Well I suppose I could have said only begotten son, but I was responding to GnosticBishop's comments "We can also make many children while Yahweh can only make one."https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7655/post-links/335142 - hence it is not a lie since - I was replying to a comment someone else made. good try old chap - but really sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
What I find funny about the virgin birth, is that it was ever accepted by people.People have to see Joseph as being cuckolded by Yahweh, who was practicing bestiality to reproduce a chimera half bred son.People would also have to see Yahweh as a deadbeat dad, given that he screwed off after impregnating Joseph's wife.Reproduction wise, man is greater than God, because we can reproduce true and not just a chimera from an inferior species.We can also make many children while Yahweh can only make one.
Miracles have that affect on people. I find it funny that people like you exist.
Your second line makes no sense whatsoever. As is your third line. The conception of Jesus had nothing to do with sexual intimacy. It was God breathing the breath of life into Mary - no different in kind to God breathing life into Adam in Genesis. Mary was not raped. She was not violated in any manner. Indeed according to her words she is described as the most blessed amongst woman.
Joseph, admittedly was not happy with the situation prior to an angel of God explaining the situation. He was going to divorce her given how unbelievable her story sounded. And until God spoke to him through the Angel, Joseph didn't believe her. And this is the point - it is an unbelievable story. And no-one in the Christian world would have you think otherwise. This is what makes it so profound. And so unique.
Joseph was not a deadbeat. He taught Jesus his trade. He was THE carpenter in town. Not just a carpenter.
Your next line also seems to have no real meaning.
God had one son. Are you really suggesting that the amount of children one has makes them superior? That really is a bigoted thing to suggest. Not at all very political correct in our day and age.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
No.What it make me is correct, unless you have a moral argument against my stated position that are superior."Every person is moral."Yep, even Hitler and Stalin, Right?
Do you deny that Hitler and Stalin had morals? Do you think that they were completely amoral?
My view is that both of these men were evil. Both deserve eternal punishment in Hell for ever and a day.
Are they moral? Of course they are. Are their morals different to mine? Absolutely. They hold a different standard to me. As do you? This doesn't make you amoral though. There is no such thing as an amoral person?
You are incorrect therefore. Your argument is illogical and that is all I demonstrated quite well really.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Opinion without argument, and you God is a genocidal prick, be you want to admit it or not.
The God I serve is not a genocidal prick. I don't have a need to admit it or deny it.
Your opinion is premised in the fact that you serve your own god, whoever that is - and therefore all other gods are evil. Especially those who think your God are evil.
Moral people will agree.
Every person is moral. I am moral. Yet I don't agree with your opinion. I guess that logically makes your thought inconclusive. Or redundant. It's a little bit like saying dogs are animals. This is a truism. Yet it is a redundant statement. Perhaps you could have said - all moral people would agree. But that would be categorically wrong, since some moral people don't agree. Hence - your redundant statement or boring statement - "moral people will agree".
So let me add "Moral will people will disagree". Is that wrong or right? Well it is right - since I am a moral person, and I disagree. And you are a moral person - and you agree. hmmm.
A moral dilemma. LOL! Hardly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
The trinity I find to be problematic personally. I see two main issues.
HI MonkeyKing, thanks for your thoughts. You hav only two issues? You are clearly much wiser than most of us - even though who believe in the Trinity have more than two issues with the concept. Let me respond as I see it. This is not a comprehensive response. I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. I am merely indicating that this is how I perceive the issues and how I have come to terms with it.
1. If we take the trinity at face value and say that there are three beings and one God, we run into issues of polytheism which is a big no-no for Catholics and Protestants alike. It would mean that all three physically exist and if they are to be interdependently operating, as they are named and treated differently as one would different physical beings, then there are in fact more than one God. I've been told the basic explanation concerning how they are one God and with God all things are possible, etc. However, if we accept the strange premise that all three physically exist separately yet are one God, then God is schizophrenic and feels the need to create additional versions of himself. A self that, mind you, biblically is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent who wouldn't have any need to do so. He could simply introduce himself as himself, not calling himself his own father, son, and a spirit. It makes no sense and it's all kinds of counterintuitive and contradictive.
The Christian understanding is ONE God, THREE Persons. It would only be polytheistic is there were more than one God. Interestingly, many Catholics and some Protestants aren't that concerned about the idea of many gods. In some quarters, there is a suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church actually is a celebration of any gods and that the hat the pope wears is actually an honour to the fish god. Nevertheless, church doctrine would avow ONE God, THREE persons. Many Protestants too understand that in Heaven there is "the Sons of God", and although not God per se, are beings of such nature that are clearly not heaven. For instance, in the Story of Job, the Sons of God are possibly the jury to whom God is appealing in his defence of Job from Satan. Again, church doctrine would probably in most instances affirm this to be angelic beings.
Three persons operating together and interdependently might be considered strange, yet, not too many people on this planet understand every human and every animal, let alone have enough of an understanding of a Deity they have never seen, to be jumping to how this works or doesn't work. The way I see it, we use his Word, and attempt to see how it fits together. Do we do a good job? Not all the time.
Basically, what you are saying is that the Trinity does not make sense to you on a rational or logical basis. It is too complex. Ironically, some people think God is too simplistic. Others that God is too complex. I think therein lies part of the solution. God is One and God is Three. Ought we be able to understand God completely and perfectly? Ought we be able to put God under a microscope and determine His parts? I for one, would think that if we could do that, then it would contradict everything I thought I knew about God. For me, the Trinity is probably the only concept I have ever come across that potentially provides solutions to many of the most divisive issues in society. A God who is One, such as the Muslim version would not be able to achieve such a position and nor would the Hindu god system of polytheistic, to the extent of pantheism. Atheism as a construct tends towards a polytheistic approach, every individual is their own god. The Trinity is mind boggling and yet it is deceptively simple. It embraces both the ONE and the MANY within a construct that is helpful and illuminating.
2. The entire idea of the trinity is built from Catholic precedent which means either A. You are a protestant and apostate from the Catholic(or other Protestant) church yet continue to follow their beliefs under the premise it needs reformation as a result of corrupt or imperfect men and so new protesting religions were created by (sometimes) corrupt and (always) imperfect men in an attempt to rectify holes in doctrine. Does this mean if I, or you, or anyone who doesn't like what we see from a particular protestant belief such as trinitarian doctrine and attempt to correct it without some level of divine intervention are correct in doing so? Or possibly are we making the same mistake that we are attempting to correct ourselves? It's all self-defeating and results in pulling doctrine from a previous group that they would condemn themselves as a result of the ideas of men. or B. You are a Catholic pulling this belief from the Councils of Constantinople and Nicaea whose ideas did not come to pass as a result of unanimous agreement but rather through vote and possible intimidation as some simply did not sign and, not to disparage Catholics, but very rarely is Catholic doctrine built upon scriptural precedent but rather cultural and traditional circumstance.
Respectfully, that logic is premised in an idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Before the RCC ever became a thing, there was the early church of the Apostles. A church which was conceived in eternity but was born at Pentecost. The ideas that came to Nicaea and the council to be formulated officially, were circling along in the church from the very beginning. It was not the RCC who determined the Trinity or who made it up or who borrowed it from some pagan sect.
The Christian Religion self-consciously claims to be the true heirs of the ancient Jewish System. The Ancient system believed in ONE GOD, yet its writings confirmed over and over that the GodHead was unique and not altogether as we would expect. Even in the first chapters, God talks to himself - and makes humanity in "our image". How can a singular god make anything in its image and refer to itself as a plural? This has led some to think that there were more than one god. Others have suggested God was using the royal we. Some has thought he was talking to the angels. Yet this is not the only time that God refers to himself as "we" or "our". When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra He appeared to Abraham, as three angels. Or did three persons of the Godhead appear as three men. Or were there just one - "pre-incarnate picture of Christ" and two angels? The OT has many occasions where this idea of God being plural arises. In the beginning of the book of Ezekiel with all the wheels and machinery, a human head is put on God. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man who is in blazing glory appears to himself as he is described in Revelation 1. Do any of these things say "Trinity"? Perhaps not. But do any of these contradict the idea? No.
The Christian message is that God reconciles himself to humanity through Christ. Christ in the Christian message is another contradiction. Fully God and Fully Man. A true mediator had to be both God and Man. Not just a god. Not just a man. A man's death would not and could not atone for the sins of the world. Yet a God could not truly represent humanity in mediation.
For the early Christians, this however was a mystery. And the early church literature is full of the questions pertaining to this mystery. No one wanted to be a heretic. Everyone wanted to have integrity with the truth. People fought over it and many died. Factions took place. These factions still exist in the world today in one form or the other. The Christians knew Jesus was God - for him not to be God made no sense and a mockery of their salvation - and yet - how could Jesus be God if there was only one God. That made no sense either. Nevertheless, just because for many people it did not make sense, did not mean that they would just throw it away as too hard. When the Holy Spirit was thrown into the mix - and the Spirit was clearly more than just a power - but someone with emotions and someone with thoughts, it became even more difficult.
I also reject the idea that everything within the Catholic Church was bad or terribly thought out - or should be rejected. Even Martin Luther was saved from within the Church. Unless, he was able to access the truth of God, his conversion would never have occurred.
As a whole the trinity just lacks any sense of realism regarding God and if anything seems like an excuse or attempt to avoid associating with polytheism. That, or to appease existing belief that has perpetuated over the years and folks aren't all the interested in hearing they've been thinking about God all wrong their whole lives so everyone just nods their heads, smiles, and accepts that God is three different people but one God but physically has three different guys going around doing different things who talk to each other who are all one God and one of the three is the son of the other but they're the same and the different ones are referred to with differing levels of reverence but they are equal but one is charge of all of them and us and they all have their own names but are all God. Yeah.
