PDA

View Full Version : Bible quote for the day



Pages : [1] 2

Oepty
30-04-2013, 01:19 PM
"Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish" Psa 49:20

Hobbes
30-04-2013, 01:22 PM
11. Genesis 19:8

“Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Saragossa
30-04-2013, 01:26 PM
'There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.'
Ezekiel 23:20

antichrist
30-04-2013, 04:39 PM
11. Genesis 19:8

“Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

listen mate if you told that to the tough women I have married they would be having sausages for dinner that night

Rincewind
01-05-2013, 11:22 AM
"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you will remember if we were good men or bad, why we fought, or why we died. No, all that matters is that two stood against many, that's what's important. Valor pleases you, Crom, so grant me one request, grant me REVENGE! And if you do not listen, then to hell with you!"

Adamski
01-05-2013, 06:56 PM
"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you will remember if we were good men or bad, why we fought, or why we died. No, all that matters is that two stood against many, that's what's important. Valor pleases you, Crom, so grant me one request, grant me REVENGE! And if you do not listen, then to hell with you!"
But there is no Crom in any of my Bibles.

Rincewind
01-05-2013, 07:26 PM
But there is no Crom in any of my Bibles.

There are a lot of holy texts that have been suppressed from the "official" bible. Wake up sheeple!

Saragossa
01-05-2013, 07:58 PM
Kings 2:23

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

antichrist
02-05-2013, 12:49 AM
Kings 2:23

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

crikey those youth must be slow runners and those women bears certainly were on pep pills - too much two bear

Oepty
02-05-2013, 10:46 AM
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6 KJV

Hobbes
02-05-2013, 11:00 AM
4. Deut. 23:1

No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the Assembly of God.

Oepty
02-05-2013, 11:07 AM
4. Deut. 23:1

No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the Assembly of God.

Yet in Acts Philip baptised a eunuch.

antichrist
03-05-2013, 01:18 PM
4. Deut. 23:1

No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the Assembly of God.
if some of my wives had their way I would be most disqualifies from such an assembly - it has occured a few times on this bb as well

Redmond Barry
03-05-2013, 09:45 PM
woe to all back-biting slanderers who amass riches and sedulously hoard them thinking that their treasures will render them immortal !

by no means ! they shall be flung to the destroying flame. would that you knew what the destroying flame is like !

Rincewind
03-05-2013, 10:16 PM
Best in life...
6PQ6335puOc

Oepty
05-05-2013, 01:14 PM
It is better to go to a house of mourning
than to go to a house of feasting,
since that is the end of all mankind,
and the living should take it to heart.



It is better to listen to rebuke from a wise person
than to listen to the song of fools,

Desmond
10-05-2013, 10:50 PM
An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.

Oh wait, that's not from the bible. Nevermind.

Oepty
10-05-2013, 10:56 PM
An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.

Oh wait, that's not from the bible. Nevermind.

If it is not from the Bible then it does not belong here. Start you own thread for you own favourite quotes.

Desmond
10-05-2013, 11:09 PM
If it is not from the Bible then it does not belong here. Start you own thread for you own favourite quotes.
Cut me some slack, even amoungst you believers you don't seem to know which is the right bible and which isn't. I mean you would think if a deity wrote a book it would be distinguishable in some way from an imitation, but apparently not.

Oepty
10-05-2013, 11:34 PM
Cut me some slack, even amoungst you believers you don't seem to know which is the right bible and which isn't. I mean you would think if a deity wrote a book it would be distinguishable in some way from an imitation, but apparently not.

That is just wrong.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 01:18 AM
That is just wrong.

I believe rr is referring to the varying canon between the protestant and catholic bibles (for example). The Catholic bible comprises 73 books. The Eastern Church has more books again. So there is certainly substantial disagreement on what constitutes biblical material among the three major groupings of Christianity.

Desmond
11-05-2013, 09:33 AM
That is just wrong.
Oh really, that must explain why there is only a single religion with a single denomination in the world today, a book with such profound insight that it could not be compete with or confused with books written by mere men.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 09:54 AM
I believe rr is referring to the varying canon between the protestant and catholic bibles (for example). The Catholic bible comprises 73 books. The Eastern Church has more books again. So there is certainly substantial disagreement on what constitutes biblical material among the three major groupings of Christianity.

Again you are bringing up things which have nothing to do with me, I am not Catholic, I am not protestant, I am me, I believe what I believe. I have no confusion as to what the Bible is.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:08 PM
Psa 113
1 Praise the Lord!
Praise, O servants of the Lord,
Praise the name of the Lord.
2 Blessed be the name of the Lord
From this time forth and forever.
3 From the rising of the sun to its setting
The name of the Lord is to be praised.
4 The Lord is high above all nations;
His glory is above the heavens.

5 Who is like the Lord our God,
Who is enthroned on high,
6 Who humbles Himself to behold
The things that are in heaven and in the earth?
7 He raises the poor from the dust
And lifts the needy from the ash heap,
8 To make them sit with princes,
With the princes of His people.
9 He makes the barren woman abide in the house
As a joyful mother of children.
Praise the Lord!

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:14 PM
2 Kings 9:8

For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:25 PM
2 Kings 9:8

For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:

So you can post something that is true even if you have to quote it to get something right.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:39 PM
So you can post something that is true even if you have to quote it to get something right.

Why are you so angry Oepty. Has someone hurt you?

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:40 PM
Why are you so angry Oepty. Has someone hurt you?

I am not angry.
I never said I was angry.
You have no way of knowing whether I am angry or not.
Stop making incorrect allegations.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:45 PM
I am not angry.
I never said I was angry.
You have no way of knowing whether I am angry or not.
Stop making incorrect allegations.

I can tell by your intolerance in your posts that you are very angry. It wasn't so obvious when you used to post the first time around but since resuming your general anger with everyone has been palpable.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:46 PM
I can tell by your intolerance in your posts that you are very angry. It wasn't so obvious when you used to post the first time around but since resuming your general anger with everyone has been palpable.

I am not angry. Stop making up lies.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:54 PM
I am not angry. Stop making up lies.

Does it make you angry?

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:58 PM
Does it make you angry?

What make me angry?
That you are lying about me.
It disappoints me, makes me sad to a degree, but does not surprise me really.
It certainly is not making me angry.
I have no desire to hurt you, to do anything negative to you.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 01:12 PM
What make me angry?
That you are lying about me.
It disappoints me, makes me sad to a degree, but does not surprise me really.
It certainly is not making me angry.
I have no desire to hurt you, to do anything negative to you.

Back on topic...

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 02:21 PM
Back on topic...

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Where is that from?

Oepty
11-05-2013, 02:56 PM
Back on topic...

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

It is not actually a quote from the Bible is it?
I was giving you the doubt thinking it could be from a modern translation/ paraphrase, but I got curious and googled it.
So far from your claim that it is back on topic your post is off topic again.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 03:06 PM
It is not actually a quote from the Bible is it?
I was giving you the doubt thinking it could be from a modern translation/ paraphrase, but I got curious and googled it.
So far from your claim that it is back on topic your post is off topic again.

It's from the Gospel of Max Ehrmann. The fact that your bible doesn't have it is proof that you are following a cult.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 03:32 PM
It's from the Gospel of Max Ehrmann. The fact that your bible doesn't have it is proof that you are following a cult.

Find me a published Bible which contains the Gospel of Max Ehrmann and you might have a point.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 03:34 PM
Find me a published Bible which contains the Gospel of Max Ehrmann and you might have a point.

Why would that make a difference? Was Christianity not a religion before the invention of moveable type printing?

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 03:37 PM
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Indeed; that's why a few of us indulge RW from time to time.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 03:38 PM
Why would that make a difference? Was Christianity not a religion before the invention of moveable type printing?

I think you will find people used hand writing to copy the Bible.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 03:42 PM
I think you will find people used hand writing to copy the Bible.

Then I think you will find that my bible has a copy of DesiderataThe Gospel of Max.

Adamski
11-05-2013, 04:05 PM
2 Kings 9:8

...him that pisseth against the wall...
For anyone who did not see the other thread, the expression used here just means "male". This is from the KJV and it is rendered more clearly for the modern Bible reader in most other translations.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 04:25 PM
Then I think you will find that my bible has a copy of DesiderataThe Gospel of Max.

But it was not in it when it was published. Stop being deliberately stupid, you are smarter than your actions today have displayed.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 04:41 PM
But it was not in it when it was published. Stop being deliberately stupid, you are smarter than your actions today have displayed.

I fail to see your hang up on it being published when you seem happy with people hand-copying texts. It's not like there is a peer-review process.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 04:42 PM
you are smarter than your actions today have displayed.

and you are capable of being less angry than your actions today have displayed.

Desmond
11-05-2013, 04:48 PM
Maybe RW is being divinely inspired to write the Book of the Wars of the Lord.

John777
11-05-2013, 07:15 PM
didn't my posts get deleted here, why are they not here?

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2013, 07:23 PM
didn't my posts get deleted here, why are they not here?

Many posts were moved to this new thread:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=14711

jammo
12-05-2013, 06:03 PM
Here is my quote for the day:
Jesus said "And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)"

I'm a bit disappointed though. I prayed for world peace (in the name of Jesus) but I don't think I got it. Did I do it wrongly or was Jesus telling porkies?

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 07:29 PM
Here is my quote for the day:
Jesus said "And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)"

I'm a bit disappointed though. I prayed for world peace (in the name of Jesus) but I don't think I got it. Did I do it wrongly or was Jesus telling porkies?

maybe he thought you said 'world peas'.

its quite possible that he has left a basket on your doorstep with strains of pea from around the globe.

or hes just deaf. :D

Oepty
12-05-2013, 07:53 PM
Here is my quote for the day:
Jesus said "And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)"

I'm a bit disappointed though. I prayed for world peace (in the name of Jesus) but I don't think I got it. Did I do it wrongly or was Jesus telling porkies?

Did you actually believe in God when you prayed for this?

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 08:01 PM
since you have such a strong belief in god oepty why havent you prayed to god for world peace and achieved it ?

does this not interest you ?

John777
12-05-2013, 08:01 PM
Here is my quote for the day:
Jesus said "And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)"

I'm a bit disappointed though. I prayed for world peace (in the name of Jesus) but I don't think I got it. Did I do it wrongly or was Jesus telling porkies?

1. If you aren't a Christian your prayers dont need answering.

2. Praying for world peace is not good because of this:

Matthew 10:34 (KJV) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

3. You might have the wrong motives when you prayed.

4. You quote the NAB instead of the KJV.

5. Nevermind

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 08:10 PM
2. Praying for world peace is not good because of this:

Matthew 10:34 (KJV) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

what is the sword for ?

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2013, 08:12 PM
2. Praying for world peace is not good because of this:

Matthew 10:34 (KJV) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

So in the case of a Christian praying for world peace, your Bible on your own reading contradicts itself, but it seems you are saying a Christian would not pray for world peace anyway. Still more evidence that your view is not about following God because your God is "good" by any objective and externally evaluated criteria, but is about obeying a given conception of God, out of fear that you will be sent to Hell if you do not, even though God as thus conceived is unworthy of worship and a nasty piece of work.

Oepty
12-05-2013, 08:19 PM
I believe God will bring about world peace, perhaps sooner rather than later. I see no problem with praying for world peace as long as you understand when the Bible says it will happen.

Desmond
12-05-2013, 08:51 PM
what is the sword for ?
Swallowing. Part of the water into wine, cutting Mary in half parlour trick number.

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 08:52 PM
I believe God will bring about world peace, perhaps sooner rather than later. I see no problem with praying for world peace as long as you understand when the Bible says it will happen.

youve just invalidated post 51.

clearly you believe that even if an individual is a committed believer in the lord, there is no guarantee that their prayer with be met with any meaningful response since god will only resolve world peace "perhaps sooner rather than later".

jammos persuasion obviously has no bearing on your gods decisions therefore your point is erroneous.

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 08:57 PM
Swallowing. Part of the water into wine, cutting Mary in half parlour trick number.

i quite enjoy a good circus. :D

John777
12-05-2013, 09:37 PM
what is the sword for ?

i give the context of the passage:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Matthew 10:34,35

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Has Always Offended the Wicked! Romans 9:33 refers to Christ as a “stumblingblock” and a "Rock of offence.” Jesus clearly taught in Matthew 10:34,35 that He did NOT come to this world to bring peace. Let me clarify, Jesus' did come to die upon the cross for our sins; thus, enabling us to have peace with God through the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ. BUT, Jesus also expects us to preach the Gospel, which OFFENDS most people. Let me define “Gospel” so there is no misunderstanding. 1st Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the “Gospel” as the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ Jesus. This includes the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:9).

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin (Hebrews 9:12, 22-24; Revelation 7:14). There is absolutely nothing in the Word of God which requires “holy baptism” or “holy communion” (both terms are NOT found in the Bible). The Bible never attaches the word “holy” to baptism or the Lord's supper. Hence, any religion which ADDS the “sacraments” (another word not found in the Bible) to faith alone in Christ, is a damnable false religion. This Biblical Truth OFFENDS most people. In fact, the Apostle Paul even called such people “accursed” for teaching ANOTHER GOSPEL (Galatians 1:9).

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/offend_them.htm

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2013, 09:45 PM
i give the context of the passage:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Matthew 10:34,35

Family values! :lol:

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 09:50 PM
i give the context of the passage:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Matthew 10:34,35

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Has Always Offended the Wicked! Romans 9:33 refers to Christ as a “stumblingblock” and a "Rock of offence.” Jesus clearly taught in Matthew 10:34,35 that He did NOT come to this world to bring peace. Let me clarify, Jesus' did come to die upon the cross for our sins; thus, enabling us to have peace with God through the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ. BUT, Jesus also expects us to preach the Gospel, which OFFENDS most people. Let me define “Gospel” so there is no misunderstanding. 1st Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the “Gospel” as the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ Jesus. This includes the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:9).

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin (Hebrews 9:12, 22-24; Revelation 7:14). There is absolutely nothing in the Word of God which requires “holy baptism” or “holy communion” (both terms are NOT found in the Bible). The Bible never attaches the word “holy” to baptism or the Lord's supper. Hence, any religion which ADDS the “sacraments” (another word not found in the Bible) to faith alone in Christ, is a damnable false religion. This Biblical Truth OFFENDS most people. In fact, the Apostle Paul even called such people “accursed” for teaching ANOTHER GOSPEL (Galatians 1:9).

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/offend_them.htm

1. how does one preach jesus' blood ?

2. why is it a good idea to create a dischord in the family unit ?

3. do you live in a government institution ?

Adamski
13-05-2013, 12:26 AM
1. how does one preach jesus' blood ?

2. why is it a good idea to create a dischord in the family unit ?

3. do you live in a government institution ?
Well for 1, it means preaching what the Lord Jesus' blood has accomplished - salvation, cleansing, new life, healing available and more.

2. Not a good idea but rather Christ stating a reality - that families will be divided because some believe and some do not. In my parent's direct family, I am the only believer.

3. Not for me to answer really but I expect - No.

jammo
14-05-2013, 04:53 PM
i give the context of the passage:

Let me clarify, Jesus' did come to die upon the cross for our sins; thus, enabling us to have peace with God through the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Hi John777,

Hope you are well. Could you perhaps clarify something for me? I don't understand the process of how Jesus dying on the cross results in people having their sins forgiven. How exactly does that work? Did God sign a document saying (in effect) "If you crucify Jesus I'll agree to forgive everyone of their sins." Why did he want his son to die? Is God forgiving only sins current at the time of the crucifixion or also sins made subsequently? Does everyone get their sins forgiven or only "believers?" Does the poor Indian in the Amazon jungle who has never heard of Jesus qualify? If not, it seems a bit unfair.