I don't agree. I think the Trinity has more realism than most other things and that is because it is the only concept that is covenantal in basis. The One and the Many. The individual v the whole. The ends and the Means. The destination and the journey. It is the epistemological concept which explains why every nation in the world is neither completely command nor market - but a mixed economy. It is the only concept which gives meaning to freedoms and boundaries. To life and to death.
Yes, it is not easy to explain. Is it a contradiction? Only if you wish to rely upon Platoistic methodology and reason. The Eastern methodology has more creative ways of expressing logic than the West. But even here we need to appreciate the differences between rock and water logic. Is it any surprise that the notion of the Trinity arose - at least historically in the Middle East. Neither the West nor the East would have been able to conceive of it. It is unique. And as such it needs to be explored with a more nuanced model that either Western Logic or Eastern mysticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pat_Johnson
even I thought the theologian listing these was stretching in some cases.That is why I proposed to pick 5 of them and debate that 5 in particularbut as you opt to not debate it due to your busy schedule, we can discuss and assess it here (on forums) but not 5 of course. It is better to go 1 by 1.Yet to DENY any and all of them is just being silly. Your assertion that every one of them is either taken out of context or mistranslated is coming from a place of prejudice, not understanding.To think even 1 of them is matched by Jesus is based on imposed popular myths, not understanding. It is open to be discussed. 9 years ago, I have analysed all of such assertions, like from 365prophecies.com etc. I discovered even thousands of assertions.The passage you selected from Micah is a good example of your prejudice. The passage is referring to Bethlehem as the place where the messiah would be born. This is where the religious scribes of Herod and indeed most of Israel understood the birth of the Messiah was going to be.Jesus does not match that whomever it is talking about: In order to claim someone matches Micah 5:2, that someone must have ruled over Israel because the verse talks about someone who will rule over israel will be born in Bethlehem.The prophecy then is whether the messiah was born in Bethlehem -not whether specifically he was going to be the rule of a political kingdom of Israel. Ruling is actually a separate prophecy. But surely you knew that!The one that is stated to be born in Betlehem in Micah 5:2 is, in the same verse, said to rule over Israel. Both of these attributes belong to the same person. To claim someone matches it, someone must have had both of them: 1) Born in Betlehem 2) Ruled IsraelMessiah is not specifically a political figure. Yes, it could be, I suppose, but not specifically.Messiah beig political or apolitical has nothing to do with Jesus matching or failing to match the verse.Now you may not believe or care about the church. Yet the church, and every Christian denomination in this world declares that Jesus is the king of the church. This whether you agree is a good thing or not is a very large organisation - which is larger than any country in the world today. It is a kingdom. ...This kingdom - spiritual kingdom - has been ongoing for at least 2000 years and will continue on as the largest religion in this world until at least halfway through this century. Maybe longer. History has a strange way of doing things.The verse is talking about RULER OF ISRAEL, not ruler of a Platonic, spiritual or some kind of international institution.Now, I may seem non-constructive in these writings of mine but my intention is to make people realise that prophecies Jesus is asserted to have fulfilled are distortions. Such seemingly minor details (like Kingdom of Church vs Ruler of Israel) are important nuances to realise them.
I'm not sure why you seem to think this might be non-constructive. You didn't actually raise anything to refute any of what I said.
At the moment, you are doing what you suggest of others, asserting. Assertions is not evidence.
Obviously, these things are open to discussion, hence the name of the topic. But given that it is a subject open to discussion, means ipso facto, that NO ONE can demonstrate on either side of the discussion, the other side is wrong. Or simply based on popular myth. That would be to put the cart before the horse. Now having an opinion is one thing. Asserting it is truth is another.
Your 9 years of research is helpful for you. It however is not authoritative for anyone else. (Just Saying)
Micah 2 for instance has a couple of prophecies contained within it. One is that the person - whoever it is must be born in Bethlehem. Another one as you have pointed out is that they must rule "Israel". They are two separate - although related - but clearly separate as well. Many people have ruled Israel that were not born in Bethlehem. Think of all the kings including Herod who have ruled Israel.
I would also suggest that "ruling Israel" is a term that may have many interpretations. If the term is simply politically and nothing more, then some might have a point about whether Jesus is valid or not. If he was not crowned as king in Jerusalem and had his royal office, then any so called ruling is clearly called into question. I would suggest that is a simplistic reading of it.
Messiah is clearly more than a political figure - (if he is even considered one at all) he is also the representative of God, a spiritual being. His ruling will of necessity be in line with whatever God would perceive, not necessarily a human point of view. It is interesting that Jewish History prior to the appointments of kings to the land had people - judges - who ruled but were not kings. Ruling in that sense was not as a king - but as a judge ruling. Not at all the same as our judges in our modern world. They were figures that God raised up for such a time as they were in. Were they anointed? Yet they were considered rulers? Jesus according to the gospel stories had quite a following - disciples - and many would say he arose in a time that was needed for what the "rulers" and judges were about.
In the Gospels stories for that matter, we also had Pilot, Rome's man in Israel. A very powerful man. He according to the Gospels, spoke with Jesus - and after hearing Jesus declare he himself was a king, though not of this world, seemed to become quite wary of this man. The words he commanded to be written and placed upon Jesus' head on the cross - were "this man is the King of the Jews" are significant. Of course the Jewish leaders - at least the religious ones said - Jesus is not our king, just write, this man says he is the king of the Jews.". Obviously this same question you are raising - was being debated back then in both the political world and the Church world.
How can Jesus be a king if he was not the ACTUAL king of Israel? That is one of the questions of the ages.
You can try and dismiss the church as some weird platonic institution, but I won't. And many others don't. The OT was never going to keep God's kingdom to a national level. It was always going to be international. The Church by the way is not platonic. It grew very naturally out the OT Jewish religion, which itself sprang from an older one that goes all the way back to the beginning.
Micah is a prophecy in line with all of the other prophecies in the OT. It is not and never was meant to be solely based on a national race. Yes, the Messiah would come from that line. Jesus was a Jew. Or do you deny that as well. Unless we read the entire context of the Bible, and see it was always about God reconciling the entire world to himself, then we will end on various lines.
But thanks for your thoughts. Interesting, not necessarily novel, but interesting that these thoughts go around and around. It is good for people to read your words and form their own conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
We can start with the 4 classic ones which have to be fulfilled in order for us to know that the person is, indeed, the promised king messiah (he doesn't get that title before these are fulfilled).-He must build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)-He must gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Is. 43:5-6)- He must usher in an era of world peace and bring an end to hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:4)- He must spread the knowledge of the G-d of Israel, uniting the entire world as one (Zechariah 14:9)
Hi rosends,
As always you provide interesting information.
Before we commence looking at these prophecies, a couple of things, firstly, can you provide your source for where the messiah does not get his title before these things are completely fulfilled. I assume you mean totally and absolutely fulfilled. And secondly, is it not within the purview of the Jewish religion to see someone as the messiah elect, like some of the king elects, prior to assuming the kingdom. For example, within the Ancient Hebrew kingdom, some kings were kings at the same time as their father and in at least one case, their grandfather. This also occurred in other nations such as Babylon. Hence, my question is - if someone was potentially the messiah and was in part fulfilling these prophecies, would it be incorrect to name that person as the Messiah, meaning not has completed all things necessary to obtain that title, yet is so far on the way that we have every indication that this person is indeed the messiah.
Furthermore, what does the name messiah mean?
Once you have addressed these questions, then given the information, and what you mean, then perhaps we can address further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pat_Johnson
If you had read my words prior to listing these examples, you would have noted that even I thought the theologian listing these was stretching in some cases. Yet to DENY any and all of them is just being silly. Your assertion that every one of them is either taken out of context or mistranslated is coming from a place of prejudice, not understanding.
The passage you selected from Micah is a good example of your prejudice. The passage is referring to Bethlehem as the place where the messiah would be born. This is where the religious scribes of Herod and indeed most of Israel understood the birth of the Messiah was going to be.
Herod was concerned that this messiah was going to rule politically.
The prophecy then is whether the messiah was born in Bethlehem -not whether specifically he was going to be the rule of a political kingdom of Israel. Ruling is actually a separate prophecy. But surely you knew that!
Messiah is not specifically a political figure. Yes, it could be, I suppose, but not specifically. It is true that many Jewish people then and sadly many fundamental Christians do the same thing in our time, think that messiah is a political figure. Yet the Bible is not primarily about politics. Yes, it speaks to it at times. As it does to a whole range of subjects. Yet, primarily the messiah was to be a figure who was spiritual and a voice of God. I acknowledge that the today's modern Jews might disagree with this.
Now you may not believe or care about the church. Yet the church, and every Christian denomination in this world declares that Jesus is the king of the church. This whether you agree is a good thing or not is a very large organisation - which is larger than any country in the world today. It is a kingdom. Yes, it has its share of corruption. It is often divided on some issues. It often fights with each other and the world. Yet, it is a kingdom. To deny this is to put your head in the ground and say - "I can't see anything". You may say "he is dead" if he ever existed. You may say - we just can't go and see him. That is a different question. The first one I disagree with completely. I hold to the FACT that Jesus is alive. Not in faith - although faith is part of it I concede. Yet, the facts for his resurrection from the dead is from all of the possible and plausible alternatives - the best fit of all of the evidence. In relation to the second part, it is true that we cannot just go and beg an audience with Jesus face to face. Yet, I don't have any issue with delegation even if you do. I can't just walk into the Queen's office to talk to her. I can't just walk into the president's office. To do so requires lots of authority. To walk into the office of the king of kings is not straightforward either. As Christians we can enter into his throne room in prayer. Yet, otherwise it is going to be a lot more difficult. Again I note the differences - but do not concede that such differences prevent it from being a kingdom.
This kingdom - spiritual kingdom - has been ongoing for at least 2000 years and will continue on as the largest religion in this world until at least halfway through this century. Maybe longer. History has a strange way of doing things.