I have similar problems with Dan Brown's novel. If Jesus does have a blood descendant somewhere alive today .... so what? Who cares? Does such a person have magical powers? I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Clearly I need help John777.

Saragossa
14-05-2013, 05:18 PM
Hi John777,

Hope you are well. Could you perhaps clarify something for me? I don't understand the process of how Jesus dying on the cross results in people having their sins forgiven. How exactly does that work? Did God sign a document saying (in effect) "If you crucify Jesus I'll agree to forgive everyone of their sins." Why did he want his son to die? Is God forgiving only sins current at the time of the crucifixion or also sins made subsequently? Does everyone get their sins forgiven or only "believers?" Does the poor Indian in the Amazon jungle who has never heard of Jesus qualify? If not, it seems a bit unfair.

I have similar problems with Dan Brown's novel. If Jesus does have a blood descendant somewhere alive today .... so what? Who cares? Does such a person have magical powers? I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Clearly I need help John777.

http://youtu.be/TVvCe6xZvOk?t=57s

jammo
14-05-2013, 06:18 PM
Thanks for the link Saragossa. That guy is clearly going to hell - if only for his bad language and smoking.

Saragossa
14-05-2013, 06:22 PM
Lots of good comedians use bad language, which I find distracting. The joke, 'Jesus died for your sins and I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage' is excellent but somehow swearing gets in there.

Adamski
14-05-2013, 11:47 PM
Jammo, Jesus' dying on the cross and conquering death through His resurrection means that the opportunity is available for people to have their sins forgiven by the Lord Jesus if they repent of those sins and ask for forgiveness. This is shown in many Bible passages, most notably 1 John 1: 9. In the NKJV it reads: " If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 11:55 PM
Hope you are well. Could you perhaps clarify something for me? I don't understand the process of how Jesus dying on the cross results in people having their sins forgiven. How exactly does that work? Did God sign a document saying (in effect) "If you crucify Jesus I'll agree to forgive everyone of their sins." Why did he want his son to die? Is God forgiving only sins current at the time of the crucifixion or also sins made subsequently? Does everyone get their sins forgiven or only "believers?" Does the poor Indian in the Amazon jungle who has never heard of Jesus qualify? If not, it seems a bit unfair.
Of course it's "unfair". What would be fair is sending all sinners, which means all mankind, to hell, for the affront to the infinite holiness of God. Yet in His mercy, He imputes all the sins to all believers to Christ, and His righteousness to us. In the collectivist society of biblical times, and of most cultures in history, this corporate responsibility would have made perfect sense. See Honor and Shame in the Biblical World (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-5.html) and Good News! (http://creation.com/good-news)

Desmond
15-05-2013, 08:00 AM
Of course it's "unfair". What would be fair is sending all sinners, which means all mankind, to hell, for the affront to the infinite holiness of God.
For one of our supposed forebears picking fruit from the wrong tree. Get real.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2013, 08:18 AM
For one of our supposed forebears picking fruit from the wrong tree. Get real.
If corporate punishment is ‘unjust’, whatever that might mean in your atheopathic self-confessed view that we are rearranged pond scum, then so is corporate redemption. Yet the Bible teaches this concept: believers in Christ are saved because our sins were corporately imputed (credited) to His account (Isaiah 53:6) when He was on the cross. And His perfect righteousness was imputed to believers in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2013, 10:28 AM
Of course it's "unfair". What would be fair is sending all sinners, which means all mankind, to hell, for the affront to the infinite holiness of God.

I don't see why there is actually any affront. If God is all-powerful, God has the ability to not be affronted by anything, and it would be particularly stupid for God to create humans and then be affronted by their behaviour - since God would be responsible for causing that behaviour in the first place. And no, the free-will fudge doesn't work because God being supposedly all-knowing would have known that such behaviour by God's creations was at least a possibility.

Therefore if God is going to send anyone to hell for causing affront to the infinite holiness of God, God should send God to hell for culpably negligent creation.

Desmond
15-05-2013, 11:44 AM
If corporate punishment is ‘unjust’, whatever that might mean in your atheopathic self-confessed view that we are rearranged pond scum, then so is corporate redemption. Yet the Bible teaches this concept: believers in Christ are saved because our sins were corporately imputed (credited) to His account (Isaiah 53:6) when He was on the cross. And His perfect righteousness was imputed to believers in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).
If your god actually wants to send people to eternal torment for the sin of another person, then I submit he is silly and not worth worshipping for one second let alone for an everlasting amount of time.

Rincewind
15-05-2013, 11:52 AM
If your god actually wants to send people to eternal torment for the sin of another person, then I submit he is silly and not worth worshipping for one second let alone for an everlasting amount of time.

He turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for a turn of the head. Obviously proportional punishment is not on his agenda.

jammo
15-05-2013, 02:26 PM
Jammo, Jesus' dying on the cross and conquering death through His resurrection means that the opportunity is available for people to have their sins forgiven by the Lord Jesus if they repent of those sins and ask for forgiveness. This is shown in many Bible passages, most notably 1 John 1: 9. In the NKJV it reads: " If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

I understand the claim. You say "mean that" etc Why does it mean that? What I do not understand is the connection between Jesus dying and sins being forgiven. How does a death forgive sins? Why didn't God just say to Jesus "Ask me nicely and I'll forgive sins."

Adamski
16-05-2013, 08:29 AM
I understand the claim. You say "mean that" etc Why does it mean that? What I do not understand is the connection between Jesus dying and sins being forgiven. How does a death forgive sins? Why didn't God just say to Jesus "Ask me nicely and I'll forgive sins."The Bible says that "Without the shedding of blood thete is forgiveness of sins." This is a big subject and several books have been written on it. More in due course unless Jono beats me to it.

Saragossa
16-05-2013, 10:20 AM
Yes, the bible says that, but why must blood be shed to facilitate forgiveness?

Adamski
16-05-2013, 06:53 PM
Someone has to pay the penalty for sin We don't when we accept Jesus as Lord. Jesus hss paid it

Desmond
16-05-2013, 07:19 PM
Someone has to pay the penalty for sin Only because sky daddy allowed himself to be offended in the first place, so he decided to torture and kill himself as the only way for him to forgive us. But if you don't accept that sky daddy did this, then it doesn't count for your personal forgiveness for your relative's sin of eating the wrong fruit.

Sounds rational.

Rincewind
16-05-2013, 07:27 PM
Someone has to pay the penalty for sin We don't when we accept Jesus as Lord. Jesus hss paid it

This patently avoids answering Saragossa's question. Why must blood be shed? Sure an omnipotent being could just say "I forgive you" all the theatre of the crucifixion is superfluous.

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2013, 02:04 AM
This patently avoids answering Saragossa's question. Why must blood be shed? Sure an omnipotent being could just say "I forgive you" all the theatre of the crucifixion is superfluous.
But not with the affront to the supreme holiness of God. This requires that all sin must be punished, either the sinner or a sinless substitute. Saying, "I forgive you" would understate the seriousness of the affront to God's holiness. Anselm explained all this in the 11th century in his book Why God became Man (Cur Deus Homo).

Since the Dawk, with his superficial understanding, raised the same question as RW, CMI produced the paper Dawkins’ dilemma: how God forgives sin (http://creation.com/dawkins-dilemma).

MIRKO
17-05-2013, 04:24 AM
But not with the affront to the supreme holiness of God. This requires that all sin must be punished, either the sinner or a sinless substitute. Saying, "I forgive you" would understate the seriousness of the affront to God's holiness. Anselm explained all this in the 11th century in his book Why God became Man (Cur Deus Homo).

Since the Dawk, with his superficial understanding, raised the same question as RW, CMI produced the paper Dawkins’ dilemma: how God forgives sin (http://creation.com/dawkins-dilemma).
Jono that is a Interesting Article "how GOD forgives Sin" I really enjoyed the explanation,thanks so Much.It's good to know when we stuff up,there is Forgiveness and we all do make a big Mess sometimes.

Rincewind
17-05-2013, 11:04 AM
Since the Dawk, with his superficial understanding, raised the same question as RW, CMI produced the paper Dawkins’ dilemma: how God forgives sin (http://creation.com/dawkins-dilemma).

The introduction of this seems to be a low-fidelity version of Kant's argument from morality. (After all you are not trying to give a proof of existence but rather trying to rationalising sin in such a way that god is both omnipotent while simultaneously unable to forgive sin).

Regarding the argument from morality I think that the wide-spread belief in an objective morality is for the most part responsible for the creation of most if not all of the world's religions, both now and historically. However the fact that religions are ubiquitous in human history is not a reason to think that any one of them (or any of them) are true.

It just demonstrates that the idea that an objective morality exists is a popular one.

Redmond Barry
18-05-2013, 03:04 AM
the fear of the lord is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.

Desmond
28-05-2013, 06:44 PM
Mark 16: 9-20
" "

John777
28-05-2013, 07:49 PM
Mark 16: 9-20
" "

There is no doubt, it's in the KJV!

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Desmond
28-05-2013, 07:55 PM
There is no doubt, it's in the KJV! There is no doubt that it wasn't written at the same time as the rest of "Mark".

John777
28-05-2013, 08:09 PM
There is no doubt that it wasn't written at the same time as the rest of "Mark".

just compare scripture with scripture

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2013, 03:31 AM
There is no doubt that it wasn't written at the same time as the rest of "Mark".
I agree. But nothing in there is not taught by authentic parts of Scrpture, except perhaps snake handling. Compare Excursus: How did Mark end his Gospel? (http://creation.com/whole-creation-fallen#markend)

John777
30-05-2013, 06:08 PM
But nothing in there is not taught by authentic parts of Scripture, except perhaps snake handling. Compare Excursus: How did Mark end his Gospel? (http://creation.com/whole-creation-fallen#markend)


there is no material in the long ending that we don’t have elsewhere. http://creation.com/whole-creation-fallen#markend

good


The uncials1 Sinaiticus2 and Vaticanus3 both end Mark at 16:8. http://creation.com/whole-creation-fallen#markend

it just shows that the Catholic Sinaiticus and Catholic Vaticanus are corrupted.

Rincewind
30-05-2013, 06:15 PM
Here is Mark 16 according to the lolcats bible. Note the distinct change in punctuation and use of emoticons in the passage 9-16 not present earlier.

Mark 16...

OMG WARE TEH Happy Cat GO?!?!11!

1 K so tehn on Sundy Mary Magdaln an Mary hoo wuz Jamses mom taekd sum spisez to rub on teh Happy Cat husk soes it dont stank. 2 An dey getz to teh cavez rly erly in teh mornan, liek sunries. 3 An dey wuz wundrin hoo wuz gunna maekded teh srsly big rokk door opind. 4 An dey lookded an seen teh door alredy opind. 5 And wen dey goed in teh caev dey seen a d00d thar in wite robes, an dey got skeert. 6 Teh d00d sez 'O HAI THAR, don be skeert. U comed heer lookin fer teh Happy Cat u lef heer, rite? He camed bak frum teh deds an aint heer no moar. 7 Now GTFO an txt Hiz d00dz an Pete an tell em dat dey can haz meetz wit teh Happy Cat in Galalee liek He sed befoer He wuz ded. kthxbi' 8 An teh chikz GTFO rly kwik cuz dey was srsly skeert, an dey dint tawk teh hole way homed. 9 An teh frst persn teh Happy Cat shode up fer wuz Mary Magdaln. He wonse pwnd sevn demans taht wuz livin in her. 10 An she teld Hiz d00dz abowt her meetz an dey maed a cry. :*( 11 Wen dey thunkd abowt teh Happy Cat seein Mary an not dem, dey stard thunkin 'No wai. He stil dedz' 12 Den teh Happy Cat apeerd to 2 moar uv His d00dz wile dey out taekn a walk. 13 Dey told teh udder d00dz bowt it but dey sez 'No wai.'

Jebus pwns His d00dz fer bein n00bs

14 So den Jebus shode up to all his d00dz wile dey was NOM NOM teh cheezbergrs an yelt an pwnd dem fer not baleevin He wuznt ded no moar. 15 An He sez, 'GTFO an GBTW tellin all teh cats an kittehs on Urfs abowt meh. 16 Tell dem teh cats dat baleev an r dunkd r full of WIN, an teh wons dat dont r on teh FAILBOAT an gonna get pwnd in teh hell. 17 An teh peepz full of WIN getz mah lvl ups an gonna b abl to pwn demans an 5P3@I< l33t w0RdZ, 18 an jugl snayks, an drank poysin witowt gittin hert, an respawnd ppl. k, bai.' 19 An wen he wuz doen talkin wit dem he taekd a INVISIBLE EVEVATER to teh skai an sat at da rite paw of Ceiling Cat. 20 An dey went an telded all teh catz and kittehz wat happn, and Ceiling Cat halpded dem do amazn stuffz to proev it. Kthxbai.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2013, 08:33 PM
it just shows that the Catholic Sinaiticus and Catholic Vaticanus are corrupted.
This is anachronistic. They were long before the medieval Church of Rome to which TR compiler Erasmus belonged.

Adamski
31-05-2013, 08:18 AM
5P3@I< l33t.What on earth is this meant to mean?

Desmond
31-05-2013, 09:59 AM
What on earth is this meant to mean?
I think - Speak leet, i.e. speak elite.

Rincewind
31-05-2013, 11:50 AM
What on earth is this meant to mean?

wat mah d00d runnerz sed. kthxbai.

Adamski
31-05-2013, 01:57 PM
It reminds me of pidgen English in PNG.

John777
31-05-2013, 07:12 PM
This is anachronistic. They were long before the medieval Church of Rome to which TR compiler Erasmus belonged.

older is not always better, Paul said:

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

John777
31-05-2013, 07:15 PM
wat mah d00d runnerz sed. kthxbai.

:pray:

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2013, 01:59 AM
older is not always better, Paul said:

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Paul was not talking about manuscripts long after this, albeit still long before the Byzantine manuscripts. You have yet to prove that they were "corrupted". The usual approach is that the older manuscripts are closer to the originals in time, so are likely to be closer in content as well.

It is simply eisegesis to apply such passages to the texts you don't like, or applying "word preservation" passages to the KJV. These are both cases of begging the question.

Desmond
01-06-2013, 07:27 PM
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Redmond Barry
01-06-2013, 07:53 PM
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

praise the lord !! :D

John777
01-06-2013, 09:21 PM
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

wrong bible translation

Desmond
01-06-2013, 09:26 PM
wrong bible translation
ipse dixit

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 01:54 AM
wrong bible translation
This is correct actually, not because it's not KJV, but because the Hebrew wəshākav (וְשָׁכַ֣ב) is the waw ("and") plus shākav, which just means "have sexual relations with" (actually it's a euphemism because it literally means "lie down with"). The translation "rape" in some of the modern versions is an interpretation of this word along with the word for "take hold of". But even if it were rape, in that culture, a rape victim could demand that the rapist marry her, and would thus be obliged to take care of her for life, as in 2 Samuel 13:1–22 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Samuel%2013.1%E2%80%9322).