I do not want to debate you or any other person. I have had just two debates while on this forum. On both occasions, either I or the other person were unable to actually attend the entire debate for other reasons. Hence I won one by default and I lost the other by default. Both were interesting questions to debate but unfortunately - due to the practicalities of running a debate over an extended period of time with deadlines - makes such debates in my view - unhelpful - if fun for a moment. I am happy to discuss this on the forum or even by pm if you prefer. I am quite busy most of the time. And have become increasingly so over the past couple of months. I rarely even visit this site at the moment.
Yet I appreciate your comments. It is sometimes rare to find people who will discuss without resorting to name calling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Excellent - what are these four or five prophecies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pat_Johnson
To begin with, there is no even a single prophecy Jesus matches but let us ignore it.
No let's not ignore this little gem of yours. Here is a list I found in Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine by a theologian I don't even agree with most of the time. I also think some of these are perhaps a bit of a stretch. Yet to say that not EVEN one of these was fulfilled is a much bigger stretch. More than that - it is simply untrue.
Genesis 3:15, born of a the seed of a woman, Galatians 4:4.
Genesis 12:2-3, born of the seed of Abraham, Matthew 1:1.
Genesis 17:19, born of the seed of Isaac, Matthew 1:2.
Numbers 24:17, born of the seed of Jacob, Matthew 1:2.
Genesis 49:10, Descended from the tribe of Judah, Luke 3:33,
Isaiah 9:7 heir to the throne of David, Luke 1:32-33
Daniel 9:25, time for Jesus' birth, Luke 2:1-2
Isaiah 7:14, born of a virgin, Luke 1:26-27
Micah 5:2, born in Bethlehem, Luke 2:4-7
Jeremiah 31:15, Slaughter of the innocents, Matthew 2:16-18
Hosea 11:1 Flight to Egypt, Matthew 2:14-15
Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1, preceded by a forerunner, Lukw 7:24,27
Psalm 2:7, Declared the Son of God, Matthew 3:16-17
Isaiah 61:1-2, Came to heal the broken hearted, Luke 4:18-19
Isaiah 53:3, rejected by his own people, John 1:11
Psalm 110:4 A priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 5:5-6
Zechariah 9:9, the Triumphal entry, Mark 11:7, 9, 11
Psalm 41:9, betrayed by a friend, Luke 22:47
Zechariah 11:12-13, Sold for 30 pieces of silver, Matthew 26:15, 27:5-7
Psalm 33:11, accused by false witnesses, Mark 14:57-58
Isaiah 53:7, silent to accusers, Mark 15:4
Isaiah 50:6, spat upon and smitten, Matthew 26:67
Psalm 35:19, hated without reason, John 15:24,25
Isaiah 53:5, vicarious sacrifice, Romans 5:6,8
Isaiah 53:12, crucified with transgressors, Mark 15:27, 28
Zechariah 12:10, hands pierced, John 20: 27
Psalm 22L7-8, scorned and mocked, Luke 23:35
Psalm 69: 21, Given vinegar and gall, Matthew 27:34
Psalm 109:4, prayed for his enemies, Luke 23:34
Psalm 22:18, soldiers gambled for his coat, Matthew 27:35
Psalm 34:20, no bones broken, John 19:32-33, 36
Zechariah 12:10, side pierced, John 19:34
Isaiah 53:9, buried with the rich, Matthew 27:57-60
Psalm 16:10, 49:15, would rise from the dead, Mark 16:6-7
Psalm 68:18, would ascend to God's right hand, Mark 16:19
I will return to the rest of your post when I have a moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pat_Johnson
The virgin birth was one of the signs so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the messiah? It does not make any sense.Imagine you are Jew, say, in the year 29 CE. You met someone named Jesus of Nazareth, a Messiah claimant. How could you know that he was born virgin? Prophecies are to be observed so that you can detect it occurred. How could I be watching each and every newborn and say "it is from virgin".This prophecy is never verifiable for outsiders, but then how is that a prophecy? :)
Hi Pat,
Actually the bible does not use the virgin birth as one of the signs "so that people can know that a certain individual is indeed the Messiah". People in Jesus' time in the main were not aware of the passage from the OT. Some were. But not the main. Some of the scholars (around the time of Herod the Great) knew the approximate time of the Messiah's birth and the region he was to be born. Presumably, they along with most of the ordinary people in Jesus time were aware of the approximate time of his coming - (this explains why everyone was expecting a messiah at that time) but what was generally known is that the messiah would be of David's line and born in David's town - Bethlehem. Hence the often heard cry, Son of David.
The virgin birth is used by the writers of Matthew and Luke to demonstrate the validity of Jesus as the Messiah using ancient prophecy. This wasn't however something necessarily know to the ordinary person - but probably only to the readers of the OT (Greek version). How many could read? I don't know.
Hence, your scenario is quite apt - especially if the virgin birth was being used to verify Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, Mary his mother was often with Jesus, so she could testify to it. Yet, I doubt she ever did - except to Joseph her husband, Elizabeth her cousin and possibly Jesus and the writers of the gospels. Sometimes it suggested Jesus never referred to the Virgin Birth. And in one sense - a strictly literal reading of the gospels this is true. Yet it is also clear from the passages that Jesus was very much aware of it - since he assumed and proclaimed that God the Father was his Father. That his home was not on this planet - and that his kingdom was not of this earth. His very message conveyed the idea that his father was not Joseph, a human father, but that his real father was a divine one. It also is evidenced in his baptism by John the Baptist as priest. Jesus was a Judean. Not a Levite. Why would he be ordained to be a priest unless - both John the Baptist and Jesus both knew his lineage was unique?
I have a sneaking suspicion - not one based in the NT that his family all knew. I doubt it was hidden. Yet, probably not too widely advertised because of how ludicrous and improbably and foolish sounded.
It actually didn't need to be verified to prove his messiahship. It was already done so in the Prophecies - that is all that was required.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Homosexuality is an evolved socio-psychological condition, relative to procreational satisfaction within a recreational format.So not so much a disorder, but rather an evolved condition.So sort of a nurtured nature.
I assume that you have the studies to back that up. Please link to them so that I can read it as well.
I would disagree that it is an evolved condition. I reckon that almost since the beginning of humanity that homosexuality has been a thing. Not evolved - but with a very long history.
I am bemused by the interesting label - nurtured nature. It's a little bit like Bob Hope's bet each way. Are you old enough to know who Bob Hope is?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I think Homosexuality is a mental disorder. A problem with in the brain itself. Like any other non debilitating mental disorder. No need to debate me on it, that is what I think. It is abnormal behavior compared to the vast majority in nature in all species.
Are there studies that support that homosexuality is a mental disorder or are you a psychologist? I'm not debating you. Just interested in how you formed your conclusion that homosexuality is abnormal.
For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a mental disorder. Yet I would agree that using ordinary statistical analysis, homosexuality does fall outside of the norms of heterosexuality. Not in type of its essence but in terms of quantity only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No banning here.
Not sightseeing the world like Stephen and his better half.
Just busy - a little away in the NSW floods.
But mostly that - busy.
nice to be back. for a while.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
LOL @ Wylted.
Christianity in my view is the legitimate successor of OT and ancient Hebrew religion.
Jesus was the promised messiah, and his death and resurrection ushered in the age to come. A Church Age which will continue until the second Advent.
Interestingly, the Old Covenant with Israel was taken from them and given to the Church because the Jewish nation rejected Christ.
The Church commenced as a Jewish sect and then embraced the new age bringing in Gentiles from every land. Pentecost the symbolic picture of this in the NT.
When the temple was destroyed in AD 70, the Jewish culture and religion which had been struggling with all of these events and its rebellion since Christ came, effectively brought the Old covenant of Jewish religion to an end. No more temple, no more sacrifices, no more links to history with all of its records destroyed in the temple. It's heart and soul was ripped out.
Christianity of course - was able to continue since its teachings included specifically an everlasting sacrifice provided by God himself. In a temple - of people not stones.
The Jewish people were in a dilemma. What shall we do? Of course the Jewish people are resilient. They have had times in the past where the temple has been waylaid and even destroyed. But this time was different. Other times this destruction was the result of their rebellion against God - they knew it. And eventually they repented of their sins and came back to God.
But what sin had they committed this time? What rebellion was so bad it warranted the destruction of their temple again? That's the difference. They couldn't see it. Instead they blamed the Romans and the Christians - and couldn't see their own sin - the rejection of the Messiah.
So since that time the Jewish people have had a religion - but different from the past. I suggest this new type of Jewish religion is a cult as well. Only it is actually younger than the Christians. That's probably a little provocative.
Christianity is the older brother cult of the ancient Hebrew religion. The modern Jews are the younger brother. The Christians however embraced God's covenant with Abraham - father of nations. A world wide religion encapsulating all nations. Christ came and broke down the walls of division. The Jews on the other hand tried to remain as national as possible.
Historically, the Jews have remained a pariah to the world. Sadly, many Christians have spoken ill of Israel and the Jews. At times, people have arisen to try and destroy and wipe the Jewish people of the face of the planet. Sometimes Christians, pathetically and wrongly have helped.
Yet God has a plan for the Jewish nationals. He has not revoked his plans for them.
In a way Wylted is correct, if the Jews had not rejected the Messiah, then the Gentiles would never have been blessed as they have been. They didn't invent Christians. God alone can take credit for this. Yet without this initial rejection of the Messiah, the world would be in a very dark place. The Jewish rejection gave the world light.
Yet, God has not finished with the Jews. Their repentance and return to God will bring about a much greater blessing to this world. But we are not even close to this. the Jews continue to reject the Messiah. They have no intention of accepting Jesus. They have all the reasons to maintain their indifference to the church.
Yet the Jewish people are not foolish. They have a covenant theology. They see where God blesses and where God removes blessing. It has happened in their own history. They have wondered when they saw it in others.
But hey that is my two cents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
“I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, "bring them here and slay them in front of me." After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.….” ( Luke 19:26-28)
I have addressed this verse several times. You just don't like answers. That you don't like my answers is not me running away. What a cop out response. Let me repeat myself -
Firstly, these words in Luke are Jesus' words recorded for all of us to hear. The context as I say repeatedly is important. Jesus is near Jerusalem v. 11. The people around him thought that since the Messiah was here, that the kingdom was going to appear at once. Jesus in his role as teacher wants to correct the people who are around him, calling for the kingdom to come immediately.
Jesus does his teaching in this passage in a form of literature or genre known as a parable. This parable rungs from v. 12 - v.27. A parable is not historical narrative. It is a very different genre. It is different to a poem, it is different from apocalyptic genre. It is a parable.
A parable is a story or an illustration which tells one main point. This point is typically in response to a question asked of Jesus or will be used to teach his listeners in relation to whatever situation is going on.
Here the point Jesus is making is quite profound really. The people are wanting Jesus the messiah to bring in the kingdom immediately - to get rid of the Romans and to establish the Kingdom of God in a political sense. Jesus' ultimate point is that people should be careful what they wish for - for when the kingdom of God is ushered in in a political sense it will mean death and destruction for the enemies of the kingdom. In other words, he is instructing them to consider the here and the now and what Jesus is doing in his time and place 2000 years ago. Jesus was coming to die - to usher in his kingdom, first in the hearts of people, and then ultimately after he returns in a political and comprehensive sense. Basically he is saying to the people - you don't know what you are asking for.
The parable unfolds from v. 12 - a nobleman went to a foreign land to have himself appointed as king and then to return home to his own country. We don't know from this story why or how this was going to take place. Or whether this is legitimate or not. v.13 tells us that he called his servants together and gave them some money and told them to invest it or to work it. This appears to be the case before he leaves his original country on his way to be appointed king. He just says "work the money until I return". v.14 informs us that his subjects hate him and send a delegation after him - saying "we don't want him to be our king". We don't know why the subjects hate him. We don't know whether it is a legitimate reason or not.
v.15 tells us that despite the subject's delegation and their hatred for him that this noble man was made king anyway. The king returned home and sent for his servants to see what he had gained from their work.
v.16 -25 then explores this aspect of the parable - of the work that his servants did while he was away. The first one did well and was rewarded. The second one did well - but not as well as the first one, but was still commended and appropriately rewarded. The third one came and said he had not invested or worked the money but rather put it away in a cloth. He then explained why he did this in v. 21. "I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take what what you did not put in and reap where you did not sow."
v.22, the king replies. He calls this man wicked. He tells him he will be judged by his own words. His response is to say - if you really believed your excuse, why didn't you do what I asked you, rather than nothing. This short section really doesn't tell us much about the king except he is insightful. It doesn't tell us whether he is bad or even hard. The servant obviously is using it as an excuse - but does he believe it? Probably not or he would have acted. v23 -24 further elaborate on this and then provides the consequences of doing nothing.
v.26 informs us that those who are wise with their monies will end up with more and those who are not wise with their money will lose it.
v. 27 then completes the parable. The king now refers not to the servants but to those "enemies of mine". They don't want me to be their king, so let it be so.
Is Jesus referring to himself? Probably. And the parable is not to be taken literally. It is not historical narrative. Jesus is the nobleman who will go back to heaven to claim his crown. He leaves his servants here to continue the work of the kingdom. But there are some who don't want him to be king. The parable talks of a delegation. Obviously not literal in a historical narrative sense. No one has gone up to heaven to say they don't want Jesus to be king. Yet the sentiments are true, here on earth, many people hate Jesus and do not want him to be their king. And they will tell everyone that Jesus is evil and a serial killer and does not deserve to be a king.
Yet Jesus is crowned and made king in heaven.
One day he is going to return. And when he does, he will call his servants to account. How have you been investing in the kingdom of God? And he will reward them according to their work. Some will do well and some won't. Some will find excuses for not investing but simply doing whatever they do.
And then King Jesus will call for all his enemies. All those who have said "we don't want you as our king". And he will give them what they want.
That is the message - be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
It is not a story of a serial killer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
See my response on the Trinity topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
See my response on the Trinity topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
See my response on the Trinity topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Hello Brother,
you are getting frustrated aren't you? Well hopefully soon you will stop being so silly and start discussing things maturely.
Your comments above about me do not have the ring of truth about them. In other words, if what you were saying was true, then this would be a consistent MO for me for everyone I engage with on this forum. The startling and shocking fact for you of course is I engage with EVERYONE else on this site whether they disagree with me or not - or whether their arguments are stronger than mine. I don't accuse anyone else - except Stephen - of being a bully. Or of telling lies.
The only two persons I get into issue with are you and Stephen. No one else. I disagree with SecMerlin often. But the same MO is not there with him. I disagree with rosends - but the same MO is not there. I disagree with Zed, but the same MO is not there. I disagree with Bones but the same MO is not there. I disagree with poly but the same MO is not there. I disagree with almost everyone - yet the same MO is not there.
Surely even you are not so blind that you cannot see that the only persons I respond to with any of the comments above are with you. and with Stephen.
Hence, your continued repeating and regurgitating what everyone else knows is simply thuggery is all that it is.
I suggest you grow up - stop being such a little boy and just interact with everyone - including me - with some respect. the first thing you ought to do is stop playing a part which you ACTUALLY don't believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A straightforward couple of questions.A. What exactly is sin?B. How and why was/were such conclusions decided upon?
Good questions Zed.
Sin is a religious term. It is not a secular term and from a secular or non-religious point of view - the word sin is nothing worth worrying about - because firstly there is no god and secondly, it is all about controlling people by guilt manipulation.
Sin in the Bible - is an offence against God. It is a transgression of His law. It is described as "falling short" of God's mark. Hence, why God cannot sin because God can never fall short of himself.
The bible describes sin in terms of direct actions and omission - and in terms of indirect actions and omissions. It talks of reckless sin and of unintentional sin. Hence it is quite different in nature to just breaking the law - as humans understand - since human laws as a general rule have an intention element.
If we were to consider the 10 commandments. The 6th commandment is you shall not murder. This has both negative and positive character to it. Firstly, the negative - you shall not murder someone. A direct action is to kill someone. An indirect action flowing on from this - is to assault someone, or to threaten someone or to even use abusive words - you are an idiot. These all break the 6th commandment.
Yet, it also has some acts by omission. Not looking after your children by neglect. Not teaching your kids not to be violent or to swear at people. Choosing to look the other way when someone is doing these things. Failing to rally against abortion is an omission. Condoning abortion or even professional matches. One might even argue that attending at a full contact sporting match is a condoning of murder, since it encourages assault.
Similarly not discipling your children - when they hurt someone or call them a name. Watching violent films - is condoning violent behavior.
All of these things fail to live up to the standard of do not kill.
As you can see - everyone has broken this 6th commandment. Sin is pervasive. Sin is overlooked - condoned, mocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You do realize don't you? I don't run away from your posts. I keep coming back and "let the record show", I continue to set up topics so that we might discuss any real theological questions you might have. I am not interested in answering your lies and your intentional slurs on me. If I choose not to answer those questions - it is not a question of running, it is an issue of "it's not worth it". and I don't give a toss about your stupid ideas.
Looking at your post above - I didn't even once go to a page linked. I could care less.
I have started two posts for you to contribute and so far you have given nothing but weak nonsense. Why would I bother going to any other link when you can't even bother with these two?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?
No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic. Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible. It falls down at different levels. A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag.
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway. good better best. something that can good but not gooder. but it can be better.p1. Humans were made morally perfect.p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better.p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations.p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist.Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1.
p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin. Yes I would agree.
p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense. It seems to be that p1 and p2 are essentially the same thing. Either a human is made with out sin or with sin. It is like saying this is pure white. It is inconceivable that anything could be even more pure white.
p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion. I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not.
p.4 This is true.
c.1 can only follow if there can properly distinguish between p1 and p 2 and you are able to justify p 3.
Hence - your assertion that a contradiction arises is not yet proved.
Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil.Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc? Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses.I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.
the point is you have not defined evil. What you think is evil might be different to what Hitler thinks is evil. If your point is that a morally deficient persons lacks some essence, then you need to say that more clearly. What is this essence you are talking about?
If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation.Let me think about that. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil?Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.
I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified. but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children. A government could morally justify destroying a whole city to save a whole country. These are utilitarian outcomes - and justifiable although I think personally the second one is not morally justified. The first one - depending upon the circumstances. the problem for you - which you need to be able to explain - is whether evil is objective or subjective and furthermore - what determines what is morally justified or not? What is the measure of morally justified?
People sin for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness. Desire is not the common factor.Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something?
no I am not in agreement. Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins. For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others. People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose. The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc.
Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it.
I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain? Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it.I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem.God did not create sin. Sin is not a thing that can be created.It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God.
No - not correct. Sin is an action or an omission. It is a falling short of doing the right thing. God does not create a desire to sin.
What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever. The point is not about us - it is about God.What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus.This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin.You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be?
In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal. In the second place, God did make humans already without sin. You tell me whether there was any harm in making them -
I am still missing your point here. Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make. God ordains the ends and the means. Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"
Yes, I did. And I hold to that. What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory.
p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds
Ok. so where does that leave us? God can do anything that is possible. Although I would also say that omnipotence also means God can do everything that is possible and what ever he desires to do.
The fact is - God chose this world - in its current state. That is the reality. He must have had his reasons. Therefore your c1 is false - since there was a need.