Desmond
02-06-2013, 07:18 AM
But even if it were rape, in that culture, a rape victim could demand that the rapist marry her, and would thus be obliged to take care of her for life, as in 2 Samuel 13:1–22 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Samuel%2013.1%E2%80%9322).
Is this really the sort of moral message we would expect to find in a book attributed to the creator of the universe? Is this a footnote in the definition of what a marriage is, that makes it too sacred to change?

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 01:52 PM
Is this really the sort of moral message we would expect to find in a book attributed to the creator of the universe? Is this a footnote in the definition of what a marriage is, that makes it too sacred to change?
Of course it is. Anyone who had sex with a woman, rape or otherwise, would have an obligation to take care of her for life. Back then, there was no welfare to incentivize single motherhood.

Desmond
02-06-2013, 02:18 PM
Back then..was there a sunset clause? I didn't see one.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 03:27 PM
was there a sunset clause? I didn't see one.
There is in the New Testament. See The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ (http://www.ariel.org/mbs006e.htm).

Desmond
02-06-2013, 09:28 PM
There is in the New Testament. See The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ (http://www.ariel.org/mbs006e.htm).
Did you mean this bit?


So, if a Jewish believer feels the need to refrain from eating pork, for example, he is free to do so. The same is true for all the other commandments.

jammo
02-06-2013, 10:29 PM
Of course it is. Anyone who had sex with a woman, rape or otherwise, would have an obligation to take care of her for life. Back then, there was no welfare to incentivize single motherhood.

And what if more than one man was involved? Would they all have to marry her? Is this an oversight by God or does he clarify his stance in the New Testament?

Redmond Barry
03-06-2013, 08:29 PM
Of course it is. Anyone who had sex with a woman, rape or otherwise, would have an obligation to take care of her for life. Back then, there was no welfare to incentivize single motherhood.

would you prefer women who fall pregnant through the act of rape in these modern times to be assisted by welfare or do you think they should marry the man that raped them ?

you do realise how idiotic it is for the woman to be obligated towards spending the rest of her life with the perpetrator of her assault.

thanks captain crazy. this has been another splendid example of why youre a complete moron.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2013, 02:02 AM
would you prefer women who fall pregnant through the act of rape in these modern times to be assisted by welfare or do you think they should marry the man that raped them ?

you do realise how idiotic it is for the woman to be obligated towards spending the rest of her life with the perpetrator of her assault.

thanks captain crazy. this has been another splendid example of why youre a complete moron.
It provided a disincentive to sex. Also, if rape were proven, there were deserved punishments available, but not prison. The current system provides a disincentive against marrying non-rapist fathers, because their welfare benefits are slashed.

Saragossa
04-06-2013, 03:19 AM
The quotation also specifies she be a virgin and not pledged to marry. It seems like any psychopath who will never get a wife can go around raping people if he has 50 shekals to spare. I like the current system where women aren't forced to marry their rapists.

Saragossa
04-06-2013, 03:22 AM
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2013, 02:48 PM
Do try to understand what "slave" means. JuLiar Gillardova's cabinet members are her "slaves" according to the biblical meaning. See also Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero (http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero).

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2013, 02:49 PM
The quotation also specifies she be a virgin and not pledged to marry. It seems like any psychopath who will never get a wife can go around raping people if he has 50 shekals to spare. I like the current system where women aren't forced to marry their rapists.
The women were not forced to marry their rapists. Their rapists were forced to marry them and thus take care of them.

Saragossa
04-06-2013, 03:48 PM
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


The women were not forced to marry their rapists. Their rapists were forced to marry them and thus take care of them.

So the women were free to reject the offer of marriage, what would happen if they did? Why are non-virgins not 'protected'?

The 'and they are discovered' clause, is alarming, they under no obligation as good christians to take care of their rape victims without exterior input.


Do try to understand what "slave" means. JuLiar Gillardova's cabinet members are her "slaves" according to the biblical meaning.

Do try to understand that by the bible's teachings she should beat them for their disobedience (I can't imagine Rudd would have been axed under this system). I also think God should have been a little more specific, considering there were terrible acts of enslavement globally during that period. All seemingly tolerated by Jesus's wording.

Desmond
04-06-2013, 04:07 PM
So the women were free to reject the offer of marriage, Actually I think it up to her father to decide for her.


The 'and they are discovered' clause, is alarming, they under no obligation as good christians to take care of their rape victims without exterior input.Yes the "only punished if you get caught" seems a curious one coming from an omniscient being.

John777
04-06-2013, 07:51 PM
Yes the "only punished if you get caught" seems a curious one coming from an omniscient being.

It sounds reasonable when we have limited knowledge and are not omniscient :P

Desmond
04-06-2013, 07:54 PM
It sounds reasonable when we have limited knowledge and are not omniscient :P
Aye, it almost seems like these rules were made by men, not a god. :hmm:

John777
04-06-2013, 08:03 PM
Aye, it almost seems like these rules were made by men, not a god. :hmm:

Moses copied what God said to him and then he taught the people the law, the witness to that is the Lord Jesus who spoke of Moses law:

Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Then the Apostle Paul speaks of Moses laws too:

2 Corinthians 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Desmond
04-06-2013, 08:17 PM
Moses copied what God said to him and then he taught the people the law, the witness to that is the Lord Jesus who spoke of Moses law:So why then does god only ascribe punishment to those who get caught? If you are omniscient you cannot fail to catch someone. Sounds like Moses was burning the wacky tobaccy atop the mountain.

Saragossa
04-06-2013, 08:24 PM
Actually I think it up to her father to decide for her.

Yes the "only punished if you get caught" seems a curious one coming from an omniscient being.

Does he get his 50 shekals either way, or is accepting the way of permitting the marriage?

John777
04-06-2013, 08:29 PM
So why then does God only ascribe punishment to those who get caught? If you are omniscient you cannot fail to catch someone.

Hmmm i understand the question, but remember none of the Jews were sinless everyone did sin at some point except the Lord Jesus. So then is God going to punish everyone? i think that God had a bit of grace for Moses people, God knew they had a sinful nature, well if you want to say that well everyone is judged by God after they die so if they did not get caught they still get a judgment, but contrast your question with how is God a good God? There are many many good attributes of God so i would say why is God so good to sinners who do not want to know God?

Desmond
04-06-2013, 08:36 PM
Does he get his 50 shekals either way, or is accepting the way of permitting the marriage?
I think he would have to accept the proposal to get the silver. But hey, what father could be prouder than to raise a daughter to attract a rapist and earn a few bob in the process?

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2013, 05:54 AM
So the women were free to reject the offer of marriage, what would happen if they did? Why are non-virgins not 'protected'?
Yes women were free. A rapist would also be guilty of adultery with the sanctions that applied.


The 'and they are discovered' clause, is alarming, they under no obligation as good christians to take care of their rape victims without exterior input.
What are you on about now? For one thing, you are reading that it was "rape" when that word is not used. For another, all laws for a society presuppose that there is a body for enforcement.


Do try to understand that by the bible's teachings she should beat them for their disobedience (I can't imagine Rudd would have been axed under this system).
Why don't you cite this, given that you have shown precious little understanding thus far. There was one provision for people to sell themselves into slavery for a time to pay off a debt. (Whinge all you like about this, but then compare with the current system where victims of crimes are hardly compensated for their costs.) Since that person lacks the incentive to work, the master was allowed to beat them within limits as an encouragement.


I also think God
Why should the Creator care in the slightest what you think?


should have been a little more specific, considering there were terrible acts of enslavement globally during that period. All seemingly tolerated by Jesus's wording.
Again, look at what He said. Also, slavery was indeed a global evil that was endorsed by the Greeks and Romans so beloved by the Endarkenment, and only abolished by the activism of those who would be called "right-wing fundamentalists" today.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2013, 07:51 PM
Why should the Creator care in the slightest what you think?

Well that's a change from Christians warning us of a Creator that is so neurotically obsessed with what we think that we can supposedly be sent to Hell or denied an entry visa to the other place for not believing in It.

Saragossa
06-06-2013, 06:59 PM
Yes women were free. A rapist would also be guilty of adultery with the sanctions that applied.

To clarify, you mean, women were free to choose whether their rapists married them? I use the term rape, because even if it is a mistranslation, it implies rape goes under the same rules. If it does just mean to have sex with, I see it as unfair to men, who seem forced to convert any casual sex into prostitution by paying the dad 50 shekals. Why aren't women forced to marry the men they have sex with and pay them 50 shekals?



What are you on about now? For one thing, you are reading that it was "rape" when that word is not used. For another, all laws for a society presuppose that there is a body for enforcement.

Rape is sex so I assume the laws apply here. Well, seems like the omnipotent one misread the situation. Trifle that! It happens to the best of us. Why not presuppose himself as the body of enforcement?



Why don't you cite this, given that you have shown precious little understanding thus far. There was one provision for people to sell themselves into slavery for a time to pay off a debt. (Whinge all you like about this, but then compare with the current system where victims of crimes are hardly compensated for their costs.) Since that person lacks the incentive to work, the master was allowed to beat them within limits as an encouragement.


The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A slave must serve their master like they would serve Christ, who is an all knowing God, which means the slaves, if instructed, to put their hand through a meat mincer or murder one of their children, should do it. Maybe beating is light compared to the allowed punishment.



Why should the Creator care in the slightest what you think? Well he speaks to me every night, listens to what I say and thinks I'm pretty cool. He told me that he doesn't care what you think and that you have all of it wrong.

John777
06-06-2013, 08:44 PM
Well he speaks to me every night, listens to what I say and thinks I'm pretty cool. He told me that he doesn't care what you think and that you have all of it wrong.

well you are going to be judged out of the book of life and what is the book of life? the uncorrupted Bible

Saragossa
06-06-2013, 09:24 PM
well you are going to be judged out of the book of life and what is the book of life? the uncorrupted Bible

No, the all-powerful god is making an exception on my behalf. He said the bible was just an early draft and his magnus opum was the quran (Check out the book of Mormon for his self-parody). Your post smacks of jealousy but I can understand that, he can't though, he's telling me now to tell you to stop or you'll go to hell.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2013, 02:54 AM
To clarify, you mean, women were free to choose whether their rapists married them? I use the term rape, because even if it is a mistranslation, it implies rape goes under the same rules.
If it could be proved that the sex was non-consensual, then it's proven rape, which has much worse penalties.


If it does just mean to have sex with, I see it as unfair to men, who seem forced to convert any casual sex into prostitution by paying the dad 50 shekals. Why aren't women forced to marry the men they have sex with and pay them 50 shekals?
Oh you poor baby.


Rape is sex so I assume the laws apply here. Well, seems like the omnipotent one misread the situation. Trifle that! It happens to the best of us. Why not presuppose himself as the body of enforcement?
Because He has left it to humans to enforce. You should count yourself lucky that God is not the usual enforcer of violations against His law. If He were, then any time you think one of your childish village atheopathic thoughts, he could give you a migraine, for example.


A slave must serve their master like they would serve Christ, who is an all knowing God, which means the slaves, if instructed, to put their hand through a meat mincer or murder one of their children, should do it. Maybe beating is light compared to the allowed punishment.
One day you might grow up. God's laws are higher than man's, so if there is a conflict, even a slave or servant (or cabinet minister) must disobey his master.


Well he speaks to me every night, listens to what I say and thinks I'm pretty cool. He told me that he doesn't care what you think and that you have all of it wrong.
Evidently Narcissus had Saragossan Personality Disorder. If you could die and rise from the dead, you might be worth listening to.

Desmond
07-06-2013, 07:16 AM
Evidently Narcissus had Saragossan Personality Disorder. If you could die and rise from the dead, you might be worth listening to.
Yeah the one with the invisible sky daddy talking directly into his mind thinks someone else has a personality disorder. :lol:

Redmond Barry
07-06-2013, 07:40 AM
Yeah the one with the invisible sky daddy talking directly into his mind thinks someone else has a personality disorder. :lol:

its always good when jono instructs others to grow up.

the level of maturity he exhibits is truly profound.

i only wish i could be schooled in the word of god so that i may also refer to people as left wing retards and bints.

ive fingers crossed for this to happen.

wish me luck !! :D

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2013, 12:26 PM
Yeah the one with the invisible sky daddy talking directly into his mind thinks someone else has a personality disorder. :lol:
Which one is this? The one who rose from the dead? Actually it's a bad personality disorder to think that one is rearranged pond scum, as rr, GUB and that Saragossa child think.

Desmond
07-06-2013, 12:41 PM
Which one is this? you

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2013, 01:01 PM
Because He has left it to humans to enforce. You should count yourself lucky that God is not the usual enforcer of violations against His law. If He were, then any time you think one of your [silly ageist insult snipped-KB] village atheopathic thoughts, he could give you a migraine, for example.

Which would actually make a lot more sense than having a God that is utterly obsessed with whether people believe in God or not, but yet supplies them with not even remotely adequate evidence, and then punishes those who fail to be convinced by what they are right to not be convinced by.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2013, 01:22 PM
you
I've never claimed that God talks to me directly in my brain, only through the Bible. Try not to knock down straw men all your life.

Desmond
07-06-2013, 03:22 PM
I've never claimed that God talks to me directly in my brain, only through the Bible. Try not to knock down straw men all your life.
Are you saying that God has never spoken to you when you prayed to him, that you never felt his presence? If that is indeed the case, try not to be so gullible all your life.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2013, 03:27 PM
Are you saying that God has never spoken to you when you prayed to him, that you never felt his presence? If that is indeed the case, try not to be so gullible all your life.
My faith is mainly evidential and biblical, not based on feelings or experiences. You need to abandon your own gullibility in believing the fairy story of evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

Desmond
07-06-2013, 03:37 PM
My faith is mainly evidential and biblical, not based on feelings or experiences. You need to abandon your own gullibility in believing the fairy story of evolution from goo to you via the zoo.
You have no personal experience of God. Interesting.

John777
07-06-2013, 05:44 PM
God speaks to me through the KJV Bible word of God

James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2013, 11:56 PM
You have no personal experience of God. Interesting.
The point is, whether I do or not, my personal experience is something that I have and you cannot. So I have no interest in what now passes for "personal testimonies". We all do have the Bible and we have creation, and we are all victims of sin and death.

The biblical book of Hebrews starts:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

So pretty much as John 777 said (without the KJV): God speaks to us propositionally via the Scriptures.

Desmond
08-06-2013, 06:53 AM
The point is, whether I do or not, my personal experience is something that I have and you cannot.Do you?

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2013, 06:59 AM
Do you?
What, do you think that you can have my experience?

Desmond
08-06-2013, 07:38 AM
What, do you think that you can have my experience?
Has god ever spoken to you when you prayed to him, for example? Is it such a hard question?

Goughfather
08-06-2013, 09:17 AM
Has god ever spoken to you when you prayed to him, for example? Is it such a hard question?

The question would seem simple enough, but it would be hard for Jono to admit that he has a relationship with Jesus in much the same way that a Marxist might have a relationship with Karl Marx.

Rincewind
08-06-2013, 11:27 AM
Has god ever spoken to you when you prayed to him, for example? Is it such a hard question?

I think it works something like this (go to around 3:09 in) ...

zYJI41Kduz8

Language warning!!!

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2013, 01:23 PM
The question would seem simple enough, but it would be hard for Jono to admit that he has a relationship with Jesus in much the same way that a Marxist might have a relationship with Karl Marx.
While GF has the same relationship with Jesus that Satan does: one who defies Him and will be judged.

John777
08-06-2013, 06:01 PM
The question would seem simple enough, but it would be hard for Jono to admit that he has a relationship with Jesus in much the same way that a Marxist might have a relationship with Karl Marx.

maybe he doesn't want to tell you the answer because he doesn't trust you which would be fair enough.

Desmond
08-06-2013, 06:47 PM
maybe he doesn't want to tell you the answer because he doesn't trust you which would be fair enough.
No I do not think that is the reason at all.

So how about it Jono?

Adamski
08-06-2013, 06:57 PM
The question would seem simple enough, but it would be hard for Jono to admit that he has a relationship with Jesus in much the same way that a Marxist might have a relationship with Karl Marx.
I can certainly say that for me - I have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus and God does speak to me when I pray. Note that He has 3 main answers to prayer requests - yes, no and wait. But the more our wills conform with His, the more he can give us the desires of our hearts - which he put there. See Psalm 37:4. And thus the more "yes" answers.

jammo
08-06-2013, 08:36 PM
I can certainly say that for me - I have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus and God does speak to me when I pray. Note that He has 3 main answers to prayer requests - yes, no and wait. But the more our wills conform with His, the more he can give us the desires of our hearts - which he put there. See Psalm 37:4. And thus the more "yes" answers.

So when God "speaks" to you is this an audio experience that you hear?
If you are bi-lingual (say English and French) which language does he use?
Alternatively his communication is perhaps just a thought in your head?
If so how do you know that it is God speaking? It could be Satan pretending to be God. It could even be your own brain thinking to itself.
When you pray for world peace I'm guessing that his answer is "wait".
I thought that jesus promised that our prayers would be answered. 'Wait' is not much of an answer.

Saragossa
08-06-2013, 10:31 PM
If it could be proved that the sex was non-consensual, then it's proven rape, which has much worse penalties.

The man is stoned to death, although it doesn't clarify what happens to the victim. If she were to marry there's a risk she gets stoned to death (Deuteronomy 13:21) condemning her to unmarried life. Perhaps the forced marriage to her rapist is preferable but only because the ultimate ethicist put no thought in for the victim in either case (Let alone whether a popular English translation would confuse the matter further. Deuteronomy 1:30 contains lots of juicy stuff. For instance, a betrothed virgin getting raped in the city dies, but if she happens to be raped in a field, she lives. Why? Because that detail determines whether she cried out or not: 'For he found her in the field, and the betrothed Damsel cried, and there was no one to save her.' If a virgin cries in a field, and there is no one who will save her to hear her, did she cry at all? Pity that God hears everything but does nothing. If only he was the enforcing body.



Oh you poor baby.

What response can I give to your pity, the pity of a man who thinks the all time best ethicist supports the stoning of rapists and rape victims? I reject it, I don't want your pity, you have it, pity yourself.



Because He has left it to humans to enforce. You should count yourself lucky that God is not the usual enforcer of violations against His law. If He were, then any time you think one of your childish village atheopathic thoughts, he could give you a migraine, for example.

Wait, didn't the all powerful see that people are shitty enforcers? They don't know everything, but he does. They aren't all powerful, but he is. They don't know the law, he does. I wonder who can do the better job!?



One day you might grow up. God's laws are higher than man's, so if there is a conflict, even a slave or servant (or cabinet minister) must disobey his master.

I can't wait to grow enough as a human being to see that slavery is ethically permissible, the lawn is such a bitch to mow and my garden isn't harvesting itself.



Evidently Narcissus had Saragossan Personality Disorder. If you could die and rise from the dead, you might be worth listening to.


I can. I did it, just no one noticed except for God so that's why we talk all the time now. He's rewriting the bible atm, I would send you a draft but I can't remove it from my hat and it's taking ages to carve in gold. You'll have to wait.

Adamski
08-06-2013, 11:08 PM
So when God "speaks" to you is this an audio experience that you hear?
If you are bi-lingual (say English and French) which language does he use?
Alternatively his communication is perhaps just a thought in your head?
If so how do you know that it is God speaking? It could be Satan pretending to be God. It could even be your own brain thinking to itself.
When you pray for world peace I'm guessing that his answer is "wait".
I thought that jesus promised that our prayers would be answered. 'Wait' is not much of an answer.It can be audible but has not been so thus far in my experience. Rather it is an impression which I look to confirm before acting on and before doing anything as a consequence of what I believe God is saying, ensure that action lines up with God's Word, the Bible.

Saragossa
08-06-2013, 11:14 PM
Oh great, Deuteronomy 23:2 prohibits all bastards from entering the church for ten generations, thus if a victim of rape gets pregnant, her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchild will be the first to escape eternal torture. God changing his mind was such a douche act.

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

24 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, I can't wait to show everyone at the airport vineyard that I'm not a thief but an agent of the lord! PRAISE GOD FOR MY BODY IS READY FOR GRAPES. Does the holy book say anything about olives?

Goughfather
09-06-2013, 12:41 AM
While GF has the same relationship with Jesus that Satan does: one who defies Him and will be judged.

Obviously, I've struck a nerve. Behind all of Jono's anger and hostility lies a very insecure individual who cries himself to sleep on a nightly basis because he realises that his faith is simply a tenuous and unjustified faith in his own intellect. The emptiness and self-loathing he must feel is truly tragic and one can only feel incredibly sorry for him.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 12:44 AM
Oh great, Deuteronomy 23:2 prohibits all bastards from entering the church for ten generations,
No, child, it doesn't, because the church did not exist then. The church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection. As I've said before, the Jewish purity laws were to symbolize the separation of the Messianic people from the surrounding pagan nations until the Messiah came (see History and law codes (http://creation.com/bible-history-fall-ark#law) and Are we allowed to eat all animals today? (http://creation.com/all-food-clean)).

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 01:02 AM
Obviously, I've struck a nerve. Behind all of Jono's anger and hostility lies a very insecure individual who cries himself to sleep on a nightly basis because he realises that his faith is simply a tenuous and unjustified faith in his own intellect. The emptiness and self-loathing he must feel is truly tragic and one can only feel incredibly sorry for him.
More likely, GF is continuing his Alinskyite cheap psychologizing. For the above, "personal relationships" were not in view in the New Testament, which was written in a group-oriented honour-shame society. Rather, it was not a "Jesus is my buddy" but more like a patron-client relationship where God the Father is Patron, believers are the clients, and Jesus the honorable broker that mediates this relationship.

GF's anti-intellectualism is also glaring. However, Jesus told us to love God with all our … minds, not turn them off in favour of an airy-fairy "personal relationship". Emotions and feelings by their very nature are ephemeral, so it's more important that the faith is embraced by one's mind (see also Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation (http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation); one young lady said (http://creation.com/response-to-gay-marriage-article-objections-cmi-shows-questioner-that-christian-faith-is-logical#lita) that this article "helped me realize that true faith and intelligence aren’t mutually exclusive. ).

This faith includes embracing with one's mind that Jesus, fully god and fully man, died for our sins and rose from the dead. So a healthy faith is based on what Jesus has done for us, outside of us, i.e. the act of justification, declaring believers legally righteous before God. Sanctification, Jesus' work in us to make us personally more righteous, must never be confused with justification, and must always be based on Christ's justifying acts ~2,000 years ago.

Apologist James Patrick Holding explains in What is Faith? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html):


Here is more food for thought: Is there anyplace in the NT where we can find someone giving their "personal testimony"?

The answer is yes -- but it is in Phil. 3, where Paul gives his personal testimony about his former life, when writing to fellow Christians. He does not use it in a missionary setting to unbelievers.

Indeed, one will find nowhere in the NT an example of missionaries, or anyone, giving their personal testimony.

This is for good reason. The ancients conceived of personality as static; the way you were born is the way you stayed. Personal change was not a focus, because it was thought impossible. This is why the church remained suspicious of Paul even after his conversion, and until Barnabas (who probably knew Paul previously) testified on his behalf.

But note well: The following is not the sort of thing one will find in the NT:


Acts 2:48–52 And Peter arose and said, Men and brethren, I testify to you that whereas I formerly smoked mustard leaves, drank wine, cursed daily, and smelled moreover of fish, when the Lord Jesus Christ entered my heart I became clean. Now I no longer smoke, I no longer drink, my language is no longer filthy, and I bathe daily. Praise the Lord!
On the contrary. Here is what we do find in the missionary preaching of the NT:


Acts 2:22–36 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved...Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear... Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Peter's primary appeal here was threefold:

He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus;
he appealed to the empty tomb,
and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence—or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs.

Goughfather
09-06-2013, 01:10 AM
GF's anti-intellectualism is also glaring.

See, when you make assertions like this, one might think that you would follow this up by providing a basis for your opinion. But then again, since we are dealing with an intellectual lightweight like yourself, we have learnt not to expect too much.

Redmond Barry
09-06-2013, 02:56 AM
Note that He has 3 main answers to prayer requests - yes, no and wait.

does the lord make you 'wait' when he has to consult the brains trust ?

maybe he is just 'googling' your question.

Ian Murray
09-06-2013, 01:32 PM
No, child, it doesn't, because the church did not exist then. The church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection. As I've said before, the Jewish purity laws were to symbolize the separation of the Messianic people from the surrounding pagan nations until the Messiah came (see History and law codes (http://creation.com/bible-history-fall-ark#law) and Are we allowed to eat all animals today? (http://creation.com/all-food-clean)).
When the messiah comes, according to Judaism, he

will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.
The Messianic Idea in Judaism (http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm)

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 02:02 PM
When the messiah comes, according to Judaism, he will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).
Many Jews rejected Him the first time He came, so this will happen in His Second Coming.


Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach.
I'm a Jew and I do.

Saragossa
09-06-2013, 03:00 PM
No, child, it doesn't, because the church did not exist then. The church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection. As I've said before, the Jewish purity laws were to symbolize the separation of the Messianic people from the surrounding pagan nations until the Messiah came (see History and law codes (http://creation.com/bible-history-fall-ark#law) and Are we allowed to eat all animals today? (http://creation.com/all-food-clean)).

Sorry, the Lord's congregation then. Still, this rule will have resulted in millions of people burning in hell all because someone's great relative on the earth's otherside didn't get married before making babies.

P.S. I'm still keen for a response to the virgin rape victim who was not betrothed scenario. Is it true she has to live unwed, risk execution in marriage or, assuming you have the translation wrong, marry her rapist?

jammo
09-06-2013, 05:39 PM
It can be audible but has not been so thus far in my experience. Rather it is an impression which I look to confirm before acting on and before doing anything as a consequence of what I believe God is saying, ensure that action lines up with God's Word, the Bible.

Interesting. So God talks to you in 'impressions'. Better still you are not sure that the 'impression' is correct so you have to check it with scripture before acting upon it. Doesn't sound like a totally reliable basis for saying that you have in fact received an answer to your prayers from the almighty.

i note that you have not responded to my question as to how you can be sure that the source of these impressions is God.

John777
09-06-2013, 06:45 PM
Interesting. So God talks to you in 'impressions'. Better still you are not sure that the 'impression' is correct so you have to check it with scripture before acting upon it. Doesn't sound like a totally reliable basis for saying that you have in fact received an answer to your prayers from the almighty.

i note that you have not responded to my question as to how you can be sure that the source of these impressions is God.

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The words of God enable a Christian to "Walk in the Spirit"

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

if a Christian is "Walking in the Spirit" then they are doing the right thing.

Desmond
09-06-2013, 07:01 PM
Many Jews rejected Him the first time He came, so this will happen in His Second Coming.
Must be time for a new quote of the day:

Matthew 16 28 - Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

jammo
09-06-2013, 08:02 PM
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The words of God enable a Christian to "Walk in the Spirit"

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

if a Christian is "Walking in the Spirit" then they are doing the right thing.

John777. Do everyone a favour. Either contribute to the debate or shut up. Posting irrelevant quotes makes you look stupid.

jammo
09-06-2013, 08:06 PM
Must be time for a new quote of the day:

Matthew 16 28 - Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Good quote. It would appear that Jesus was fibbing.

Saragossa
09-06-2013, 08:55 PM
8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
8:30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

8:31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

8:32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

I like the bit where Jesus kills the pigs and lets the two demon people drown.

Ian Murray
09-06-2013, 09:27 PM
some crank anti-Christian Jewish site that even takes the "Jesus never existed" crap seriously
Not too obscure though - it was the first hit I got from Google with 'judaism coming of messiah'

How about this one (http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Jewish-View-Of-Jesus.htm) by Ariela Pelaia (http://judaism.about.com/bio/Ariela-Pelaia-58337.htm):

Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and preacher living during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the first century C.E. The Romans executed him - and also executed many other nationalistic and religious Jews - for speaking out against Roman authority and abuses.

After the death of Jesus, his followers - at the time a small sect of former Jews known as the Nazarenes - claimed he was the Messiah prophesied in Jewish texts and that he would soon return to fulfill the acts required of the Messiah. The majority of contemporary Jews rejected this belief and Judaism as a whole continues to do so today. Eventually, Jesus became the focal point of a small Jewish religious movement that would evolve into the Christian faith.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah," meaning someone who claimed (or whose followers claimed for him) the mantle of the Messiah but who ultimately did not meet the requirements laid out in Jewish beliefs.

Goughfather
09-06-2013, 10:54 PM
How about this one (http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Jewish-View-Of-Jesus.htm) by Ariela Pelaia (http://judaism.about.com/bio/Ariela-Pelaia-58337.htm):

Do you seriously expect a misogynist like Jono to give any weight to the analysis of a woman? He probably stopped reading once he saw the "a" at the end of her name.

Rincewind
09-06-2013, 11:55 PM
I'm a Jew and I do.

The quote was talking about the belief of Jews and in that context clearly refers to "Jews" as those of Jewish faith and not those of Jewish ethnicity. You might be of Jewish ethnicity but you are not of Jewish faith. Even if you claim to be Messianic Jew, that is still a branch of Christianity, not Judaism.

Oh and regarding...


some crank anti-Christian Jewish site that even takes the "Jesus never existed" crap seriously

The Jesus myth hypothesis is not entirely bogus. While presently most scholars think that someone probably existed there is a lot of debate as to the nature of that someone. Given that we know that there were a number of nationalistic Jews executed by the Roman occupation of Judea, proving that Jesus was entirely a myth is not easy and perhaps an impossible task. But the site is correct in saying that Jesus' existence is debatable since there is no historical evidence for this someone's existence that was recorded in their life time.

Adamski
10-06-2013, 12:07 AM
Interesting. So God talks to you in 'impressions'. Better still you are not sure that the 'impression' is correct so you have to check it with scripture before acting upon it. Doesn't sound like a totally reliable basis for saying that you have in fact received an answer to your prayers from the almighty.

i note that you have not responded to my question as to how you can be sure that the source of these impressions is God.
If the impression lines up with Scripture and is confirmed then I can be sure it is from God Himself. I have used this test many times through my life and God has not let me down.

Adamski
10-06-2013, 12:11 AM
I like the bit where Jesus kills the pigs and lets the two demon people drown.Where does the Bible say that the two possessed men drowned? Once the demons had gone out of them they were fine.

Adamski
10-06-2013, 12:12 AM
Good quote. It would appear that Jesus was fibbing.
I believe He was referring to the Apostle John who through his revelatory vision saw God in all His glory. (See Revelation.)