I think there are many explanations in the bible as to why. Many of those are to do with Jesus. Many of those are to do with his grace and love for this world and his Son.
c1 - contains the word need which is not part of the premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors. The trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus. Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one. And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones. I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.This brings up an interesting rhetorical moment. When confronted with a telling of an historical moment which doesn't conform with other documentation, one has the choice -- either to say that the retelling is in error or that the retelling is accurate and it bespeaks something about the people in the story that they didn't follow their own rules. The problem I have is that the entire narrative is so out of sync with Jewish law that one would have to assume a huge conspiracy of willful and intentional transgression by an entire community instead of saying that the retelling is not authoritative. I see the retelling as the problem here instead of casting aspersions on the entire Jewish community. As to the question about the possible corruption of the leaders, it certainly would seem that way by the retelling (but according to Jewish law and lore, the entire basis for the story is flawed and the Sanhedrin being discussed isn't even the Pharisaic sanhedrin) but that seems rather self-serving.
Agreed. It is an interesting rhetorical moment. It's too bad that there are no Jewish documents from the time of Jesus whereas there are many Christian ones. And what I mean by that is in relation to specifically Jewish notions as opposed to Christian Jewish notions. For many of the first Christians were Jews. That of course only adds to the dilemma since as Jews - they have no reason to try and put the Jewish world into disrepute. I honestly, don't think there was widespread Jewish conspiracy. I do hold to the view that there was a conspiracy at the very highest level and probably contained to not very many people at all. Christians are not anti-Jewish (yes, I concede that over the years there have been sadly many Jew hating Christians, but I don't hold that view in relation to the early years of the church.) I don't agree that it is self-serving. It is a little bit like the fact that woman are the first witnesses of the resurrection despite the fact that no one would ever use a Jewish woman to corroborate a story in those times. It's got something to do with the truth. And I say that respectfully knowing it could never be taken positively by someone from the Jewish faith.
So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions?That is a bit of an overstatement. Historically, it is very useful but I think that its value is compromised, by the fact that it is a translation, and one created (in the Jewish opinion) without a divine inspiration and following an agenda which is evidenced by the errors in word choice and in factual errors.
Thank you for your honesty. I am not saying it was a translation of divine inspiration. The story behind it is rather - not the kind of thing I find very admirable at all. Yet, it was widely used and has been considered valuable even despite its errors.
The word ish has other meanings apart from tree. It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit. Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it.The word "ish" doesn't mean "tree" at all and never does. But following your logic, I can claim it does because no where is there a lexicon that lists all the things it doesn't mean, and since, in at least one case, I can insist that it DOES mean that, it must mean that.
Thank you i was beginning to think you were not very good with Hebrew. Etz. Man.
Of course I think you are still misunderstanding my view. I will attempt to explain my position better in future and reply in due course.
but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.I have no idea about the Christian claim about error. I can only look at the Hebrew and speak from a position as informed by the Jewish scriptures. The Jewish view was never that it was an accurate translation. If you state that the Sept was either by or for the Jewish community and they didn't complain then you need to recognize that the text we have of the Sept version of texts after the 5 books of Moses was not by nor for the Jewish community.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Is there any place where the Sept is considered not accurate prior to Jesus? I am not asking whether it was inspired - since I would think that it would need to be either Jewish or Aramaic for that to be the case for Jews. I might be wrong about that. Just saying that in the 21st century Jews would not consider it to be inspired does not necessarily mean that they thought it was in error back in the day. It was widespread even in the Jewish community in the 1st century. Why would any Gentile for instance want a copy of a Jewish bible - even in Greek? The only people who would have needed it or required it were the Greek speaking Jews wherever they were. The fact that it appears so widespread surely shows a real demand for it.
The talmud recounts a version of the story of the translation of the Hebrew text to Greek but is only speaking of the 5 books. There is no reason to think that the LXX that we have of any text after those 5 was EVER accepted by the Jewish community. Once that is the groundwork, then wondering whether anyone when the LXX was assembled and revised saw parthenos as virgin (and not maiden, for example) is speculation. Not until the Greek switches to English (another level of translation mediation) and is fixed as virgin can we be sure that the error was codified. So if you discuss the LXX, then you should stick with the Greek and not a later English retranslation.
Again, I think you are missing the point. Many Jews all over the world were wanting the Hebrew text of the Scriptures in their own tongue - which may well have been - and probably was Greek at that time. The Romans certainly enforced this to some degree. Why then would Jews only want the Talmud in Greek and not the rest of the OT? And just for the record - can you confirm whether the first five books - the Torah was seen as inspired or not - despite it being in Greek?
Did they ever complain that - it was in error or not worth reading? Yes, they might have agreed it was not inspired - but in error? If you are able to link back to that time - sources who were complaining about the Greek text then that would be helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. “He could not be mentioned in the OT because he was not born then.”2. "Now to your thoughts that since Jesus is God and since there is only ONE God, Jesus must have been mentioned in the OT. I suppose you could be right."
Hmm - how is this a contradiction? I suppose a simpleton might make that error. But let's put it this way - so that even you might understand. Although I doubt that you would ever concede the point since it only reveals how inept you are.
Jesus was born in the NT. He could therefore NEVER be referred to by name in the OT.
I will tell you what, if you can find Jesus' name in the OT, I will concede there is a contradiction. And you can have all of the kudos.
If however you can't and are only able to infer that Jesus is in the OT - because Jesus is God - or because Jesus is the messiah - or Jesus is the suffering servant, then I see no contradiction.
Also - saying "I suppose you could be right" is not an absolute statement which is part of the reason I said "I suppose". Suppose is intentionally a non-absolute statement. I know you have problems with primary school grammar - but it is what it is.
I have never denied Jesus is God. Nor have I denied that God the Trinity is in the OT. I also think that God the Trinity is in the NT.
I have maintained and continue to do so - to say that the God we see in the OT is the Trinity. Yes, sometimes revealed as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Spirit. And this is the same in the NT. In the NT however God reveals himself in a visible and human form. Jesus. He did not do this in the OT.
Jesus does not talk about himself in the OT. Yet in every passage - there is never a reference to the name Jesus. It is to be inferred - and interestingly in those references Jesus is not talking about himself as God, but as the Messiah or the suffering servant. There is a possibility that when Jesus used the term "I AM: that he was suggesting he is God. But he doesn't direct us to a passage and he is not saying that he was personally there in the OT in the same body as Jesus.
This is one of the issues with the Trinity. It is not easy to understand.
Having said that - again I repeat - It worries me not about you referring to Jesus as the OT God. I can totally embrace that idea. What I reject entirely as I have said on numerous occasions - is that the God of the OT or Jesus in the NT is a serial killer and I reject categorically that this is a proper characterization of him.
A serial killer is someone who kills for the sake of killing. Sometimes for political gains. Sometimes out of pleasure. Sometimes out of opportunity. God authorized the killing of persons in legitimate situations as a judge. God judged the world in Noah's time and found it guilty. This was the whole world - humans, animals, vegetation. As God. As judge. he had the authority and power to judge and to carry out the judgment. This is not the stuff of serial killers. It is the stuff of judges who exercise moral and holy justice.
What is significant about the story of Noah's flood is that God chose to save anyone. That is the question. It would have been totally appropriate for God to have wiped out everything - the entire world. Yet even in this time when the world had got to its worst - and most evil - God showed mercy and compassion. Yes to a very small number of people. To a very small number of animals.
Exercising judgement as a legitimate and just judge - is not the same thing at all as a serial killer. I get that you hate God. Entirely a matter for you. But mischaracterizing him - well that is on you. God will not be mocked. Your words will not just fall on deaf ears. That is a matter for you. Ultimately it will be a matter for a judge. I suggest that you get yourself a really good lawyer - advocate. I could give you a name - you won't find it in the OT though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I haven't taken off before - to ever do homework for you old boy. I actually can't think of anything you have EVER said that has made me even consider doing some extra reading. Most of what you produce is simply the same old regurgitated internet stuff of primary school kids. I haven't yet seen you produce an original thought. a bit like Stephen really. At least other atheists on this site do some original thinking and this might make me consider other sources.
I do have a day job. I do take time off to go on leave. Sometimes I am away entirely from the internet. Sometimes I have others things to attend too. This forum is not anywhere close to my number one priority. I know it is for you - and kudos to you for that. But really that you take some kind of pleasure that I am away from time to time - only really says how much I get up your nose. I must really say things that upset you. Frustrate you.
Still, I will try better old boy. It is not my desire to upset you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Understood but from the Jewish perspective there are absolute errors. The one people like to talk about is that the Sanhedrin could not meet at night. It is simple to say "well, things were different then" except it is the version of Judaism that the Pharisees taught which states explicitly that trials can't be at night. So saying Paul was a Pharisee just confirms that he would have pointed out that this trial could not have been at night. Was Judaism "different"? Sure, but it was different within parameters that we have written down. How can anyone brag that any of the characters in the gospels studied with Gamliel and yet discount the existence of the laws which Gamliel and his colleagues taught? If stuff is recorded that is not in accordance with the Judaism taught by the Pharisees (which we still use as our canon of law today) then it must be in error. If you are looking for early records of how things in synagogues operated, you should use the same oral law that the Pharisees did.
And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors. The trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus. Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one. And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones. I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.
Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct? I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value.I know the Torah is correct because of faith, and that's it. So I don't use it to prove things outside the text to people who don't understand or accept the text because the simplest response would be "but I don't have faith that it is correct." But if someone tries to invoke the Torah and yet not accept that the Torah is authoritative then that seems hypocritical.
And that is a wise tactic. I raised this because someone suggested I was running away - which I wasn't and I wanted to put it into a post where it could be actually addressed. I take the NT to be correct out of faith too - for me I call that axiomatic. Faith however is not blind faith - but considered faith. I think the Torah is authoritative as well - it is after all the first five books of the Bible.
You have said that the Sept contains errors. You have not said the Sept only has errors.Well, Jerusalem existed, so the textual claim that it existed is not an error. London exists but that doesn't make the "Harry Potter" books an authority on much else.
So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions?
Would you also agree that the Torah has errors?Nope.
good to hear - I reckon Stephen will be able to find factual errors.