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 01:11 AM
Sorry, the Lord's congregation then. Still, this rule will have resulted in millions of people burning in hell all because someone's great relative on the earth's otherside didn't get married before making babies.
Stop your childish whinging and learn something. The entry into the Jewish congregation was not talking about eternal salvation but participation in the Jewish ceremonies. John Gill in his classic Bible commentary wrote:

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord,.... That is born of whoredom, as the Targum of Jonathan; and for the sake of avoiding whoredom and deterring from it was this law made, according to Maimonides (h), that adulterers might see, as he observes, that they affect their whole family with an irreparable stain, should they commit such an infamous action; though the Jews commonly interpret it of one that is born of any of those incestuous copulations forbidden in Leviticus 18:1 which they gather from this following upon, and being near unto one of those incests mentioned in the last verse of the preceding chapter (i); and it is a rule with them (k), that persons born of such copulations were reckoned bastards; now such an one, according to Jarchi, might not marry an Israelitish woman, or rather might not be admitted into the assembly of elders, or bear any public office. Jephthah may seem to be an objection to this, who was the son of an harlot, Judges 11:1 which might be owing to the badness of the times, the laws of God being neglected, or to the providence of God so ordering it, who is not bound by his own laws, though men are; nor was he the son of a common harlot, nor of an incestuous person, but of his father's concubine; besides some think such only are intended who were born of strangers and not Israelites:

even unto his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord; which seems as if he might at the eleventh; but it is generally interpreted never, as is gathered from the following verse, and from the tenth number being an absolute and perfect one; yet according to the Jewish writers there were ways and means by which their posterity became legitimate; so they say, bastards may be purified (or legitimated), how? if one marries a servant maid, the child is a servant, who if he becomes free, (his) son is a free man (l).

(h) Targum Jon. in loc. Misn. Yebamot, c. 8. sect. 2, 4, 5, 6. Maimon. Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 49. (i) Bartenora in Misn. Kiddushin, c. 3. sect. 12. (k) Misn. Kiddushin, c. 3. sect. 12. & Misn. Yebamot, c. 4. sect. 13. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in loc. (l) Misn. Kiddushin, c. 3. sect. 13.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 01:18 AM
Do you seriously expect a misogynist like Jono to give any weight to the analysis of a woman? He probably stopped reading once he saw the "a" at the end of her name.
More Alinskyite lies. This one at least doesn't deny that Jesus existed, but still makes the mistake of speaking of "the" Jewish view. I am a Jew and disagree with her. Also, she should know from OT history that the majority of the Jews rejected the true God YHWH too. Elijah thought he might be the only YHWH-worshipper in the land, but YHWH assured him that there was a faithful remnant of 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:14–18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2019:14-18&version=ESV)).

Saragossa
10-06-2013, 04:35 PM
Stop your childish whinging and learn something. The entry into the Jewish congregation was not talking about eternal salvation but participation in the Jewish ceremonies. John Gill in his classic Bible commentary wrote:

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord,.... That is born of whoredom, as the Targum of Jonathan; and for the sake of avoiding whoredom and deterring from it was this law made, according to Maimonides (h), that adulterers might see, as he observes, that they affect their whole family with an irreparable stain, should they commit such an infamous action; though the Jews commonly interpret it of one that is born of any of those incestuous copulations forbidden in Leviticus 18:1 which they gather from this following upon, and being near unto one of those incests mentioned in the last verse of the preceding chapter (i); and it is a rule with them (k), that persons born of such copulations were reckoned bastards; now such an one, according to Jarchi, might not marry an Israelitish woman, or rather might not be admitted into the assembly of elders, or bear any public office. Jephthah may seem to be an objection to this, who was the son of an harlot, Judges 11:1 which might be owing to the badness of the times, the laws of God being neglected, or to the providence of God so ordering it, who is not bound by his own laws, though men are; nor was he the son of a common harlot, nor of an incestuous person, but of his father's concubine; besides some think such only are intended who were born of strangers and not Israelites:

even unto his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord; which seems as if he might at the eleventh; but it is generally interpreted never, as is gathered from the following verse, and from the tenth number being an absolute and perfect one; yet according to the Jewish writers there were ways and means by which their posterity became legitimate; so they say, bastards may be purified (or legitimated), how? if one marries a servant maid, the child is a servant, who if he becomes free, (his) son is a free man (l).

(h) Targum Jon. in loc. Misn. Yebamot, c. 8. sect. 2, 4, 5, 6. Maimon. Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 49. (i) Bartenora in Misn. Kiddushin, c. 3. sect. 12. (k) Misn. Kiddushin, c. 3. sect. 12. & Misn. Yebamot, c. 4. sect. 13. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in loc. (l) Misn. Kiddushin, c. 3. sect. 13.

Yep, you're right. Sorry Jono, I jumped the gun there. What about my other question in post #163?

jammo
10-06-2013, 06:56 PM
I believe He was referring to the Apostle John who through his revelatory vision saw God in all His glory. (See Revelation.)

To my mind 'some standing here' is plural so if you want to believe he was referring to John then you need to find some others as well.

John777
10-06-2013, 07:40 PM
It would appear that Jesus was fibbing.

Jesus doesn't lie it is because you have not rightly divided the scripture that you cannot understand it.

Desmond
10-06-2013, 08:19 PM
Jesus doesn't lie it is because you have not rightly divided the scripture that you cannot understand it.
Maybe he was just wrong; after all elsewhere he states that he doesn't know everything that god does. No biggie - even carpenters can make mistakes.

Rincewind
10-06-2013, 09:10 PM
No biggie - even carpenters can make mistakes.

That's why you always measure twice.

Saragossa
10-06-2013, 09:49 PM
Where does the Bible say that the two possessed men drowned? Once the demons had gone out of them they were fine.

In your opinion.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 11:03 PM
In your opinion.
It is a correct opinion. That was the whole point of sending the demons out of them men and into the pigs.


Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Try a few different translations, e.g. ESV, “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity.” The KJV wrongly has God creating “evil”, although the Hebrew rā‘ רע is here not the opposite of good/righteous but the opposite of peace or wellbeing.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 11:08 PM
The quote was talking about the belief of Jews and in that context clearly refers to "Jews" as those of Jewish faith and not those of Jewish ethnicity.
Most Jews in the USA and even Israel are not of the Jewish faith, but secular.


You might be of Jewish ethnicity but you are not of Jewish faith.
I am still a Jew, because this is defined biblically as a physical patrilineal descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.


Even if you claim to be Messianic Jew, that is still a branch of Christianity, not Judaism.
My religion is Christianity, but I am a Jew as well. So any statement "Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah" is wrong. Even "Jews believe in one God" is not true for many Jews.


Oh and regarding...
The Jesus myth hypothesis is not entirely bogus. While presently most scholars think that someone probably existed there is a lot of debate as to the nature of that someone. Given that we know that there were a number of nationalistic Jews executed by the Roman occupation of Judea, proving that Jesus was entirely a myth is not easy and perhaps an impossible task. But the site is correct in saying that Jesus' existence is debatable since there is no historical evidence for this someone's existence that was recorded in their life time.
It is bogus. No serious historian denies that Jesus existed.

Saragossa
10-06-2013, 11:50 PM
It is a correct opinion. That was the whole point of sending the demons out of them men and into the pigs.

That is, of course, according to you.

I don't have to post any different translations, this is a thread for bible quotations and that quotation came from the KJV. But thanks, I'll keep in mind that god doesn't create evil, instead calamity, suffering and death. . . Sorry, what's your definition of evil?

I see you're still avoiding #163. If a virgin, who is not betrothed, is raped, is the man executed leaving the victim unable to marry upon risk of being proven of whoredom on her wedding night and thus stoned to death by the men of the city or does she have to marry her rapist?

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 11:52 PM
That is, of course, according to you.
According to common sense. Jesus was healing those men.


I don't have to post any different translations, this is a thread for bible quotations and that quotation came from the KJV.
Who says? The KJV is wrong here. The original Hebrew is very clear.


I see you're still avoiding #163.
I already explained that.

Saragossa
11-06-2013, 12:11 AM
Anyone who had sex with a woman, rape or otherwise, would have an obligation to take care of her for life.



If it could be proved that the sex was non-consensual, then it's proven rape, which has much worse penalties.

Yes, your ambivalent responses cleared the matter up. You then noted that victims weren't forced to marry their rapists, rapists were forced to marry their victims. But women were free to choose. Is she really free to choose, given that her family will be out of money and she can never wed again. It really seems like God was favouring rapists, why couldn't he figure out a better system?

Saragossa
11-06-2013, 12:14 AM
30 No man shall take his father’s wife, nor shall uncover his father’s skirt.

This one certainly is fruity, I didn't realise the bible permitted cross-dressing.

Saragossa
11-06-2013, 12:16 AM
According to common sense. Jesus was healing those men.

Who says? The KJV is wrong here. The original Hebrew is very clear.


I already explained that.

By drowning them? Sorry, I don't understand, is that what we are trying to replicate at christenings?

All bibles are the word of God.

Adamski
11-06-2013, 12:21 AM
By drowning them? Sorry, I don't understand, is that what we are trying to replicate at christenings?

All bibles are the word of God.As Jono and I have both said, the men were not drowned. Only the pigs were.

Rincewind
11-06-2013, 12:55 AM
Most Jews in the USA and even Israel are not of the Jewish faith, but secular.

Yes and you are again conflating Jewish ethnicity with Jewish faith. When someone says "Jews believe XYZ" they are talking about faith, not ethnicity since ethnicities are not defined by their beliefs, religions are.


I am still a Jew, because this is defined biblically as a physical patrilineal descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Yes you are of Jewish ethnicity, not Jewish faith as previously explained. Although obviously not at a low enough reading level.


My religion is Christianity, but I am a Jew as well. So any statement "Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah" is wrong. Even "Jews believe in one God" is not true for many Jews.

It is not wrong. You misunderstood it because you seem unable to cope with a word having different meanings in different contexts. Jews (in this context people of the Jewish faith) do not believe Jesus was the Mashiach because he did not not fulfil the prophecies.


It is bogus. No serious historian denies that Jesus existed.

That isn't what I said. There is a difference between most historians not denying something and the myth hypothesis being bogus. Nice use of the no true scotsman fallacy by the way. Can we call it the "no serious historian" fallacy now?

There is simply no incontrovertible evidence that any single historical Jesus similar to the one described in the gospels existed. The New Testament accounts are not contemporary and the silence in the non-christian sources is reason for caution. In particular the silence on events like the nativity miracles and the slaying of the innocents is particularly deafening.

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2013, 10:45 AM
Yes and you are again conflating Jewish ethnicity with Jewish faith.
Not at all. I am pointing out that Jewishness is defined ethnically. Most Israelis don't practise the "Jewish faith". I am well aware that modern Judaism rejects Yeshua as Mashiach. It is therefore wrong.


That isn't what I said. There is a difference between most historians not denying something and the myth hypothesis being bogus. Nice use of the no true scotsman fallacy by the way. Can we call it the "no serious historian" fallacy now?
considering that even an apostate like Bart Ehrman is scathing of the "Jesus never existed" crap, it shows up low-information websites that they give credence to it.


There is simply no incontrovertible evidence that any single historical Jesus similar to the one described in the gospels existed. The New Testament accounts are not contemporary
They were first or second-hand reports.


and the silence in the non-christian sources is reason for caution. In particular the silence on events like the nativity miracles and the slaying of the innocents is particularly deafening.
When you realize how few sources there are for that period, and then consider that these events in a small corner of the Roman Empire would not rate a mention, the silence is understandable. For example, Herod committed so many atrocities, including killing his favorite wife and sons, that killing the innocents is well within his character. Augustus said it was safer to be Herod's sow (hus) than his son (huios), because as a nominal Jew, Herod would not eat pork. But would Josephus would not necessarily bother reporting it.

Rincewind
11-06-2013, 11:19 AM
Not at all. I am pointing out that Jewishness is defined ethnically. Most Israelis don't practise the "Jewish faith". I am well aware that modern Judaism rejects Yeshua as Mashiach. It is therefore wrong.

No you are again having trouble with the concept that a single word might have more than one definition.


considering that even an apostate like Bart Ehrman is scathing of the "Jesus never existed" crap, it shows up low-information websites that they give credence to it.

It shows nothing of the sort. Ehrman is an evangelical christian and is scathing for reasons other than scholarship. There are scathing reviews of various versions of the Jesus myth hypothesis by various academics but the fact remains that we cannot deny a historical Herod (for whom there are many contemporary accounts) but there are zero for supposed son of god.


They were first or second-hand reports.

Simple fact is we don't know. Virtually all historians all agree that a good deal of the new testament is made up (particularly the bits involving magic and suspension of the normal laws of physics that went unnoticed by all other ancient sources). The historicity of the remainder is open.


When you realize how few sources there are for that period, and then consider that these events in a small corner of the Roman Empire would not rate a mention, the silence is understandable.

That is true perhaps of sources based in Rome but we also have accounts from Judea like Josephus.


For example, Herod committed so many atrocities, including killing his favorite wife and sons, that killing the innocents is well within his character.

Within character is debatable and certainly not evidence. The fact that Herod did kill is own sons is probably what gave the author of Matthew the idea for the story. Especially as it has parallels the killing of the first born in Egypt and can be made to look like a fulfillment of OT prophesy (although I always through that Matthew was a bit weak in this particular case).


Augustus said it was safer to be Herod's sow (hus) than his son (huios), because as a nominal Jew, Herod would not eat pork. But would Josephus would not necessarily bother reporting it.

Killing twenty (or more) children for no apparent reason? I would have thought that would be a very odd thing not to report. Particularly because it begs the question of why Herod would instigate genocide in a Jewish community like Bethlehem.

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2013, 01:31 PM
It shows nothing of the sort. Ehrman is an evangelical christian and is scathing for reasons other than scholarship.
Do you have any clues at all? Even you own favourite "scholarly" source, Wiki, says that he's an agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman).


There are scathing reviews of various versions of the Jesus myth hypothesis by various academics but the fact remains that we cannot deny a historical Herod (for whom there are many contemporary accounts) but there are zero for supposed son of god.
The point is, denying that Jesus existed is just plain fruitloopy.


Simple fact is we don't know. Virtually all historians all agree that a good deal of the new testament is made up (particularly the bits involving magic and suspension of the normal laws of physics that went unnoticed by all other ancient sources).
Only historians with an a priori bias against the miraculous, which didn't come from history but from their assumptions.


That is true perhaps of sources based in Rome but we also have accounts from Judea like Josephus.
Josephus had his own agenda.


Within character is debatable and certainly not evidence. The fact that Herod did kill is own sons is probably what gave the author of Matthew the idea for the story. Especially as it has parallels the killing of the first born in Egypt and can be made to look like a fulfillment of OT prophesy (although I always through that Matthew was a bit weak in this particular case).
Rubbish. You should know better than to use an argument from silence.


Killing twenty (or more) children for no apparent reason? I would have thought that would be a very odd thing not to report. Particularly because it begs the question of why Herod would instigate genocide in a Jewish community like Bethlehem.
It's obvious: Herod didn't want another challenger for "King of the Jews".

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2013, 02:22 PM
Only historians with an a priori bias against the miraculous, which didn't come from history but from their assumptions.

If their actual reason for scepticism about claimed miracles is the lack of support for them from other sources that should have been expected to notice them if true, how is that a priori?

Even a position based on the idea that "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence" - one that entails scepticism about miracles claimed by a source even in the absence of other possible contrary sources - is often a deduced position rather than an a priori assumption.

Your own position is of an axiomatic assumption in favour of any miracle claimed by (your interpretation of) the Bible and of rejecting any counter-evidence no matter how apparently strong or convincing.

Rincewind
11-06-2013, 04:39 PM
Do you have any clues at all? Even you own favourite "scholarly" source, Wiki, says that he's an agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman).

Sorry he is currently agnostic. Since you didn't cite the particular scathing comments of Ehrman it is not clear if he was an evangelical christian, a liberal christian or an agnostic at the time of writing the comments you allude to.


The point is, denying that Jesus existed is just plain fruitloopy.

Ipse dixit.

The vast majority of scholars also conclude that either Matthew or Luke (or both) are wrong on the year of Jesus birth. If your method leads to the Jesus myth hypothesis is fruitloopy then the by the same measure, biblical concordance between Matthew and Luke on the year of birth issue is likewise fruitloopy.


Only historians with an a priori bias against the miraculous, which didn't come from history but from their assumptions.

Not necessarily. The silence in secular sources for things like the Bethlehem star is just too loud to be ignored. The ONLY authors who even try to twist history into accommodating it are those with a religious bias.


Josephus had his own agenda.

Of course but how would that stop Josephus from reporting the massacre when he recorded other bad acts of Herod?


Rubbish. You should know better than to use an argument from silence.

Argument from silence should be used with caution but in this particular case it is reasonably strong. In this case remember that the author of Matthew is reporting on stories that have passed through more than two or three hands as they date from when Jesus was an infant. And so there is even greater opportunity for stories to become exaggerated or even legends to have formed.


It's obvious: Herod didn't want another challenger for "King of the Jews".

There would only be any credibility to that motivation if there was some reason to think that a viable challenger was born to an unknown mother in a small village. The only source of both the motivation and the act come from Matthew and the narrative is bound up with the Star of Bethlehem which is itself historically problematic.

John777
11-06-2013, 05:45 PM
All bibles are the word of God.

ah God is not confused only those that dont understand this:

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Desmond
11-06-2013, 07:27 PM
ah God is not confused only those that dont understand this:

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
I wouldn't say I'm confused, more like dizzy from the circularity of your argument.

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2013, 12:14 AM
The vast majority of scholars also conclude that either Matthew or Luke (or both) are wrong on the year of Jesus birth.
Nonsense. They don't give a year. The one who was wrong was Dionysius Exiguus ("Dennis the Short", c. 470 – c. 544) who calculated the BC/AD system five centuries after Christ.


Not necessarily. The silence in secular sources for things like the Bethlehem star is just too loud to be ignored.
Not a problem if the "star" meant the Shekinah Glory. After all, in both Hebrew and Greek, the words for "star" (kôkāb ככב, astēr αστήρ) meant any bright light in the sky.


The ONLY authors who even try to twist history into accommodating it are those with a religious bias.
Oh of course, atheopathic scholars are the epitome of objectivity.


Of course but how would that stop Josephus from reporting the massacre when he recorded other bad acts of Herod?
Because he had recorded enough to demonstrate Herod's murderous and paranoid character. Josephus even says that his account was incomplete.


Argument from silence should be used with caution but in this particular case it is reasonably strong. In this case remember that the author of Matthew is reporting on stories that have passed through more than two or three hands as they date from when Jesus was an infant.
Matthew may have gained information from Jesus that His parents told him, as well as reports from other magi who learned from the ones who visited Jesus.


And so there is even greater opportunity for stories to become exaggerated or even legends to have formed.
Not enough time. Julius Müller (1801–1878) challenged 19th century skeptics to show anywhere in history where within 30 years, legends had accumulated around a historical person and become firmly fixed. [The Theory of Myths, in Its Application to the Gospel History Examined and Confuted, John Chapman, London, p. 26, 1844]

Even if one accepts the late dates of most liberals, one must note that Prof. Sherwin-White (1911–1993), the eminent classical historian from Oxford University, has pointed out that legends require a time gap of more than two generations. Therefore, if the Gospels are legendary, the rate of legendary accumulation would need to be “unbelievable”. He wrote:


“For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming … any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” [Sherwin-White, A., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Baker Book House, Michigan, USA, pp. 188–191, 1992.]


There would only be any credibility to that motivation if there was some reason to think that a viable challenger was born to an unknown mother in a small village.
But the Magi had told Herod about the king of the Jews, naively think that Herod would welcome him instead of seeing him as a rival.


The only source of both the motivation and the act come from Matthew and the narrative is bound up with the Star of Bethlehem which is itself historically problematic.
How many sources do you need? You reject things recorded in all the gospels.

Rincewind
12-06-2013, 01:55 AM
Nonsense. They don't give a year. The one who was wrong was Dionysius Exiguus ("Dennis the Short", c. 470 – c. 544) who calculated the BC/AD system five centuries after Christ.

Actually he did pretty well given Matthew dates the birth at before the death of Herod the Great (prior to 4 BC) and Luke dates his birth during Roman rule which did not begin until around 6 AD.


Not a problem if the "star" meant the Shekinah Glory. After all, in both Hebrew and Greek, the words for "star" (kôkāb ככב, astēr αστήρ) meant any bright light in the sky.

The magi were supposedly directed by a star which was not usually there (or usually so bright). Again there is no secular records of this unusual and noteworthy astronomical event.


Oh of course, atheopathic scholars are the epitome of objectivity.

You were singing their praises when it comes to dismissing the Christ myth hypothesis as fruitloopy. However when they disagree with your fruitloopy ideas they suddenly become completely unobjective. Sounds like special pleading, Jono.


Because he had recorded enough to demonstrate Herod's murderous and paranoid character. Josephus even says that his account was incomplete.

It was not Josephus' agenda to merely document Herod's bad character. He was preparing a history of the Jewish people and the massacre of 20+ infants by their king is an unusual omission.

Precisely how many sources are there for the massacre of the innocents?


Matthew may have gained information from Jesus that His parents told him, as well as reports from other magi who learned from the ones who visited Jesus.

As Matthew was not the author of Matthew that is a long bow to draw. The idea that the author of Matthew drew on reports from magi is pure fantasy.


Not enough time. Julius Müller (1801–1878) challenged 19th century skeptics to show anywhere in history where within 30 years, legends had accumulated around a historical person and become firmly fixed. [The Theory of Myths, in Its Application to the Gospel History Examined and Confuted, John Chapman, London, p. 26, 1844]

1844! How you certainly have your finger on the pulse of modern scholarship there Jono.


Even if one accepts the late dates of most liberals, one must note that Prof. Sherwin-White (1911–1993), the eminent classical historian from Oxford University, has pointed out that legends require a time gap of more than two generations. Therefore, if the Gospels are legendary, the rate of legendary accumulation would need to be “unbelievable”. He wrote:


“For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming … any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” [Sherwin-White, A., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Baker Book House, Michigan, USA, pp. 188–191, 1992.]

See 20th cargo cults on Vanuatu where legends were generated around characters such as John Frum and Tom Navy is much shorter than 2 generations. Also we are talking about gospel here particularly the passages dealing with events prior to Jesus' commencing his ministry. That is a world of difference from Acts.


But the Magi had told Herod about the king of the Jews, naively think that Herod would welcome him instead of seeing him as a rival.

And found their way to Judea by following a strange and noteworthy astronomical event which was not witnessed by the rest of world.


How many sources do you need? You reject things recorded in all the gospels.

The synoptic gospels are derivative. Although it is interesting they disagree on certain key points such as whether Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born.

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2013, 05:52 AM
Actually he did pretty well given Matthew dates the birth at before the death of Herod the Great (prior to 4 BC) and Luke dates his birth during Roman rule which did not begin until around 6 AD.
No, Roman rule began when Pompey took Jerusalem. Luke was referring to a census before the well-known one by Quirinius in the time you state. See The Census of Quirinius: Did Luke get it wrong? (http://creation.com/quirinius-census-luke)


You were singing their praises when it comes to dismissing the Christ myth hypothesis as fruitloopy. However when they disagree with your fruitloopy ideas they suddenly become completely unobjective. Sounds like special pleading, Jono.
Not at all. Once more, I was citing Ehrman as a hostile witness.


It was not Josephus' agenda to merely document Herod's bad character. He was preparing a history of the Jewish people and the massacre of 20+ infants by their king is an unusual omission.
Not at all, considering that Bethlehem was a small place.


As Matthew was not the author of Matthew that is a long bow to draw.
The early church said he was. Alleged scholar writing 1900 years later claim he was not.


The idea that the author of Matthew drew on reports from magi is pure fantasy.
It is a plausible idea based on what we know about the history of that time and methods of writing.


1844! How you certainly have your finger on the pulse of modern scholarship there Jono.
It has never been refuted. Much of the anti-miraculous is nothing more than warmed-over Hume, and much of the anti-biblical scholarship is little more than 19th century charlatans like Julius Wellhausen (Old Testament) and David Strauss Strauss (New Testament).


And found their way to Judea by following a strange and noteworthy astronomical event which was not witnessed by the rest of world.
I told you, it was probably the Shekinah Glory not an astronomical evidence.


The synoptic gospels are derivative. Although it is interesting they disagree on certain key points such as whether Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born.
No they don't.

Adamski
12-06-2013, 08:00 AM
As a historian by training (Honours degree) I am very interested in the current Jobo / RW debate here. I guess no-one will be surprised that I agree with Jono. Matthew wrote Matthew and he was an eye-witness of Jesus - indeed one of the original 12 Apostles. I am inclined to agree too that the so-called Star of Bethlehem was the brifmght Shekinah glory of God, as seen by Moses and at the dedication of Solomon's temple e.g. Also I have reaf a bit of Josephus and his intent in Antiquities of the Jews was not to write a complete history of all Jewish people everywhere. Bethlehem was a very small village and recording another one of many massacres by Herod was not important for Josephus

Rincewind
12-06-2013, 03:02 PM
No, Roman rule began when Pompey took Jerusalem. Luke was referring to a census before the well-known one by Quirinius in the time you state. See The Census of Quirinius: Did Luke get it wrong? (http://creation.com/quirinius-census-luke)

That is a naive piece of writing. Firstly you haven't decided what the solution is and provide two possible theories therefore neither is obviously compelling even to you. In any case both can be shown to be more tortuous than the intended meaning of Luke which is simply the first census under Quirinius which was not before 6AD and a decade after the death of Herod the Great.

Problems with hypothesis one

You imply that the first census is meant to contrast the great census mentioned in acts. However this interpretation is faulting as the passages are not closely related and there is no reason that the first and the great census are not one and the same.

Even if Quirinius did govern Syria in 7 BC (which is doubtful) Judea was an independent friendly kingdom at the time governed by Herod and Rome would not census it since it was not yet a part of the Roman province of Syria nor were the subjects directly taxed by Rome but relied on fixed tributes from Herod.

The idea that Quirinius was twice ruler of Syria is additionally problematic since the early interpretation of the Tiburtine inscription was flawed and I don't know of any modern secular scholar who still advances the theory of a second governorship of Syria by Quirinius or anyone else. There is no precedent and no evidence to suggest that such a notable thing occurred where we have a lot of possible historians who could have recorded this remarkable occurrence. The Tiburtine inscription is not identifiable to Quirinius and it also doesn't say anyone was twice governor of Syria. Just that the subject held two posts one of which was consul of Syria. See below...

http://onthewaytoithaca.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/lapis-tiburtinus.jpg?w=500

Archer's idea that Quirinius acted under Saturninus is problematic on two counts. Firstly Judea was not annexed to Syria at that time and so would not have involved Joseph and Mary and secondly such a assignment would have been a slap in the face of both Quirinius and Saturninus. Augustus was a clever judge of character as you state and would not have humiliated either of them in this way.

Problem with hypothesis two.

Here you basically claim "first" should be translated as "before". Do you know of any major translation of the bible which makes this translation? If not I would contend that this is because the Luke plainly means first. To say that he might have meant before would call in to question the writing skill of the author of Luke.


Not at all. Once more, I was citing Ehrman as a hostile witness.

That's fine but if you use hostile witnesses to advance your argument in one area it is special pleading to not allow the same witnesses in to other parts of your position. Therefore if Christ myth hypothesis is fruitloopy so are attempts to reconcile that Matthew dates Jesus' birth to the time of Herod's rule while Luke dates it as during Roman rule when we know from many sources that these periods did not overlap and were in fact separated by around a decade.


Not at all, considering that Bethlehem was a small place.

The size of Bethlehem is not a factor. It was still the blatant act of a tyrant. After all Josephus records an uprising in Galilee as a result of the census. If people are going to get upset by someone coming around and counting numbers how do you think the murder of a complete generation of a town would go down?


The early church said he was. Alleged scholar writing 1900 years later claim he was not.

The early church said lots of things and not all of them are necessarily true. In particular Papias (for example) is not necessarily talking about the Matthew we have today and may be been talking about the source material that the author of Matthew drew upon when he compiled Matthew.


It is a plausible idea based on what we know about the history of that time and methods of writing.

For which there is absolutely no evidence, not even in the Gospel.


It has never been refuted. Much of the anti-miraculous is nothing more than warmed-over Hume, and much of the anti-biblical scholarship is little more than 19th century charlatans like Julius Wellhausen (Old Testament) and David Strauss Strauss (New Testament).

It was refuted in my last reply. Cargo cults of the 20th century show evidence of the very quick development of legends.


I told you, it was probably the Shekinah Glory not an astronomical evidence.

So just a locally visible star? So local that it was only visible to a small number of magi?


No they don't.

Yes they do.

Rincewind
12-06-2013, 04:25 PM
Bethlehem was a very small village and recording another one of many massacres by Herod was not important for Josephus

What exactly is your source for these "many massacres" by Herod?

Herod did accuse several family members of treason and had many executed, some with trial and some without, but this in not unusual in ruling families. However I can't see any historically verifiable event where Herod orders troops into a Jewish town to massacre the general populous. As there is no precedent for the massacre arguments that the silence is not suspicious are unconvincing to say the least. Further if such an event did take place there would have been repercussions such as a revolt of Herod's rule. Neither the massacre nor a similar precedent nor reasonable repercussions are recorded by anyone.

John777
12-06-2013, 08:17 PM
As a historian by training (Honours degree)

did you see this?

Ancient Find Supports Stories of King David, Solomon

When Eilat Mazar realized she'd discover an ancient structure near Jerusalem, she turned to the Bible to help explain what she'd found. She learned that this new discovery supports the biblical accounts of King David and his son Solomon.

Second Samuel 5:11 says the Phoenician king Kiram "sent messengers to David and cedar trees, and carpenters and masons, and they built David a house."
*
"So it's a palace/fortress well built for good reasons, which is probably the palace that Hiram built for king David," Mazar speculated.
*
"We know its date, which is around 1000. That is around the time of King David. The Phoenician style of construction is quite emphasized. The Phoenicians are great builders as we learn from our excavations in Phoenician sites," she said.
*
Inside, the team found more evidence of royalty, from ancient seals used by court officials, to a variety of carved ivory utensils -- too expensive for a regular home, but perfect for a palace.
*
Mazar explained the "major part of the structure is still hidden and needs to be excavated." She believes "what we have in hand is less than a quarter."
*
A New Discovery
*
Across the street from the City of David, Mazar is directing another dig. She told CBN News just outside the Temple Mount she found more royal ruins. This time from David's son Solomon.
*
In 2010, excavations revealed a giant wall more than 220 feet long and almost 20 feet high. Mazar said this is the city wall described in 1 Kings 3, which says that Solomon built "the wall all around Jerusalem." It connected David's old city with Solomon's new temple.