I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God. Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid.But that's an important step -- you can acknowledge that you accept the use of virgin because you have faith in the translation in this case, not because there is any textual support elsewhere -- such support would not be necessary by you because you have faith in this particular translational moment. You believe it because it is there and you believe the text in which it is positioned.
It is not a blind faith though.
My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning.But then you accept that "ish" means tree if anyone claims it simply because it isn't explicitly excluded. The fact is, by looking at other uses and non-uses of the word, it is clear that "virgin" IS excluded.
The word ish has other meanings apart from tree. It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit. Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it.
but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.
That is also part of my point. During the years after it was first translated - it was considered as credible. It was considered appropriate and utilized around the known world by Jewish people in the Roman era with the Greek language. This was for a considerable period of time - even into the NT period. The question is WHEN was its accuracy first questioned?
Was there a time after the Sept allegedly wrongly translated it as virgin - and before the so called virgin conception of Jesus, that this translation was ever questioned and do you have the links to that questioning and sources?
How long after Jesus and the Christian made the claim of the virgin birth did the Jewish leaders and scholars pick up on this bad translation and choose to deny its validity?
Or are we all living by speculation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors.Would you like a list of the many factual errors in the gospels?
You can certainly try and produce a list of things you think are errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
An argument from silence is not an argument.Which doesn't stop you suggesting, surmising, guessing and theorising as to what things Jesus may or may not have said. And it doesn't stop you presenting your conjecture and theorise as biblical fact when it suites you to do so.
Whatever.
the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel.By whom? There is absolutely no evidence as to the actual names of the authors of the scriptures . You are lying.
Many scholars. He is both traditionally credited with it. As well as by scholars. It has a VERY strong tradition. check out p. Nepper-Christensen's work. see Papias. see Eusebius. See Irenaeus. Pantaenus. Origen. Many modernist scholars reject the tradition of the church on an assumption that since Matthew seemed to have relied on Mark, Matthew couldn't have been the apostle Matthew, since apostles would not rely on non-apostles. Of course there is nothing to support this notion except an assumption and a bad one at that. Many other recent scholars however do accept Matthew - the apostle as the author - following both the traditions and their own independent studies. See Gundry for instance. Just because Matthew does not put his name to the document does not mean the tradition was not strong from the beginning.
We don't know whether he raised it or not.We know that the bible doesn't mention Jesus himself speaking of his Immaculate Conception
True. But so what?
Matthew did mention it was prophesied.Nope. The author of Mathews gospel does not say anything about an Immaculate Conception being part of any prophesy. Stop telling lies.
Matthew 1:22 Matthew says "all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23, The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son ..... and Matthew was referring to the incident 4 verses before in chapter 1: 18 Mary was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit and then in v. 20 where Joseph had been told by the angel - "because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
From the book of Isaiah.Nope. Stop telling lies. Isiah mentions nothing of an Immaculate Conception. Stop telling lies.
Isaiah 7:14 therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.
the Septuagint records it. did you miss the memo? oops.NOPE! And I notice sarcasm or what you would define as "abuse" creeping in.
Well the Septuagint does record it. but your point in relation to sarcasm is noted.
Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded.Maybe so. Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.
You are the one raising the point that since Jesus did not raise it - it makes a point of some kind.
shhh don't tell anyone. I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not.Well that is all that is left for you to say once your own comments are broken down for the nonsense that they actually are.
No, I add it because I don't care.
The point is that [gospel of] Matthew and [gospel of]Luke did mention it.But they were not members of the 12.
Matthew was. Luke wasn't. It doesn't matter whether they were of the 12 or not. The point is that they had done their homework and were doing their research.
You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you?They are not facts though are they. This is a perfect example of you presenting your own theories and conjecture as BIBLICAL facts
Well, yes they are. It is a fact that the church tradition for many years from the very beginning, believed Matthew, the apostle wrote the book of Matthew. Luke has never seriously been questioned as the author of Luke, save and except a few would be scholars.
And my point was that NONE of the 12 disciples mentioned the Immaculate Conception. And again, the author of 'Matthews gospel is unknown and was not a disciple of Jesus.
Well that is your conjecture. It is not consistent with church tradition nor with many scholars today. Yes, it is true, that the book does not have Matthew's name written as the author. Yet church tradition from very early attributed it to him.
Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question.Wouldn't that be hearsay?
How is that hearsay? Do you mean because no one is alive today to corroborate the story? Luke himself says he gathered the materials very thoroughly.
Reading through the rest of your post - I don't see anything that requires responding. Perhaps if you think there is something more - ask again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel. Paul clearly used it. and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise?Certainly I would, but not from silence -- your argument is based in, and requires, accepting the authority of a text I claim is not authoritative. The gospels include factual errors (things not in accordance with Judaism) and don't have a verifiable provenance that makes me accept their statements. So making some sort of claim about Paul being someone or studying with someone is not really useful because it is not corroborated by any text I would look at as an authority.
Thanks for your response. I am not suggesting you ought to take it as authoritative. Yet there is no reason for me not take it so. I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors. Remember that the Judaism practiced in the NT and the OT for that matter is not the same as it is practiced today. And just because things in the NT are different from how Judaism is practiced today does not ergo demonstrate a so called error in the gospels. Paul was a Pharisee - before he ever became a Christian. He was well studied. Yes, I know it is problematic for a Jew to say anything about the NT is correct. I do find it interesting that earliest records of synagogues in writing are Christian writings.
It seems like you are arguing from silence. There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.No, the fact that there are few simply means that there are few, and since the only one that might support your contention is the one that is subject to a circular argument of belief (your theology teaches you that the text is true and because it is true you accept your theology) it is of little probative value to anyone else.Also, it isn't silence as much as a failure of the voice that is out there. I can't rely on something as a valid source if it is an invalid source.The "Sept uses "virgin" and the Sept, even if full of errors, reflects a correct understanding, then "virgin" even though the text has errors is true". Since there is silence outside of this unreliable source (and on its face, the source conflicts with the earlier material) the conclusion fails.
Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct? I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value. It may well mean asking different questions. You have said that the Sept contains errors. You have not said the Sept only has errors. Would you also agree that the Torah has errors? Just because a source has some errors does not make it an invalid source. The fact is - it is a source and it has been used for 1000s of years.
I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God. Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid.
Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.I was speaking of a different young lady, one whom the text explicitly says is a virgin. But in the case of the Isaiah quote, with no other text to qualify the word, there is no reason to impute virginity to it. If I say that the girl probably had dark hair, that doesn't make "brunette" a valid translation or interpretation of the word almah.
ok.
If there were appropriate and legitimate sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument.Isn't that waiting for someone to prove a negative, what a word does NOT mean? Instead, why not look at what the word means and how it is used and translated elsewhere to create context -- build meaning instead of assuming meaning and only considering changing if something comes to destroy the preconceived notion.If I show you a Hebrew dictionary which doesn't include "virgin" as a meaning, will you say "therefore it CAN'T" or will you say "that doesn't say it CAN'T explicitly"? Dictionaries don't list all the things a word cannot mean.and "maiden" as a noun (the way it is used in the verse) isn't about sexuality either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maiden
My point was not about proving it means "virgin". My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning. For me it is similar to another Greek word baptism. Baptism means immerse. and that is probably its primary meaning. Yet, it can and does have other meanings. It also provides for the sprinkling and pouring.
the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.But you haven't shown that it "might mean" virgin, only that the translation has it as "virgin" in one case. You are starting with the translation instead of with the Hebrew word. Similarly, I can claim to you that the Hebrew word "ish" 'might mean' tree. I can then pick one instance of "ish" and translate it as "tree" to prove that it can mean that, even though it never means tree and the verse I cite has nothing to do with trees. But you can't show me that it can be ruled out because that's not how language works -- we learn what words mean, not what they can't be claimed to mean.
That's a fair point and I will come back to you on this point.
Thanks again. There are some people who are more reasonable to discuss matters with than others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Would it make you feel better that I no longer feel attached to the label "atheist"? Since it comes with baggage on both sides and since someone else's understanding of the term (you in thiscase) cannot change my actual position I have come to refer to myself as simply someone who does not believe in any god(s)In any case I am more than happy to discuss MY views and beliefs so long as you understand that they are not necessarily representative of the larger community of those who do not believe in any god(s).
Call yourself whatever you want. That is a matter for yourself. Not me. This was not a topic about changing people's points of view. It was a topic I started out the frustration of some on this site - and wrongly I made it general.
I have never had a problem with you nor with most of the atheists on this site. Mostly, you are agreeable even when you are disagreeing with me. It doesn't normally get to personal and helps the conversation. I apologize I made this such a general post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"You do realize that Jesus was only mentioned in the NT. So to call it a recurring theme throughout the bible is nonsense. Let alone history. Jesus is not interested in peace under God so much as he is interested in peace with God. You need to get with the bigger picture here Stevie."Jesus is NOT only mentioned in the New Testament, because Jesus is the ONE GOD that existed (Jude 1:25), therefore Jesus is in fact mentioned in the Old Testament as well in being the one god.
Brother, enough is enough. Stephen agrees that Jesus is not mentioned in the OT like every atheist on this planet. He could not be mentioned in the OT because he was not born then. I happened to ask Stephen if he would call you out on this and he like always, rationalized it away.
Now to your thoughts that since Jesus is God and since there is only ONE God, Jesus must have been mentioned in the OT. I suppose you could be right. But I also think you might be pushing the line too far. Jesus himself does suggest that he is referred to the in the OT. He said as much on the road to Emmaus when talking to the two disciples after his resurrection from the dead in Luke. Jesus obviously was referring to himself, not that his name is ever mentioned since Jesus had not yet been born nor given his name yet.
The question hence is how can Jesus be referring to himself without the actual usage of his name? God is One. Yet God is three. The Trinity. Jesus is commonly equated with the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Yet Jesus on the road to Emmaus was not referring to himself as God. He was referring to himself as the messiah and indicating that the OT expressed that the messiah needed to die and to be raised from the dead and that this would be the means by which he would restore humanity to God.