"And we can really say that the biblical description of King Solomon building the wall of Jerusalem around suits so well what we see (in the ruins).This is the only place that a fortification line is needed. It's surrounding that area; it connects to the Temple Mount. It's everything that fits the biblical story," Mazar argued.
*
Critics were quick to dispute Mazar's conclusion, but she had carbon dating on her side. Pottery shards found at the ground floor dated to the 10th century B.C. when Solomon was king.
*
"Sometime in the late 10th century, early 9th century, the king of Jerusalem built a most highly skilled fortification that indicated it's a strong regime, centralized, with great abilities. But then, we have this biblical story that tells about King Solomon doing the same thing. So, he did, and then like, 50 years later, some other king did the same thing?"
*
She suggests this is enough evidence for crtics to stop "fighting against the Bible." Mazar claims, "The reality is that a sophisticated fortification was built by King Solomon." And what has been discovered is "only part of it," a very big part.
*
Inside the wall were more clues pointing to King Solomon. 1 Kings 4:7 says that he had "12 governors who provided food for the king and his household." And inside the gate Mazar's team found evidence of their work: jar handles with seals inscribed "to the king" and large clay jars for storing grain.
*
Mazar believes they came from the royal bakery.

"On one of the vessels, there is an inscription, an incision in ancient Hebrew saying "lazar ha'o" to the minister that was in charge of the "o." That's probably the ophim, in Hebrew, which is bakery," she said.
*
But Mazar's hunt for the house or David isn't over yet. Next on her agenda is another royal palace. This time she'll be looking for the house of King Solomon."
*
"Whatever I'll be able to add and contribute to the excavation of Jerusalem, this is my huge privilege. There is only one Jerusalem in the world. But it's not like I'll start or end anything. We are only at the beginning of it and it's going to be generations to come," Mazar predicted.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2013/June/Ancient-Find-Supports-Stories-of-King-David-Solomon/

Rincewind
12-06-2013, 09:09 PM
Seems everything Eilat Mazar digs up is straight out of the bible, even when it isn't (http://www.bib-arch.org/debates/seal-controversy-06.asp).

Adamski
13-06-2013, 12:08 AM
did you see this?

Ancient Find Supports Stories of King David, Solomon

When Eilat Mazar realized she'd discover an ancient structure near Jerusalem, she turned to the Bible to help explain what she'd found. She learned that this new discovery supports the biblical accounts of King David and his son Solomon.
..."And we can really say that the biblical description of King Solomon building the wall of Jerusalem around suits so well what we see (in the ruins).This is the only place that a fortification line is needed. It's surrounding that area; it connects to the Temple Mount. It's everything that fits the biblical story," Mazar argued.
*
Critics were quick to dispute Mazar's
"Sometime in the late 10th century, early 9th century, the king of Jerusalem built a most highly skilled fortification that indicated it's a strong regime, centralized, with great abilities. But then, we have this biblical story that tells about King Solomon doing the same thing. So, he did, and then like, 50 years later, some other king did the same thing?"
*
She suggests this is enough evidence for crtics to stop "fighting against the Bible." Mazar claims, "The reality is that a sophisticated fortification was built by King Solomon." And what has been discovered is "only part of it," a very big part.
*
Inside the wall were more clues pointing to King Solomon. 1 Kings 4:7 says that he had "12 governors who provided food for the king and his household..."Mazar's hunt for the house or David isn't over yet. Next on her agenda is another royal palace. This time she'll be looking for the house of King Solomon."
*
"Whatever I'll be able to add and contribute to the excavation of Jerusalem, this is my huge privilege. There is only one Jerusalem in the world. But it's not like I'll start or end anything. We are only at the beginning of it and it's going to be generations to come," Mazar predicted.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2013/June/Ancient-Find-Supports-Stories-of-King-David-Solomon/
Interesting. Also checked out the site cited by RW above. Not convinced by the latter.

Rincewind
13-06-2013, 12:10 AM
Interesting. Also checked out the site cited by RW above. Not convinced by the latter.

You understand how a seal works right?

Rincewind
13-06-2013, 12:16 AM
From the same website as linked to above...

Eilat Mazar’s Reaction to the Criticism of Her Reading


I accept the suggestion made by Peter van der Veen and followed by many other scholars to read Sh l m t. Actually, I love it. For the time being, this reading is preferable to my reading of t m h or h m t. This is an opportunity also to thank the many scholars who took part in the various blogs contributing their knowledge on the subject.

Adamski
13-06-2013, 12:21 AM
You understand how a seal works right?
Indeed. Will read more on this ere long....

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2013, 12:24 AM
That is a naive piece of writing. Firstly you haven't decided what the solution is and provide two possible theories therefore neither is obviously compelling even to you.
Either of them will solve the problem, and both of them have support from the scholars in Koinč Greek.


In any case both can be shown to be more tortuous than the intended meaning of Luke which is simply the first census under Quirinius which was not before 6AD and a decade after the death of Herod the Great.
Sez you. But I've documented that Luke was aware of the famous one which is why he could simply say "the census".


Problems with hypothesis one

You imply that the first census is meant to contrast the great census mentioned in acts. However this interpretation is faulting as the passages are not closely related and there is no reason that the first and the great census are not one and the same.
There is, because of the qualifications.


Even if Quirinius did govern Syria in 7 BC (which is doubtful)
There is some evidence of this, as documented in the article.


Judea was an independent friendly kingdom at the time governed by Herod and Rome would not census it since it was not yet a part of the Roman province of Syria nor were the subjects directly taxed by Rome but relied on fixed tributes from Herod.
It would make sense that Augustus would try to change that so he would getting his money's worth.

The idea that Quirinius was twice ruler of Syria is additionally problematic since the early interpretation of the Tiburtine inscription was flawed [/QUOTE]
In your opinion.


Archer's idea that Quirinius acted under Saturninus is problematic on two counts. Firstly Judea was not annexed to Syria at that time and so would not have involved Joseph and Mary and secondly such a assignment would have been a slap in the face of both Quirinius and Saturninus. Augustus was a clever judge of character as you state and would not have humiliated either of them in this way.
It would have been an honour for a capable leader like Quirinius to have been put in charge of the census.


Here you basically claim "first" should be translated as "before". Do you know of any major translation of the bible which makes this translation?
Irrelevant, since I have cited some experts in Koinč Greek to do so.


If not I would contend that this is because the Luke plainly means first. To say that he might have meant before would call in to question the writing skill of the author of Luke.
Not at all, considering there are other Koinč Greek usages of this meaning, even in the NT.


That's fine but if you use hostile witnesses to advance your argument in one area it is special pleading to not allow the same witnesses in to other parts of your position.
The point is precisely that these witnesses are not motivated by desire to defend the truth of Christianity but still reject the "Jesus never existed" crap.


The size of Bethlehem is not a factor. It was still the blatant act of a tyrant.
One of many.


After all Josephus records an uprising in Galilee as a result of the census. If people are going to get upset by someone coming around and counting numbers how do you think the murder of a complete generation of a town would go down?
It doesn't follow that Josephus would bother to record the murder of 20 infants in a small town, writing decades after the events.


The early church said lots of things and not all of them are necessarily true. In particular Papias (for example) is not necessarily talking about the Matthew we have today and may be been talking about the source material that the author of Matthew drew upon when he compiled Matthew.
Of course it is. It fits the description that he first wrote an account in Hebrew than wrote his gospel in Greek.


For which there is absolutely no evidence, not even in the Gospel.
This is begging the question. We know that it was common to interview witnesses, and no reason to think that Matthew didn't seek them out. Luke was more explicit that he did so.


It was refuted in my last reply. Cargo cults of the 20th century show evidence of the very quick development of legends.
A very different issue. Nothing like a resurrection from the dead. Everything about Christianity shows that it had everything against it to become a leading religion if not backed up by historical evidence. Cargo cults sprang in cultures where powerful men could distribute lots of gifts.


So just a locally visible star? So local that it was only visible to a small number of magi?
I told you, it was the Shekinah Glory.

Rincewind
13-06-2013, 12:56 PM
Either of them will solve the problem, and both of them have support from the scholars in Koinč Greek.

So you admit that there is a problem and neither of the two solutions are convincing. Both have very marginal support from scholars and neither are approaching mainstream which is the to assume that Luke means what he clearly says.


Sez you. But I've documented that Luke was aware of the famous one which is why he could simply say "the census".

The argument that they are qualifications only hold water if they are in a related passage. As one is in the Gospel and the other in Acts he is not contrasting one census with the other. Therefore the use of first in the Gospel does not preclude that it was the same one as in the Acts.


There is, because of the qualifications.

No it is simply saying the first since the Judeans did not undertake censuses generally and a the commencement of Roman rule there was one which locals would know as the first one.


There is some evidence of this, as documented in the article.

Nope you just parrot old canards (like the Lapis Tiburtinus) which have already been shown do not provide evidence at all.


It would make sense that Augustus would try to change that so he would getting his money's worth.

Herod was an ally of Roman and Augustus well knew that a friendly client state paying its annual tribute was worth a lot more than trying to rule through a Roman governor due to civil unrest and the cost of providing garrisons.


It would have been an honour for a capable leader like Quirinius to have been put in charge of the census.

Says you. Roman citizens were very conscious of social standing and accepting a job below their station was almost unthinkable. Quirinius was named a consul and 12 BC and it is without precedent that a consul would be placed in charge of a census of a foreign territory of which he was not the governor. If you think otherwise, perhaps you can find some other cases of this "honour" being bestowed on other consuls anywhere in the entire history of the Roman empire.


Irrelevant, since I have cited some experts in Koinč Greek to do so.

hardly irrelevant since Bible translators all involve some experts in Koinč Greek and no major translation to my knowledge has considered than Lukes usage could mean before.

One of two scholars trying to patch up Luke by wishful thinking is not the same sort of evidence as the translators of every major version of the Bible all agreeing that Luke means what he says and first means first.


Not at all, considering there are other Koinč Greek usages of this meaning, even in the NT.

There are different specifics which is why translators make those translations.


The point is precisely that these witnesses are not motivated by desire to defend the truth of Christianity but still reject the "Jesus never existed" crap.

Ehrman is hardly hostile since he used to be an evangelical christian and today is only agnostic. In any case it is disingenuous to rely on the qualifications of biblical scholars and when they agree with you and then deride them as worthless when they don't. You have to be consistent or else you are just committing confirmation bias.


One of many.

None like this and there is no evidence for the massacre except in Matthew,


It doesn't follow that Josephus would bother to record the murder of 20 infants in a small town, writing decades after the events.

It does since it is a notable event (see by reply above to your fanboi) where I said...

However I can't see any historically verifiable event where Herod orders troops into a Jewish town to massacre the general populous. As there is no precedent for the massacre arguments that the silence is not suspicious are unconvincing to say the least. Further if such an event did take place there would have been repercussions such as a revolt of Herod's rule. Neither the massacre nor a similar precedent nor reasonable repercussions are recorded by anyone.


Of course it is. It fits the description that he first wrote an account in Hebrew than wrote his gospel in Greek.

It also fits the description if Papias was referring to an account in Hebrew which was later used by someone else to write the extant Matthew in Greek.


This is begging the question. We know that it was common to interview witnesses, and no reason to think that Matthew didn't seek them out. Luke was more explicit that he did so.

Sorry but there is just no evidence for your conjecture either inside or outside of any of the gospels. To claim that Matthew's information came by interviewing other magi who somehow had some information network which preserved the story of the magi who travelled to Bethlehem is simply ridiculous.


A very different issue. Nothing like a resurrection from the dead. Everything about Christianity shows that it had everything against it to become a leading religion if not backed up by historical evidence. Cargo cults sprang in cultures where powerful men could distribute lots of gifts.

Of course the specifics are different but both cases show how stories which are unverifiable can be taken up by a small number of adherents pretty quickly.


I told you, it was the Shekinah Glory.

Translation: It was a magic star that could float around at will and was only visible to the magi.

Ahhh that makes perfect sense. What is the difference between that and hallucinations of the magi?

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2013, 12:27 AM
So you admit that there is a problem and neither of the two solutions are convincing. Both have very marginal support from scholars and neither are approaching mainstream which is the to assume that Luke means what he clearly says.
I believe that he means what he says too. The problem is that many people living 2,000 years later may have missed this.


hardly irrelevant since Bible translators all involve some experts in Koinč Greek and no major translation to my knowledge has considered than Lukes usage could mean before.
A number of them favour the first solution, and some of these acknowledge that the second one is possible, e.g.

(This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) footnote "Or This was the registration before" NIV
This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. NASB
This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. ESV, with a footnote, "Or This was the registration before"
There is also This mifkad (census) was before that taken while Quirinius was governor in Syria. (Orthodox Jewish Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%202:2%20&version=OJB)).



Ehrman is hardly hostile since he used to be an evangelical christian and today is only agnostic.
He makes his living from attacking the faith he once professed. There is a big difference between his work on the NT text that he did under the late Bruce Metzger and what he writes in populist works, for which Metzger would have eaten him alive.


In any case it is disingenuous to rely on the qualifications of biblical scholars and when they agree with you and then deride them as worthless when they don't. You have to be consistent or else you are just committing confirmation bias.
I rely on historians who don't dispute Jesus' existence, as well as hostile witnesses like Ehrman. The leading Christ-never-existed charlatan was G.A. Wells, a professor of German not a historian.


However I can't see any historically verifiable event where Herod orders troops into a Jewish town to massacre the general populous.
Lots of events of history have only one report. You don't care anyway, because you reject other gospel events that are multiply attested.


Translation: It was a magic star that could float around at will and was only visible to the magi.
No, it was a supernatural appearance to people who descended from Daniel's colleagues and were expecting the Messiah around that time.

Rincewind
14-06-2013, 01:28 AM
I believe that he means what he says too. The problem is that many people living 2,000 years later may have missed this.

Come off it Jono. Every major English translation says first. To try and squeeze before in there is to claim that theologians know more Greek then the experts.


A number of them favour the first solution, and some of these acknowledge that the second one is possible, e.g.

(This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) footnote "Or This was the registration before" NIV
This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. NASB
This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. ESV, with a footnote, "Or This was the registration before"
There is also This mifkad (census) was before that taken while Quirinius was governor in Syria. (Orthodox Jewish Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%202:2%20&version=OJB)).


The Orthodox Jewish Bible is neither a major translation and David Stern is straining the syntax there.

Jared Compton (whom you cite in your original article) gives a good synopsis of the issue and there are 5 problems with this interpretation of which four are related to syntax and why in this case "prote" was almost certainly being used as a superlative and not a comparative or adverbial.

If this is not the case then it calls into question Luke's ability to document events in a meaningful way.


He makes his living from attacking the faith he once professed. There is a big difference between his work on the NT text that he did under the late Bruce Metzger and what he writes in populist works, for which Metzger would have eaten him alive.

If he is an agnostic he has nothing to gain by attacking that faith. Perhaps he is critical of biblical literalists. But in any case what's sauce for the goose.


I rely on historians who don't dispute Jesus' existence, as well as hostile witnesses like Ehrman. The leading Christ-never-existed charlatan was G.A. Wells, a professor of German not a historian.