The intriguing thing is that Jesus is never mentioned in the OT by his name.
The other thing which I need to address is this. You take the silly view that God is a serial killer. You can't prove it. Yes, you try very hard but you fall down at every hurdle. Then you insist that Jesus is a serial killer. Again, there simply is no evidence suggesting so. Since you can't find anything in the NT - that Jesus is a serial killer, you then take the delightfully wonderful and accurate position that Jesus is God and since you believe it is easy to prove God is a serial killer in the OT, that you have a gotcha moment.
But the amusing thing is this. You can't prove God is a serial killer. Yet, God put lots of people to death - in judgment - say the time of Noah's flood as just one example. But ordering people to death as judgment does not make someone a serial killer. I do believe Jesus is God. I don't have an issue with that. Jesus of course was still only born in the NT. The Son of course was in the OT and even before that - in eternity. The bible says the Christ was slain before the foundation of the earth.
So there you have it.
I am prepared that Jesus is God.
But I am not prepared to your silly statement about God being a serial killer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"Surely, even you would not suggest such a thing? How about you try and reformulate your question. Of course you don't have too. I can answer right now and say - one literal sword does not make a person a killer, nor does it make them unloving or able to forgive. That would simply be a non-sequitur. I'm sure you understand what that is."Tradesecret, to address your inept thinking as the one God (1 Corinthians 8:6) and where Jesus is that one God (1 Timothy 3:15-16), JESUS SAID: “And my wrath will burn, "and I will KILL YOU with the sword," and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:24) In just the FACT that Jesus said this statement is mind-numbing to say the least, and this is the God that we worship and have to accept in Him being the #1 serial killer of all time!Your comical quote of "one literal sword does not make a person a killer" is laughable upon its face whereas this comes to mind; "Your honor, just because Joe Smith fired a bullet into his wife's heart and killed her, it doesn't mean that Mr. Smith is a killer, isn't that true your honor?"
Jesus is not a serial killer. Repeating the same is a repetition and nothing more. It doesn't make it true. Taking a warning from God to his people to do what is right or to suffer the consequences does not make someone a serial killer. Any more than the government of America or Australia is monster who warns it will locks up people and steal from them if they break the law. Any responsible government is going to provide warnings to their people to keep the law. And also to warn them if they break the law there will be consequences.
The context of these verses demonstrate that God is warning his people to treat vulnerable people with favor and not badly. He is further saying that if they don't receive justice from the government of the day, that he will rise up and bring justice. In this case - an eye for an eye which is justice. If they treat the vulnerable people badly, then they can expect their vulnerable people to be treated badly. So to suggest that a warning is anything than a warning is simply stretching the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And how do Christians like you define the word "defamatory" or "rude",
Why do you need to know? Defaming someone is A publishing a comment about B so that a third party C might see B in a lesser light.
In this case, if I had said something about Zed which might bring his reputation into ill repute that might be considered defamatory.
My defense in Australia would need to be 2 fold. Firstly, truth and in the public interests for it to be said.
Of course the other defense I might rely upon - is political expression, humor, or artistic expression.
My point was that - Zed was clearly coming up with notions that were unrelated to the topic - and my attempt at humor was that the reason for that was drugs.
Do I really think he is using drugs? It's actually none of my business. My point was not that he was actually using drugs, but that his response was a little crazy.
I take the view that Zed has a sense of humor and I was playing to that.
Rude really is saying something was mean and unnecessary even if true.
I don't think what I said was mean. Perhaps it was - and if Zed is offended - then I will apologize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
First thing, you admit that you can't even realize whether you were rude or not.
I didn't think I was being rude. If Zed think I was rude he can call it. I was having a light joke with him, so I thought.
In the case that Zed thinks that what I said was rude, then I will apologize.
I can't even see why you are discussing it. It has nothing to do with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence.Which is an argument you use often in defence of these unreliable half told stories in scripture.
An argument from silence is not an argument. LOL! Infants are not baptised because there is no examples of baptism. so we also refuse ladies from communion because there are no valid examples. what nonsense. An argument from silence is so pitiful - it is making me smile that you are actually getting upset by it. All of my baptist brethren shiver in fear once they realize what they are trying to use.
In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it.NOPE. You are attempting the pass off something written by an unknown author assumed to be 'Mathews' gospel by purposefully confusing it with the disciple named Mathew of which there is very little known to the point of being almost obscure. You are also ignoring what I have actually wrote and purposefully conflating the Immaculate Conception with the so called - virgin birth.
the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel. Yes lots of liberal scholars like to deny it. but conservative scholars disagree with good reason. you believe what you want. No one is saying don't. We are ok with people wanting to exercise their prerogative.
But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.Jesus doesn't mention his immaculate conception at all. Which strangely is one of those stories the likes of Christians use to say that Jesus was the one prophesised about in the OT. In fact, the or A Immaculate Conception, isn't written about anywhere in the OT.
We don't know whether he raised it or not. You don't know do you? Or do happen to have a statement of everything he ever said? Matthew did mention it was prophesied. From the book of Isaiah. the Septuagint records it. did you miss the memo? oops. I would personally be surprised if Jesus did mention it. Still an argument from silence is golden. LOL!
Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded.Maybe so. Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.
shhh don't tell anyone. I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not. The point is that Matthew and Luke did mention it. You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you?
Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.Tradesecret wrote Matthew and Luke raised it. [the immaculate conception]Nope. Luke is not even mentioned as being the name of any of his inner circle of 12 disciples, so again you are attempting the pass off the unknown author assumed to be 'Luke's' gospel as one of Jesus' 12. He wasn't.
I am not saying Luke was a disciple. Matthew was. Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question.
Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.But did any single one of the 12? And Mary doesn't once tell us her that she had actually Immaculately Conceived a child. Quite the opposite, she is simply bewildered by it all and askes "how can this be"?
Mary raised it. And so did Matthew. Hello Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew was one of the 12. he was a tax collector. Do you really believe she is just bewildered? what a world you must live in? Sad and tragic. don't let the facts get in the road of it.
What point would it have been necessary to raise it again anyway?Then what was the point of it even being in two of the gospels in the first place?
I already explained that. don't you read anything I write. No of course not. you know everything already. Go back and read it. I am not going to repeat myself because of your laziness.
Stephen wrote: And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.SkepticalOne wrote: Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)Tradesecret wrote: Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic. Magic is deception and mirrors.As is religion on the whole. Intentional or not. imo
That is your entire MO. you disbelieve in anything that is not material. you can't believe in god so you think everyone who does is a nutter. I don't believe in magic either. But God is not magic. Of course you can't see the difference. That is your problem not mine.
In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this[ that he was immaculately conceived] later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.
Opinion. And one has to wonder why he didn't ? Mark' and John's gospels don't mention the conception or the birth of Jesus. One can only suppose it wasn't true, not important or simply hadn't heard about it....
Yes. Opinion. but one just as meritable as yours. And actually one that makes sense. john doesn't mention lots of things that Matthew Mark and Luke mention and Matthew doesn't mention things that Luke and John mention and john mentions things that Matthew MArk and Luke mention. Wow! i guess that makes all of them just waste of times - unless everyone of them was an author in their own right and simply told the story they wanted to tell.
Each of the gospels is different to the other. I EXPECT each of them to tell different accounts and to give information that the others don't tell. That you think that because John fails to mention something that two of the others did mention as evidence it is not true - is remarkable. You are such a poor scholar it seriously is amazing you really want to be heard at all.
Sad actually.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.Valid point.
What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence. Hardly valid in anyone's book. In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not. Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. Matthew and Luke raised it. One was his disciple and one was a doctor doing some serious research. Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.
What point would it have been necessary to raise it again anyway? It served its purpose. Many of other prophecies that Matthew raises has even less corroboration within the text. Matthew used it as a fulfillment of prophecy in relation to the messiah. Do you think that Jesus raising it again would have helped? I doubt it. People were skeptical in the time it was happened, take Joseph for instance. People are skeptical today. Raising it when he was an adult would really have been a bad tactic and unprovable anyway. It's not like they had parentage tests.
For Matthew and Luke to raise it makes sense in the context that they did.
And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic. Magic is deception and mirrors. There was no deception. In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him. Jesus didn't want people's attention falsely. He often drove people away - he didn't want the attention. As for sin - it is not inherited by blood anyway. Christians don't teach that. It is covenantally passed. Like a will and testament. God's spirit - which is Holy - would have sanctified the conception. Jesus' being divine - the same thing.
Yes, I know for non-believers it all sounds like magic. Yet this is not what it is. Jesus was a new thing. And that is what the bible tells us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My view is that those who argue the word is not virgin trying to use it as a "gotcha moment" need to go back and find another one.Ultimately, this comes down to 'if the words are translated in a certain way, Jesus' birth was miraculous'. The obvious counter stands true as well though: if the words are translated in a certain way, the purported virgin birth conflicts with OT prophecy (if we assume the passage in question is a prophecy about the Messiah - that's another debate).This type of semantic argument just makes me wonder why the "word of god" would be so unclear, but, hey, that's just me. :-)
That is not my point. The Semantics of the words only become an issue for those trying to say that the NT was not really saying what it was saying and was badly researched. I'm not here trying to argue the merits of Jesus being born of a virgin. I'm not attempting to say it was miraculous. That like you say is actually an entirely different question or issue.
My point here was simply to point out that the so called gotcha moment against the NT author is not valid. I am not saying anything more or less.
the Word of God is not being unclear. It is quite clear for the most part. Some people do want to muddy it up though. That is certainly true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure that you can take any claim that the Pharisees accepted the Septuagint at all seriously. Some say that the original Sept was put into a proto Greek that would have been understood by the people and which would have been seen as having a level of sanctity within Judaism but the question is whether that claim is from a reputable source (of which there are notoriously few). This concern has to be coupled with the knowledge that by the time the prophets were translated, Greek was not that language that was an acceptable alternative.Regardless, the Sept (or whatever we want to call that particular translation) chose (for that particular use of the Hebrew word almah) "virgin." But so what? An unreliable translation, or an agendized translation shouldn't be seen as an authority.