G. A. Wells is not the only person to have advanced the idea that Jesus was a myth. In fact there are a number of varieties of the Jesus myth hypothesis depending on specifics. The widest definition was provided by Archibald Robertson who said, "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."


Lots of events of history have only one report. You don't care anyway, because you reject other gospel events that are multiply attested.

It is problematic on two counts. Firstly it would have been a widely criticised act and would have likely brought about repercussions. Neither this heinous act or other like it nor any of the likely repercussions are recorded anywhere. Not even in any of the other Gospels. Of course Luke doesn't mention it because he has Jesus being born 10 years after Herod's death.


No, it was a supernatural appearance...

Every time you play the supernatural card, I get a point.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2013, 01:54 AM
Come off it Jono. Every major English translation says first. To try and squeeze before in there is to claim that theologians know more Greek then the experts.
Some of these "theologians" are specialists in Greek grammar.


If this is not the case then it calls into question Luke's ability to document events in a meaningful way.
No, just the problems of understanding a language of 2,000 years ago, the common dialect (koinē dialektos κοινὴ διάλεκτος), although scholars are getting there very well. A discovery of papyri and inscriptions has helped a lot.


If he is an agnostic he has nothing to gain by attacking that faith. Perhaps he is critical of biblical literalists. But in any case what's sauce for the goose.
He is critical of the Christian faith and the reliability of the Bible.


It is problematic on two counts. Firstly it would have been a widely criticised act and would have likely brought about repercussions. Neither this heinous act or other like it nor any of the likely repercussions are recorded anywhere. Not even in any of the other Gospels.
You have yet to demonstrate that such an argument from silence is reasonable.


Of course Luke doesn't mention it because he has Jesus being born 10 years after Herod's death.
Already refuted.


Every time you play the supernatural card, I get a point.
Award yourself all the points you like, but you begs the question of whether the supernatural is false in the first place, which is the very point in debate.

Rincewind
14-06-2013, 02:24 AM
Some of these "theologians" are specialists in Greek grammar.

True but there are issues with their interpretation at outlined by Compton and they are very much on the fringe. One of the non-grammatical issues with the comparative/adverbial interpretation theory is, if true, why does Luke mention Quirinius at all? As Compton says...


However, this fails to explain why in an apparent attempt to helpfully situate his narrative chronologically, Luke would make such an unhelpful chronological point. Why not rather refer to the regnal year of Augustus, Herod’s death or something more precise, as he does in a similar situation later (cf. Luke 3:1).


No, just the problems of understanding a language of 2,000 years ago, the common dialect (koinē dialektos κοινὴ διάλεκτος), although scholars are getting there very well. A discovery of papyri and inscriptions has helped a lot.

Yes but the weight of opinion is very much with "first" and not "before"


He is critical of the Christian faith and the reliability of the Bible.

With good reason.


You have yet to demonstrate that such an argument from silence is reasonable.

Hardly. You have yet to give another example of Herod performing a massacre of the general population. He did have a number of rival executed including members of his immediate family but sending troops into a town to wipe out a generation is without precedent.


Already refuted.

Not.


Award yourself all the points you like, but you begs the question of whether the supernatural is false in the first place, which is the very point in debate.

No. We are talking about the historicity of events described in the Bible. Matthew describes a star which appeared and attracted the attention of astronomers who travelled to Judea as a result. To claim it was a supernatural phenomenon and therefore not visible as a star to anyone else is an admission that there can be no historical corroboration of that part of the tale.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2013, 05:05 AM
Yes but the weight of opinion is very much with "first" and not "before"
Truth is not decided by majority vote.


With good reason.
Yet you were touring him as an evangelical Christian when it suited you.


No. We are talking about the historicity of events described in the Bible. Matthew describes a star which appeared and attracted the attention of astronomers who travelled to Judea as a result. To claim it was a supernatural phenomenon and therefore not visible as a star to anyone else is an admission that there can be no historical corroboration of that part of the tale.
No, just that there is no naturalistic explanation, but since I'm not a dogmatic materialist like you, that's no a problem.

Adamski
14-06-2013, 08:44 AM
RW, how can Jesus be a myth wheh hostile witness Jewish historian Josephus describes his death and resurrection ("for he appeared to them alive again the third day"), calls him "Christ", and even says "as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Antiquities, 18.3.3?

Rincewind
14-06-2013, 05:35 PM
Truth is not decided by majority vote.

That is true but there are certainly issues with either of your proposed solutions. The problem with the tortuous syntax is that is presents either Luke as a confusing writer and or that inspired scripture contained grammatical errors.


Yet you were touring him as an evangelical Christian when it suited you.

And he was one!

As you were not specific which comments you were alluding to, they could well have been written by Bart the evangelical or even Bart the liberal christian. He has never really been what I would call hostile to Christianity. In Jesus Interrupted he said...


Whether you are a believer -- fundamentalist, evangelical, moderate, liberal -- or a nonbeliever, the Bible is the most significant book in the history of our civilization. Coming to understand what it actually is, and is not, is one of the most important intellectual endeavors that anyone in our society can embark upon

I'm sure christians of any ilk can agree with that.


No, just that there is no naturalistic explanation, but since I'm not a dogmatic materialist like you, that's no a problem.

The problem with playing the miracle card is not so much the lack of a material explanation. It is the lack of corroboration which is a problem of measurement not explanation.

Matthew describes a star which was noticed by astronomers and caused them to travel to Judea. However to claim that this star which was supposed to herald the birth of the son of God was not visible to anyone but the magi makes it a much less impressive event and frankly a much less miraculous event.

Even if the Matthew nativity story is taken at face value a star which was effectively a revelation to just the magi is no different to any other personal experience such as a hallucination which may or may not have supernatural origin. At the moment there is really nothing to explain since no one (as far as we know) saw anything that had a physical manifestation.

Rincewind
14-06-2013, 05:46 PM
RW, how can Jesus be a myth wheh hostile witness Jewish historian Josephus describes his death and resurrection ("for he appeared to them alive again the third day"), calls him "Christ", and even says "as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Antiquities, 18.3.3?

Hi Adamski. The passage you quote is a well known addition (interpolation) which was almost certainly made by a Christian copyist and not the original words of Josephus. Perhaps some scholars today still cling to the authenticity of 18 3.3 but I suspect that they are scanty.

PS I did tell you this a couple of months ago (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=355291&postcount=38) as well.

PPS. As far as I can tell the first person on the current incarnation of this BBS that I told about the corruption of Josephus Antiquities XVIII Ch 3 was AES in 2005!!! (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=75444&postcount=975). So please forgive me if I come across as "over it".

Oepty
14-06-2013, 11:42 PM
Not quite what I had in mind

Goughfather
15-06-2013, 12:08 AM
Hi Adamski. The passage you quote is a well known addition (interpolation) which was almost certainly made by a Christian copyist and not the original words of Josephus. Perhaps some scholars today still cling to the authenticity of 18 3.3 but I suspect that they are scanty.

Indeed. I think that the consensus seemed to be that Josephus said something along the lines of "he was called the Christ". It would seem pretty bizarre if Josephus was declaring Jesus to be the Messiah prophesied about and yet remained of the Jewish faith. Most Christian scholars, even conservative ones (to the extent that conservative theology should be regarded as scholarship rather than thinly veiled apologetics) accept this to be the case, but the reference does have some value in pointing to a community in Judea around about that time who called themselves "Christians" and based their religion on a fellow by the name of Yeshua.

Goughfather
15-06-2013, 12:12 AM
As you were not specific which comments you were alluding to, they could well have been written by Bart the evangelical or even Bart the liberal christian. He has never really been what I would call hostile to Christianity.

According to Jono, "hostile to Christianity" simply means that you disagree with the beliefs of Jono's obscure and dying sect that bears a tangential relationship to Christianity.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2013, 04:43 AM
According to Jono, "hostile to Christianity" simply means that you disagree with the beliefs of Jono's obscure and dying sect that bears a tangential relationship to Christianity.
More likely, hostile to the historic beliefs of Christianity such as the divinity of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture. GF's pseudo-Christianity is really leftard politics in clerical garb.


Indeed. I think that the consensus seemed to be that Josephus said something along the lines of "he was called the Christ".
One quote is Antiquities 20.9.1:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ [tou legomenou Christou], whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
This passage is genuine. It is found in all extant manuscripts of Josephus, and differs from the Christian usage. The NT calls James "the brother of the Lord" or "brother of the saviour", but Josephus just names the person without the title. His quip affirms the reality of one called Jesus, and the reality that many esteemed as Christ, but Josephus is neither affirming nor denying this claim. So this passage stands as historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, using language a hypothetical Christian interpolator would not have used. In any case, many classical manuscripts were copied by Christians in the monasteries, and we have no evidence of Christian interpolations in other works like those of Philo.


It would seem pretty bizarre if Josephus was declaring Jesus to be the Messiah prophesied about and yet remained of the Jewish faith.
Origen, writing in the third century in his commentary on Matthew notes:

"And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

This could also apply to the "Testimonium Flavianum", Antiquities 18.3.3:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Jesus had many people who liked a lot of his teachings but were loath to follow him. Given that C.S. Lewis famously had to formulate the trilemma argument (http://tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html), it's clear that people throughout the ages, from the Gospel times (e.g. the 'rich young ruler') to present days, have tried to have it both ways.

For Josephus, who despised the Zealots and blamed them for provoking the Jewish War that brought so much slaughter, he may well have appreciated Jesus opposition to violent rebellion against the Romans. Josephus also liked pithy saying of both Jews and Greeks, and he may well have admired Jesus for this too.


Most Christian scholars, even conservative ones (to the extent that conservative theology should be regarded as scholarship rather than thinly veiled apologetics)
Rather, liberal theology is thinly veiled accomodationism to the prevailing intelligentsia's fad-du-jour. Of course this changes over the years—from Kaiserite policies in WW2 as Adolf Harnack adored (and which repulsed Barth from that sort of liberal theology); Bultmann's demythologization learned under his mentor, Nazi philosopher Heidegger; or nowadays, the socialism and race-baiting of the modern Australian Labor/Greens and American Democrats.


accept this to be the case, but the reference does have some value in pointing to a community in Judea around about that time who called themselves "Christians" and based their religion on a fellow by the name of Yeshua.
Indeed. Also, attributing the name "Christians" to "Christ" is not too different from Tacitus' descriptions in Annals 15.44, that the "Christians" were called that by the populace after their founder "Chrestus".

As with the other passage, the textual evidence for the Testimonium is very strong. If there is any Christian interpolation, it is probably confined to the italicized phrases. They seem unusual for a non-Christian to say. They could conceivably have been added by a later Christian copyist, perhaps from a marginal note in an earlier copy, since they would not clash with the grammar of the rest. Phrases like "doer of wonderful (Greek: paradoxos) works" is not the way Christians would normally describe Christ's miracles.

Adamski
15-06-2013, 04:00 PM
Re the last point on Josephus, after further reading I concede that at least some of 16.3.3 is likely to be an addition by a Christian. The Tacitus reference is one I also knew about and is perhaps stronger evidence yhat Christ lived a real life on earth as a human (who was also fully God)

Rincewind
15-06-2013, 04:21 PM
Re the last point on Josephus, after further reading I concede that at least some of 16.3.3 is likely to be an addition by a Christian. The Tacitus reference is one I also knew about and is perhaps stronger evidence yhat Christ lived a real life on earth as a human (who was also fully God)

Tacitus attests to the existence of Christians and the belief that Christ was persecuted under Pilate. This passage was written early in the second century (c.116) and so there had been plenty of time by the time of writing for the story to become wide-spread, even if not fact.

Hobbes
23-06-2013, 02:47 PM
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Oepty
23-06-2013, 06:59 PM
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

I do not recognize this quote. Where is it from?

Oepty
23-06-2013, 07:03 PM
Philippians 2:12-16

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Do all things without grumbling or disputing;
so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,
holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.

Ian Murray
23-06-2013, 07:25 PM
I do not recognize this quote. Where is it from?

Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Oepty
23-06-2013, 07:27 PM
Samuel L. Jacksin in Pulp Fiction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Thank you

I would rather people keep fiction out of this thread but it is probably a lost cause.

Desmond
23-06-2013, 07:38 PM
“When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, There's just something about you that pisses me off.”
― Stephen King

Ian Murray
23-06-2013, 08:16 PM
Thank you

I would rather people keep fiction out of this thread but it is probably a lost cause.
Not fiction - his very words.

-IVQ-UP8yyY

See also Ezekiel 25:17

antichrist
23-06-2013, 08:41 PM
“When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, There's just something about you that pisses me off.”
― Stephen King
Did God really say that?

Oepty
23-06-2013, 09:05 PM
Not fiction - his very words.

-IVQ-UP8yyY

See also Ezekiel 25:17

It is from a movie so it is fiction and it is not really Ezekiel 25:17 either. The last sentence is an adaption of part of Ezekiel 25:17 as far as I can tell. The last word in all the translations I have checked is them not thee.
The rest might be based on other Bible quotes but if so I do not know which ones.

Ian Murray
23-06-2013, 09:22 PM
It is from a movie so it is fiction and it is not really Ezekiel 25:17 either. The last sentence is an adaption of part of Ezekiel 25:17 as far as I can tell. The last word in all the translations I have checked is them not thee.
The rest might be based on other Bible quotes but if so I do not know which ones.
I still expect to earn points from Hobbes for picking the character and movie

Hobbes
23-06-2013, 09:48 PM
I still expect to earn points from Hobbes for picking the character and movie

Yes, although this one was so obvious that really O.E.Pty should lose points for never having heard of it!

antichrist
24-06-2013, 12:24 AM
Thank you

I would rather people keep fiction out of this thread but it is probably a lost cause.

Isn't JC a fictionist character?

Desmond
24-06-2013, 07:31 AM
Isn't JC a fictionist character?
He should have been an X-men.

Oepty
24-06-2013, 10:44 AM
Yes, although this one was so obvious that really O.E.Pty should lose points for never having heard of it!

I only extremely rarely watch movies.

Ian Murray
24-06-2013, 01:06 PM
Yes, although this one was so obvious that really O.E.Pty should lose points for never having heard of it!
True. "Furious anger" was all I needed relive the scene.

antichrist
24-06-2013, 01:08 PM
I only extremely rarely watch movies.
I can recommend the Passion of Christ

Oepty
24-06-2013, 02:50 PM
I can recommend the Passion of Christ

If you really think I am going to watch that you are stupider than I thought.

antichrist
24-06-2013, 05:06 PM
If you really think I am going to watch that you are stupider than I thought.
It is a wholesome Christian movie by Catholic Aussie so what could be wrong with it? And it was extremely popular so there

Adamski
24-06-2013, 06:51 PM
It is a wholesome Christian movie by Catholic Aussie so what could be wrong with it? And it was extremely popular so thereI thought Mel Gibson's movie was good - saw it twice- but I don't think he is an Aussie!

Ian Murray
24-06-2013, 07:00 PM
I thought Mel Gibson's movie was good - saw it twice- but I don't think he is an Aussie!
Yes he is.

Adamski
24-06-2013, 07:10 PM
Yes he is.I sit corrected again. Born in US but moved to Sydney before going back to US.

Hobbes
22-07-2013, 07:11 PM
Do you seriously expect a misogynist like Jono to give any weight to the analysis of a woman? He probably stopped reading once he saw the "a" at the end of her name.

An ironic post in light of recent revelations...

Desmond
22-07-2013, 07:22 PM
Nahum 1:2
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.