I made my arguments above. My first was that (And I appreciate you don't agree) the Spirit of God confirmed it in the NT. The second was that the Sept was being widely used at that time. Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel. Paul clearly used it. and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise?
It seems like you are arguing from silence. There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.
My point from the beginning has not been to attempt to prove the Christ was born of a virgin, but to show that the argument against it was slim and reaching. Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.
If there were appropriate and legitimate sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument. Yet that is not the case. And you are not saying it either. Since I am not attempting to prove the virgin birth - but rather showing that the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.
Again I thank you for your curtesy in your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Whos genes will you find?
Well that's the question isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either
- you author your actions.
- you don't.
There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.
Yes. Western Logic. I am surprised you are rejecting Eastern logic. I don't have to and I am not going to.
It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity.You said before that I can't come to conclusions because I only possess a fraction of possible information, yet somehow you can come to conclusions?
Are you saying that because you cannot come to a particular conclusion that it is impossible for anyone else to do so? I did start to articular my reasoning and then realized it would take an entire page - so I stopped and reset my sentence.
I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2.Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good.
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway. good better best. something that can good but not gooder. but it can be better.
Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil.
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc? Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses.
If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation.
Let me think about that. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? If God justifies everything he does, whatever we might think about it, would that mean it is not evil? And if that is the case, even if we could never find out? And if he is able to justify why he doesn't tell us, then on what basis would be able to say he was evil?
God does not create sinning people. God created people without sin. People sinned.p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin.p2. Desires are manifested from the brain.p3. God created brains.c1. God created people's desire to sin
People sin for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness. Desire is not the common factor.
I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain? Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it.I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem.
God did not create sin. Sin is not a thing that can be created. Sin exists - but not in an objective thing you can pick up. Sin is defined as an action or omission against the law of God. Humans brought sin into the world. God can't go against himself. Humans do.
What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever. The point is not about us - it is about God.What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus.
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. And to enable us to understand the meaning of grace.
I'm sure I have answered that question. I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable. The 6th commandment is you shall not murder. Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory.But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes.
I am still missing your point here. Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make. God ordains the ends and the means. Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes. We can do better. God can't do better true. But we can. You are going to have to drill down into this thought. I feel it is a good one. I am just struggling to see where you are going with it.
So you do believe in free will then?
Yes, I have been pretty clear about that. I don't hold to the view that God can be totally sovereign and free will are mutually exclusive. I call it covenantal logic. It doesn't fit with Western rock logic - you know - your excluded middles. If humanity is not personally responsible for their sins and actions then this puts it all on God. The bible disagrees with this and thereby so do I. I do hold to a position of first causes and second causes. God is the first Cause and God and everything else can be the second cause at various times and places. For anything to happen requires both the first and second cause.
would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect. The problem with robots is that they can't love freely.There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin.
I know what your argument is - or well I am trying to understand it. I don't agree with it so far. The New Heaven is the only place where we will be sinless and free at the same time. Sins are human by nature. God cannot create sin. God is not the author of sin. Sin is not a thing you can pick up or put down. Sin is an action. Or an omission. Sin is also defined as "falling short of the mark". The mark is what God does. Hence, it is impossible logically to fall short of his own actions.
Sin occurs sometimes by desire and at other times completely without desire. Desire is not a common factor of all sins. You will need to find another common factor. Start with pride perhaps, autonomy, master of my own fate, captain of my own soul. authority.
the term anti-Christ can mean he who is against Christ. The other usage of the word anti - is "in place of". Hence the anti-christ is he who wants to be in the place of Christ. I think this is what sin is directed towards- putting ourselves in the place of God. We want to be our own God. We want to make God in our image. And to create our own worlds and to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
#1 It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."Jesus, in my view[,………………………………...]I think part of the answer lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about. Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger. #34I don’t agree. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament BIBLE that shows anything contrary to what Matthew 10:34 actually states and means.
Just for the record, can I assume you DID read my words, when I said "I think part of the answer" lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about? Part of the answer implies ABSOLUTELY it is not the whole of the answer. Still, you disagree. That is your prerogative.
And, there are many other verses that clearly show that Jesus ‘ appearance in Palestine as a king returned to claim his throne and title would create conflict/war with Rome, it was unavoidable, which in turn would create division of opinions within the family.
Would you like to cite some please? You did say "many other verses" so we must assume more than 4 or 5.
These difference of opinions would, as Jesus himself admits, set “'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Are you suggesting that EVEN if Jesus was not setting up an army that these opinions would do the same thing? Or are you saying that ONLY if Jesus is setting up an army that these opinions would do as Jesus indicated?
You see, there is no doubt that the reason for this is simple. Generations of Jews at the time had been Hellenised after centuries of influence under the Greek rule and their gods (weren’t even the gospels recorded in Greek?). So here we had an older generation still aligned to or hadn’t forgotten their Old Testament god Yahweh while the younger generations were not; “the children of Israel had gone astray”..The BIBLE clearly tells us that Jesus’ “mission” was to unite those Jews that had been “lost” Matthew 15:24 under one god and one rule.
Where is your evidence that there is a difference between the older and the younger generations of Israel? I would have thought that the older generation were just as gone astray as the younger one. After all, prior to Jesus, God had been silent for 400 years. I don't have an issue with Israel being Hellenized but to suggest that there is a generational gap is "reaching".
Also Matthew 15:24 unhelpful for you. It only tells us that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel not what his mission was. It certainly provides no information about Jesus "uniting the Jews". It is not so CLEAR as you would so exaggerate.
In short Jesus was building an army. And I believe there is evidence in the New Testament that does go some way in proving this.
LOL! with two swords. What an amazing army that would be. I can't wait for you to prove this one Steve.
And, as with all ends of conflict, there would be the peace under one god and one rule and Jesus believed himself to be the man to bring this peace about. This is a recurring pattern throughout the whole of the BIBLE….. if not the whole of history.
You do realize that Jesus was only mentioned in the NT. So to call it a recurring theme throughout the bible is nonsense. Let alone history. Jesus is not interested in peace under God so much as he is interested in peace with God. You need to get with the bigger picture here Stevie.
Many Jews were happy with the situation under Greek rule as were many happy under Babylonian rule so much so many decided to remain in Babylon and many were full and active members of Babylonian society. After some 70+ years many Jews prospered. It is easy to imagine that many second and third generation Jewish Babylonians had no interest in leaving. As were many happy with the status quo under Roman rule and didn’t want any self proclaimed pretender king upsetting it:
This is a good statement and one I fully agree with. But I would go further back. Remember in the desert. The Jews wanted to go back to Egypt, didn't they? And I suspect that if we were to get ourselves a time machine and go back to Noah's flood, that if we were a fly on the wall, and were listening to Noah's family, that one of the sons and or daughters were probably saying, "Why can't we just go back to how things used to be?"
It is simply part of human life isn't it? We don't like change. Especially if it is confrontational or hard. We prefer the ways of humanism over the ways of God. So why in the world would we not think that the Jews in Jesus day would be any different?
John 11:48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”Luke 22:36King James VersionThen said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.Indeed.
Yep, two swords. To start an army. Way to go Steve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test.
The entire world might become believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Thanks for that rosends.
Of course it doesn't change my argument. The Septuagint did translate the word as virgin. This surely is not in dispute. The fact that it might be notoriously inaccurate - although again that is debatable. My point is that it did. I hear what you say about the first five books and not the prophets and yet the larger text was accepted by the Jews and even the Pharisees in the time of Jesus.
so thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is the resolution here - 'Alma' can mean "virgin". If so, this is true. Does that mean it is always correct to translate it this way? No. Does this mean Jesus was born of a virgin? No.I'm not sure what the argument is.
The word may mean virgin. That is the point. It cannot be ruled out which is what some people wrongly like to say. The argument that the NT has translated it incorrectly and that therefore since there was no virgin in the OT prophecy, Jesus could not born of virgin and therefore Matthew is reaching. That is the argument made by those opposed to Jesus' claim to be the messiah.
Matthew on the other hand does use it as the fulfillment of prophecy providing corroboration of Jesus' special place in history.
My view is that those who argue the word is not virgin trying to use it as a "gotcha moment" need to go back and find another one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I really am puzzled by your post in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7473/post-links/330498
clearly indicated I was referring to Christ's sword in Matthew 10:34 as metaphorical. Unlike you, I do not see "sword" as some kind of code word for every other usage in the bible.
Sometimes it is used metaphorically and sometimes it is a real literal sword. I have no objection to this since it is good sound grammatical sense.
There is ABSOLUTELY no need to go through further verses in relation to sword. I don't think every usage of the word sword is metaphorical. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. In Matthew 10:34, in the place I suggested it was metaphorical, it is and was and will always be.
It may be that in your paragraph below you are trying to make a point.
All we have to have is ONE, I repeat, ONE non metaphorical sword to show Jesus as a serial killer, do you understand ? Therefore, you pick ONE the one REAL SWORD passage below by Jesus the Christ in killing His creation and therefore taking away Jesus' modus operandi of being ever loving and forgiving, ?
Are you suggesting if EVEN if there is one sword that is not metaphorical that this proves Jesus is a killer and therefore does not love and forgive? Is that really your point? Just out of curiosity, given such a low standard for proof on your part, would even one verse that says Jesus loves us or the world be sufficient to prove he does?
Surely, even you would not suggest such a thing? How about you try and reformulate your question. Of course you don't have too. I can answer right now and say - one literal sword does not make a person a killer, nor does it make them unloving or able to forgive. That would simply be a non-sequitur. I'm sure you understand what that is.
Created: