Christians: Please Explain This Verse [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

BeFranklin

12-27-2008, 01:36 AM

Recently, I've been reading the Bible (seeing if I should go back to my religious upbringing) for the very first time, and I have encountered a verse which has left me completely confused. I have been thinking about it for hours and have found no answer on the internet.

Matthew 22:7
note: Jesus says the following
"The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city."

Both the note in my Bible and other sources suggest that the verse is "an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Biblical scholars suggest that this is the most likely explanation

But Jesus died several decades before this event.

Now, I wouldn't have that much problem with it if this happened to be black text (and thus the words of the author), but this is RED TEXT...as in, the alleged words of Jesus Christ himself.

WTF...

But Jesus was raised from the dead and to the throne of his Father so he is still alive :)

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Or latter in the same chapter of Matthew:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

BeFranklin

12-27-2008, 01:39 AM

tremendoustie

12-27-2008, 02:04 AM

Right. My problem with the whole thing, however, is that they believe the author finished this work between A.D. 70 and 100 - thus, passing off his own experiences/words as those of Jesus. Given that the writer most likely witnessed the destruction of the temple, from a scholarly standpoint, it would be hard to ignore the fact that the author was influenced by this event...

extremely disconcerting

Prophecy or passing off your own words as those of Jesus?

My understanding is that it's believed Matthew was finished around AD 50-55

There are fragments of Matthew found on papyrus in Egypt, dating to around 66 Ad. Not this portion, mind you, so take that as you will.

Ultimately, though, if you want to take the tack that the disciples were lying, and liberally inserted their own views, you can.

There are at least a couple reasons I don't think this is likely. Firstly, there were purportedly thousands of witnesses to many of the events, often an entire city. For example, all of Jerusalem would have had to know about the crucifixion, and the bible claims hundreds, perhaps thousands saw him after. Then, there's the feeding of the 5000, and many, many other very public acts. If these claims were all false, they wouldn't have had an ounce of credibility, and there's no way the gospel message would have caught on enough to spread as wildly as it did -- or enough to spread texts to Egypt within a couple decades, for example.

I mean, these texts were written when almost all of the supposed eyewitnesses would have still been alive. And, this in a culture of oral tradition, where everyone tells everyone about everything, and stories are passed down through generations without changing significantly.

If these claims were wrong, they would be eminently disprovable, almost as much so as the claim the moon is really electric green -- one only has to look up. And, the roman empire as well as the local leadership had great political reason for doing so.

Also, I doubt that the disciples would be willing to stand up to persecution by Nero, as they did, if it was really a scam for their own benefit. They were to a man either exiled or executed brutally, as were many in the early church. If the witnesses were not there, there's no way they'd have gone for it, let alone died for it.

Ultimately, if you do believe things like the resurrection were true, predicting an invasion is small potatoes. If you think nothing supernatural is possible, and it's all fiction, then of course you're going to believe any prediction is a fabrication.

It's not a contradiction to have a portion of the bible that claims something supernatural happened, the bible's full of them. You just have to decide if you think the evidence says it's true or not.

Edit: Also, word to the wise: Be careful not to confuse evidence with philosophy. If your philosophy says nothing supernatural can exist, then of course you won't believe it does, the evidence would be irrelevant to you. You might as well figure out what you believe philosophically first. Then, if you do believe the supernatural is possible, you'll be able to have an objective opinion about whether it did exist in this case or not.

My philosophy says that there is eminently more to the world than the deterministic interactions of particles, with perhaps a bit of random QM thrown in. So, when I encounter an account like this of a supposedly supernatural event, my philosophy does not force me to immediately rule it out, if under examination it seems to be credible.

Happy hunting :)

DeadheadForPaul

12-27-2008, 02:28 AM

Well put Tremendoustie

thanks for the input, befranklin

TruckinMike

12-27-2008, 10:49 AM

Its very easy to take a Bible passage out of context when a verse is read incomplete.

Here is the entire passage:

Matthew 22

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

I'm sure a serious Bible scholar could come in claiming it makes references to many things based on prior verses in the Bible, but i see it as a simple parable, just as it says it is. But what does it mean? It makes a reference to God(the King) Jesus (the son) The banquet (heaven /forgiving sins)... To put it simple - its a parable inviting us to Christ.

...Its very easy run off in all directions when it comes to the Bible. I try to keep it simple - thats the way I believe it was intended.

TMike

ValidusCustodiae

12-27-2008, 11:01 AM

In C.S. Lewis' book "The Magician's Nephew", the boy is told by his uncle that the wooden box containing the magic rings is older than Egypt or Babylon. He tells the boy the box is probably from Atlantis, the oldest known civilization.

The idea that God loves me so much that he prepared a torture chamber for me and anyone else that doesn't see things his way is an affront to any semblance of logic. A loving God does not invoke obedience through fear. He does not demand blood sacrifice in exchange for his forgiveness. This idea of blood sacrifice for atonement should be examined much more carefully by those who claim to be believers of the one living and almighty God. They might discover that the whole archetype of a man dying, shattering the gates of Hell, and being reborn is one that is not exclusive to Christianity. In fact, there really isn't anything Judeochristianity can lay exclusive claim to besides the 300 million + deaths at the hands of the Church of the Universe (Catholicism). Ancient paganism and the Mystery Religions themselves (including that of Egypt, Greece, and others in the Mediterranean) offered up their varying accounts of the same aspects of reality to the eclectic and newly forming Judaism, and the Mysteries continued to shape the content that would later be chosen for the New Testament.

The Bible is chock full of valuable information about our past, but not in the way most people think.

Jeremy

12-27-2008, 11:04 AM

That's a parable. lol

*facepalm*

tonesforjonesbones

12-27-2008, 11:23 AM

It makes a lot of difference when you read scripture in context. Amen. Tones

tonesforjonesbones

12-27-2008, 11:40 AM

No, Jesus did not write anything. Tones

Minlawc

12-27-2008, 12:25 PM

And what does this have to do with Grassroots Liberty?

tonesforjonesbones

12-27-2008, 12:26 PM

The idea of freedom and Liberty comes from God. That's what it has to do with grassroots liberty. Tones

nate895

12-27-2008, 12:32 PM

I think Christians believe that Christs followers wrote the Bible, but it was read to his followers who then transcribed it? I don't know if I'm correct.

Depends on which books of the Bible, but all of them are inspired by God, though God only told the authors, word for word, the five books of the Torah, and then the Gospels. The prophecies were inspired by God and God gave them the visions to write them. Also, histories (such as 1st and 2nd Kings, and Acts in the New Testament) were written by people with first hand experience of the events described.

Matt Collins

12-27-2008, 12:33 PM

The Gospels were written well after Jesus died. I don't remember exactly when, but I think it was at least 30-50 years later. Oh, and they we're really authored by the people whose names they carry.

UtahApocalypse

12-27-2008, 01:21 PM

The idea of freedom and Liberty comes from God. That's what it has to do with grassroots liberty. Tones

So atheists don't deserve Freedom or Liberty?

UK4Paul

12-27-2008, 02:36 PM

So atheists don't deserve Freedom or Liberty?

Of course they do. God still believes in them, even if it's not reciprocated. :)

BeFranklin

12-27-2008, 03:28 PM

There are at least a couple reasons I don't think this is likely. Firstly, there were purportedly thousands of witnesses to many of the events, often an entire city. For example, all of Jerusalem would have had to know about the crucifixion, and the bible claims hundreds, perhaps thousands saw him after. Then, there's the feeding of the 5000, and many, many other very public acts. If these claims were all false, they wouldn't have had an ounce of credibility, and there's no way the gospel message would have caught on enough to spread as wildly as it did -- or enough to spread texts to Egypt within a couple decades, for example.

This is a good viewpoint. I've used another track as I've grown in my bible reading, that everything matches everything else. The bible is very redundundant in a way, so you have four gospels, and Jesus is quoting from the old testament, and Paul is quoting Jesus, and the prophicies match, and so on. So as I came into a better understanding of what the meaning was, it didn't matter if someone criticized a word or passage in one place, because I could see the bible saying the same thing a dozen other places.

BeFranklin

12-27-2008, 03:34 PM

That's a parable. lol

*facepalm*

It could be read both ways; in other parts of the gospels they became mad at Jesus because 'he told the parable against them'. It can be helpful to read it both ways, because history itself is also an example to individual believers.

Mark 12:1-12
Mark 12
1And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

2And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

3And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

4And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

5And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

6Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

7But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'

8And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

11This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

12And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

bj72

12-27-2008, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE=DeadheadForPaul;1883422]Recently, I've been reading the Bible (seeing if I should go back to my religious upbringing) for the very first time, and I have encountered a verse which has left me completely confused. I have been thinking about it for hours and have found no answer on the internet.

Matthew 22:7
note: Jesus says the following
"The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city."

I do not consider myself a "Christian" anymore, as it no longer describes what I follow. However, I do try to follow the entire Scriptures...the Tanakh and the B'rit Hadashah (or the "Old" and "New" Testament). And I do believe Yeshua (aka Jesus here in the western world) was the Messiah spoken about in the Tanakh.

First, as to your question, I would urge you to re-read Mattityahu (Matthew) 21 again and then read the beginning of 22. Yeshua was teaching in a string of parables to the "head of the cohanim and the elders of the people" (21:23). After the second parable he asks them, in Mattityahu 21: 42, "Haven't you ever read in the Tanakh," and he then says "'The very rock which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone! This has come from Adonai, and in our eyes it is amazing'?"" referencing Psalm 118:22-23 (which they would've likely known, but may not have understood the full connotation of yet). Mattityahu 22 starts with a 3rd parable to the elders (just in case it isn't getting through to them yet, lol), to try to relate what he is saying in yet another way so, hopefully, they might understand. So, yes he was speaking in parables, and trying to relay a point already covered in the Tanakh.

Second, if you are delving back into the Scriptures, I highly recommend a copy of "The Complete Jewish Bible" translated by David H. Stern. So many of the commentaries and beliefs from reading the Scriptures are viewed from a "western" thought instead of a Hebraic thought. As someone who grew up in a very grounded Christian household, went to Christian school from K-12, and thought I "understood", it opened my eyes entirely to a different way of viewing the Scriptures. My husband, who was an agnostic years ago, originally stumbled across it. He saw inconsistencies with interpretations within various churches & commentaries, but as he read KJV and NIV felt G-d's Word was consistent, but was unsure of the interpretations garnered from those translations. After some research and studying we think they may have a slightly bias, or slant, if you will in the translation, not the original text. So far, I think Stern's translation makes a lot more sense. The introduction in Stern's translation of the Bible goes into great detail about the differences in Hebrew and English and why he made the translation. It puts into perspective the continuation of the Scriptures, rather than deeming them "Old" and "New". The B'rit Hadashah (New Testament) is more of a fulfillment & continuation, rather than a replacement of the Tanakh (Old Testment). Christianity somehow morphed into more of a new religion vs a continuation and fulfillment of Judaism. Probably after 3-4 AD when Rome tried to adopt Christianity and lure "pagans" into the new state religion. Many of the customs of Christians today are actually a combination of Scriptures and pagan practices (Christmas, Easter, etc). Hence, I am afraid some of the confusion as to what the real message really is and the authenticity of it.

Anyway, that's my short version, lol. Hope that helps a little in some way....

Bman

12-28-2008, 01:05 AM

No, Jesus did not write anything. Tones

This is a big question of mine. Why Not? Is the almighty illiterate? Was the word so unimportant that it was best left to the subjection of men?

Sure I believe there are good thing written in the bible. But sheesh. Some of you should have a few more serious questions before you regurgitate your dogma.

Either it'a all in context or never in context. You have no reason over any other to say you know what that book says/means.

nate895

12-28-2008, 01:10 AM

This is a big question of mine. Why Not? Is the almighty illiterate? Was the word so unimportant that it was best left to the subjection of men?

Sure I believe there are good thing written in the bible. But sheesh. Some of you should have a few more serious questions before you regurgitate your dogma.

Either it'a all in context or never in context. You have no reason over any other to say you know what that book says/means.

Umm...Jesus kind of died a few years after starting his ministry.

Bman

12-28-2008, 01:31 AM

Umm...Jesus kind of died a few years after starting his ministry.

Then why do we have Easter?

tremendoustie

12-28-2008, 02:14 AM

Then why do we have Easter?

Good point, but then he kind of left shortly after that. I suppose he could of made a perfect, fully formed new testament supernaturally appear as he was leaving. I think I honestly like it better this way, having it written by real people with real experiences, and a lot of the same struggles I have.

Ex Post Facto

12-28-2008, 02:44 AM

I'm recently under the belief that the bible is talking about all those that would bread Fear, lies and slavery vs. those that seek Love, truth, and Freedom. Satan = Fear = Lies : GOD = Love = Truth. Hmm sounds like god is telling the illuminati what their downfall will be.

When you read the bible from this perspective leaving all the manly scholars opinions out, the bible makes sense as a way to live your life.

DeadheadForPaul

12-28-2008, 03:46 AM

Thanks to those that helped me and provided suggestions for further reading material (such as Stern's Hebraic view of the Old Testament)

Peace&Freedom

12-28-2008, 04:21 AM

The idea that God loves me so much that he prepared a torture chamber for me and anyone else that doesn't see things his way is an affront to any semblance of logic. A loving God does not invoke obedience through fear. He does not demand blood sacrifice in exchange for his forgiveness. This idea of blood sacrifice for atonement should be examined much more carefully by those who claim to be believers of the one living and almighty God. They might discover that the whole archetype of a man dying, shattering the gates of Hell, and being reborn is one that is not exclusive to Christianity. In fact, there really isn't anything Judeochristianity can lay exclusive claim to besides the 300 million + deaths at the hands of the Church of the Universe (Catholicism). Ancient paganism and the Mystery Religions themselves (including that of Egypt, Greece, and others in the Mediterranean) offered up their varying accounts of the same aspects of reality to the eclectic and newly forming Judaism, and the Mysteries continued to shape the content that would later be chosen for the New Testament.

Sounds like you are transposing your own logic overtop of everyone else's and saying it is the only one possible. God is not a selective light switch you turn on for 'love,' but off when it comes to judgment. He is a God of both love AND Judgment. Perhaps God has more than one aspect (love) bearing on the issue of sin, and it is his Holiness that demands blood sacrifice for sin's remission. It is also likely the non-biblical archetypes of atonement and judgement are echoes of the Christian truth, not vice versa, and the excesses of Catholicism (which is not the universal expression of the faith) actually represent the corruption of biblical truth under the Roman/pagan influences. The reason debates over the canon went on for several centuries was precisely to purge out the pagan influences trying to distort the record left by the apostles.

ValidusCustodiae

12-28-2008, 06:48 AM

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God who creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes."~Gene Roddenberry

It's a simple text of logic. The best you're going to come up with is that the reason God does this is to teach us something, or to help us grow. If we are cared for enough to be taught something, then why would we be cast into eternal flame if we fail to learn (by design)? If God knows everything and is all powerful, then there is no free will. It's similar to the concept that computers don't make mistakes, only their programmers do. Computers do exactly what they are designed and manufactured to do (barring defects). If we are manufactured by God, then isn't God fully responsible for the quality of workmanship?

This whole argument reminds me of one of the things we fight so hard against, which is all forms of coercion. Wouldn't it be a form of coercion for God to instill obedience by invoking fear in eternal torture?

There are valuable accounts and parables in the Bible. There are many positive and negative values expressed. Love one another is something I can get behind one hundred percent. Eternal torture at the hands of demons is something I cannot get behind. In fact, if by some chance I am completely wrong and there really is a God who purposefully created us this way and is now acting like it's our fault, as far as I'm concerned that God can stick it. I'd rather be tortured for eternity than to bow to a God that forces obedience.

american.swan

12-28-2008, 08:22 AM

I like this thread.

I can't exactly answer the Gene Roddenberry quote. I will say that Gene must not have read the Bible's explination of this.

In the garden of Eden, God had placed a tree that Adam and Eve couldn't eat from. That is all God said. Don't eat from that tree. Period. End of story. Wrong. When Eve found herself near the tree Satan had NO IDEA how to get Eve to eat from the tree. So he tempted her in three ways. They are the exact same three ways humans always are tempted and fail, and it is the exact same three ways Jesus was tempted in the wilderness after his baptism.

Satan claimed he, the snake, could talk because he ate from the tree. He tempted even with "knowledge and power" he claimed God couldn't give and the tree could.

Eve then made a mistake but not a sin. The only sin she could make was to eat from the tree. But this mistake lead her down the path to sin rather quickly. She misquoted God. She claimed, read it for yourself, that she couldn't touch the fruit/tree. Satan now had his avenue. He, the snake, placed the fruit in her hand and said something like, "SEE, you are not going to die...."

This lead Eve to doubt God for real. She ate from the tree probably rather quickly after that. Eve was perfect when she made this "sin". She doubted God and paid the price.

God doesn't force obedience. The people who won't be in Heaven won't be there solely because they don't want to be there and they wouldn't be happy their anyways. Also, the Bible refers to death as a sleep so the idea of forever torture is ridiculous and doesn't follow God's character. Those hell fire and brimstone people believe a mis-translation of a few words. The words should be translated "burned completely up", not "burning forever and ever."

Perfection is doing right, because it is right, for no other reason. The Bible teaches basic principles that should guide a persons life. If you don't want those principles to guide your life that's your problem. You aren't required to follow them.

Let me give you an example. Let's say for example you hate lying because you think it's wrong and just not right, so you don't tell lies. Well, you can have the same feelings about all of God's principles and live a perfect life.

Technically the prayer of a Christian should go something like this every morning...
"God take my life, for I can't give it and it is already your property anyways. Keep me pure for I can't keep myself pure, save me inspite of myself, and place me in a position where your love and power flows through me."

mport1

12-28-2008, 10:12 AM

Recently, I've been reading the Bible (seeing if I should go back to my religious upbringing)

I wouldn't waste your time. You will only find stuff that will enrage you, although it is kind of fun to find all the despicable things said in the Old Testament.

Live_Free_Or_Die

12-28-2008, 10:57 AM

tremendoustie

12-28-2008, 01:09 PM

Just gonna pose a couple biblical arguments applicable to this thread simply based on what is contained in the bible itself...

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."

Who is us?

I think "us" refers to the trinity, although he could have been speaking to the heavenly host as well. You know, like the CEO that says, "Let us acquire a manufacturer of cheap plastic widgets".

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them;...

I'm not sure what translation this is, but the "them" here refers to male and female. Here's the NIV:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being

What's the question here?

Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die

So what are you when you eat from the tree according to God?

I'm not sure what you mean by, "what are you". To eat of that tree was to sin against God. Maybe you can help me understand what you're asking.

Genesis 3:9
But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?"

Genesis 3:11
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

All-knowing?

If you have a kid, don't you ever ask them, "Where did you put your sister's doll, Jimmy?", even if you know the answer? You want the kid to tell you.

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

If you can live forever and have knowledge of good and evil.. who are you?

Man was not intended to be demi-godlike. I think the danger here is that a being who has a propensity towards evil would also never die. Can you imagine if Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all lived forever?

I question the logic of Gene's quote.

What's Gene's quote?

nate895

12-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Then why do we have Easter?

As pointed out below, he wasn't around for very long after he rose from the dead, he simply showed himself to his followers and proved that he rose from the dead, then he ascended to heaven.

haaaylee

12-28-2008, 06:40 PM

Why don't you do this world a favor and not go back to your religious roots. We need less people believing in fairy tales (have you read Revelation? it made me laugh) and more people using logic and reason.

I suggest instead of the Bible read Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins. or The Christ Conspiracy.

The Bible isn't even original. Most stories were stolen from other cultures and Gods.
(Or did the Devil do that to test our faith? Ha. )

Peace&Freedom

12-28-2008, 07:55 PM

The Bible isn't even original. Most stories were stolen from other cultures and Gods.
(Or did the Devil do that to test our faith? Ha. )

No, the reverse is the case, most of the coinciding stories from other cultures are corruptions of the biblical record. For self-satisfied skeptics who pridefully object to dogmatism, there seems to be a massive tendency among them to dogmatically assert faux-scholarly cant like the above, that is outright false or highly disputable.

BeFranklin

12-28-2008, 08:24 PM

]
If you have a kid, don't you ever ask them, "Where did you put your sister's doll, Jimmy?", even if you know the answer? You want the kid to tell you.

Ummm :)

Mesogen

12-28-2008, 08:30 PM

That's a parable. lol

*facepalm*

This ^^^^^

Thank you. I was about to say this.

Mesogen

12-28-2008, 08:36 PM

Umm...Jesus kind of died a few years after starting his ministry.

Jesus is dead.
No, He was dead for 3 days.
God is dead.
No, God never died.
Jesus is God.
God was dead for 3 days, so for 3 days there was no God.
No, God was never dead.
God faked his death.
God fooled his followers by faking his death.
He put on a show.
To convince them.
That's how the story goes.
It's a story about how God faked his death.

haaaylee

12-28-2008, 09:37 PM

No, the reverse is the case, most of the coinciding stories from other cultures are corruptions of the biblical record. For self-satisfied skeptics who pridefully object to dogmatism, there seems to be a massive tendency among them to dogmatically assert faux-scholarly cant like the above, that is outright false or highly disputable.

You're not right. Horus, for one, existed before Jesus/Bible and shared almost the exact same characteristics. Born of a virgin, etc. The bible was clearly taken from previous Egyptian and Pagan Gods and stories.

Christians are best when making excuses for why the Bible is filled with contradictions and blatantly copied stories.

Look us Horus (Egyptian God) vs Jesus.

tremendoustie

12-28-2008, 10:20 PM

You're not right. Horus, for one, existed before Jesus/Bible and shared almost the exact same characteristics. Born of a virgin, etc. The bible was clearly taken from previous Egyptian and Pagan Gods and stories.

Christians are best when making excuses for why the Bible is filled with contradictions and blatantly copied stories.

Look us Horus (Egyptian God) vs Jesus.

Here's the birth story of Horus, certain parts redacted because there might be kids on here:

"Isis had Osiris' body returned to Egypt after his death; Set had retrieved the body of Osiris and dismembered it into 14 pieces which he scattered all over Egypt. Thus Isis went out to search for each piece which she then buried. This is why there are many tombs to Osiris. The only part she did not find in her search was the **** of Osiris which were thrown into a river by Set. She fashioned a substitute **** after seeing the condition it was in once she had found it and proceeded to have intercourse with the dead Osiris which resulted in the conception of Horus the child."

Wow, that's so much like the Christmas story in the Bible, why, I can hardly tell the difference! :rolleyes:

Here's the wikipedia entry for those who are interested:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

It doesn't seem remotely similar to me, but maybe I'm just not using enough imagination. :p

tremendoustie

12-28-2008, 10:22 PM

nate895

12-28-2008, 10:27 PM

Jesus is dead.
No, He was dead for 3 days.
God is dead.
No, God never died.
Jesus is God.
God was dead for 3 days, so for 3 days there was no God.
No, God was never dead.
God faked his death.
God fooled his followers by faking his death.
He put on a show.
To convince them.
That's how the story goes.
It's a story about how God faked his death.

God is divided into three parts, the Father (God in the Hebrew bible), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. The Son's physical manifestation dying doesn't mean that God died, just that the blood of God has covered for our sins and we are forgiven for them. It was prophesied that the Messiah must die (a bloody death) and be resurrected, and therefore Jesus would not have been the Messiah if he hadn't died and then proceeded to rise from the dead.

haaaylee

12-28-2008, 10:52 PM

Here's the birth story of Horus, certain parts redacted because there might be kids on here:

"Isis had Osiris' body returned to Egypt after his death; Set had retrieved the body of Osiris and dismembered it into 14 pieces which he scattered all over Egypt. Thus Isis went out to search for each piece which she then buried. This is why there are many tombs to Osiris. The only part she did not find in her search was the **** of Osiris which were thrown into a river by Set. She fashioned a substitute **** after seeing the condition it was in once she had found it and proceeded to have intercourse with the dead Osiris which resulted in the conception of Horus the child."

Wow, that's so much like the Christmas story in the Bible, why, I can hardly tell the difference! :rolleyes:

Here's the wikipedia entry for those who are interested:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

It doesn't seem remotely similar to me, but maybe I'm just not using enough imagination. :p

You took one bizarre thing and that is your proof that the bible is original?
BTW Wiki is not GOD.
It's a fucking web page that can be edited by anyone.

Any good web search (especially for documentaries on the subject) will help anyone find a valid argument from the other side. There are other Gods besides Horus as well that share similar traits.

nate895

12-28-2008, 10:58 PM

You took one bizarre thing and that is your proof that the bible is original?
BTW Wiki is not GOD.
It's a fucking web page that can be edited by anyone.

Any good web search (especially for documentaries on the subject) will help anyone find a valid argument from the other side. There are other Gods besides Horus as well that share similar traits.

Also, the birth story of Christ was a must. The Messiah in the Jewish tradition must be born a virgin birth, it is one of the hundred and some odd amount of things the Christ must do. Judaism is also the third known monotheistic faith, and according to scripture, the first. The tribes of Israel would have had no known contact with the Zoroastrians or the monotheistic Egyptians because the Egyptians whitewashed their previous monotheism before the Hebrews arrived, and the Zoroastrians were started only a century or two before Judaism was known to be around, and they were Persians who had little contact with the rest of the World.

tremendoustie

12-28-2008, 11:12 PM

You took one bizarre thing and that is your proof that the bible is original?
BTW Wiki is not GOD.
It's a fucking web page that can be edited by anyone.

Any good web search (especially for documentaries on the subject) will help anyone find a valid argument from the other side. There are other Gods besides Horus as well that share similar traits.

The virgin birth was the one issue you mentioned, so that's the one I talked about.

Here's more info on Horus if you don't like wikipedia:

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/mythisis.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm
http://layson.multiply.com/photos/album/147/The_Story_of_Horus
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html

I looked at a couple sites that make the comparison, and then checked the related texts, and it seems like a lot of the supposed similarities are distortions or exaggerations that really fall apart under examination, just as the example of the "virgin birth" does.

I mean, the most obvious way to see that this is bogus (in my view) is to just read the Egyptian mythology related to Horus. He's not a similar character at all -- most of the stories aren't even remotely similar.

BeFranklin

12-28-2008, 11:25 PM

[On Horus] Wow, that's so much like the Christmas story in the Bible, why, I can hardly tell the difference! :rolleyes:

Lol.

The old testament says the exact same things before Jesus came, so its a little hard to edit a book that already existed.

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

Immanuel in Hebrew means "God with us".

Matthew 1:22-23:
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Bman

12-28-2008, 11:26 PM

As pointed out below, he wasn't around for very long after he rose from the dead, he simply showed himself to his followers and proved that he rose from the dead, then he ascended to heaven.

So If I told you I was god and you are completely wrong, and the historical content you worship is false and grossly manipulated by man you wouldn't believe me. So why would you believe the bible so literally. And why would you believe that these men had been touched by the holy spirit more so than I have. Lastly why would you read it and disagree with someone when they say something different from you on a certain section of the bible. And how can you know gods will over another man who posses the same knowledge of the writtings just a different idea on the meaning and relevance of the meaning.

None of us were there and as such all must take personal responsibility for our actions and stop blaming god for our decisions, whether they be morally right or wrong. Because morality is nothing more than the perception of the person carring out the act. You know like George Bush thinking it was god's will for him to start wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally I disagree but really can't comment on gods opinion in the matter.. well unless you actually believe that I am god. Which makes as much sense as believeing that an all powerful invisible behind the curtains type of god exists.

I don't ask for your worship but if you must.. well I guess you must. Just don't blame me for your actions. Whatever they may be.

nate895

12-28-2008, 11:30 PM

So If I told you I was god and you are completely wrong, and the historical content you worship is false and grossly manipulated by man you wouldn't believe me. So why would you believe the bible so literally. And why would you believe that these men had been touched by the holy spirit more so than I have. Lastly why would you read it and disagree with someone when they say something different from you on a certain section of the bible. And how can you know gods will over another man who posses the same knowledge of the writtings just a different idea on the meaning and relevance of the meaning.

None of us were there and as such all must take personal responsibility for our actions and stop blaming god for our decisions, whether they be morally right or wrong. Because morality is nothing more than the perception of the person carring out the act. You know like George Bush thinking it was god's will for him to start wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally I disagree but really can't comment on gods opinion in the matter.. well unless you actually believe that I am god. Which makes as much sense as believeing that an all powerful invisible behind the curtains type of god exists.

I don't ask for your worship but if you must.. well I guess you must. Just don't blame me for your actions. Whatever they may be.

Were you born of a virgin, in the City of David (Bethlehem), under a star?

God has revealed his word to us in the Holy Bible, and as per the New Testament, war is limited to be defensive. God has revealed his word to us, and we are to use it as a guide unless he intervenes himself in the affairs of man, which he shall not do until the end of days.'

Edit: Oh, and you also have to be born into the line of King David of Israel, and so much other stuff that I cannot list them all.

BeFranklin

12-28-2008, 11:41 PM

Jesus Christ fulfilled countless prophecies in the old testament. By studying this I can see that these books are one unified whole, and God created them. It is prophecy fulfilled. The gospels say many times explictely when a prophecy was fulfilled. Its not hard to look up, and it can strengthen your faith :)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 53
1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Praise the Lord God Almighty! :) Amen

Bman

12-28-2008, 11:42 PM

Were you born of a virgin, in the City of David (Bethlehem), under a star?

God has revealed his word to us in the Holy Bible, and as per the New Testament, war is limited to be defensive. God has revealed his word to us, and we are to use it as a guide unless he intervenes himself in the affairs of man, which he shall not do until the end of days.'

Edit: Oh, and you also have to be born into the line of King David of Israel, and so much other stuff that I cannot list them all.

Was christ born of a virgin? I mean are the stories of Pantera to be discarded? Because as far as I know you have to have sex to have a child. If you can prove that sex does not need to occur, or shall we say sperm and egg does not need to occur then we have room to talk. Otherwise it is a shame you are so against sex education in schools because you have little clue as to how it works. And no a stork does not drop off a baby at your door step. I have to wonder how Jesus would standup to DNA testing. I guess when you can make up whatever you want because there is no way of disproving what you are saying that sometimes it just gets way out there. While you may believe in magic and such I will let you in on a secret. It's call science. You really should pay attention. While it doesn;t answer everything it certainly answers how babies occur.

BeFranklin

12-28-2008, 11:47 PM

Actually, there is a lot of prophecy Jesus Christ fulfilled just in this passage. If you know the gospel well, you can read the old testament with a lot of joy, seeing Jesus in it everywhere.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=53&version=9
Isaiah 53
1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

nate895

12-28-2008, 11:51 PM

Was christ born of a virgin? I mean are the stories of Pantera to be discarded? Because as far as I know you have to have sex to have a child. If you can prove that sex does not need to occur, or shall we say sperm and egg does not need to occur then we have room to talk. Otherwise it is a shame you are so against sex education in schools because you have little clue as to how it works. And no a stork does not drop off a baby at your door step. I have to wonder how Jesus would standup to DNA testing. I guess when you can make up whatever you want because there is no way of disproving what you are saying that sometimes it just gets way out there. While you may believe in magic and such I will let you in on a secret. It's call science. You really should pay attention. While it doesn;t answer everything it certainly answers how babies occur.

That is why you call it a miracle you moron. It isn't possible according to the laws of science, since God made the law of science, he decided to perform a miracle and make an exception.

haaaylee

12-29-2008, 12:00 AM

That is why you call it a miracle you moron. It isn't possible according to the laws of science, since God made the law of science, he decided to perform a miracle and make an exception.

Dude, it's a book. Just because it was written a really long time ago doesn't mean it is true. I know it makes Christians feel better, because it answers that question of Why and How. But it is a book. With a really really good promoter.

As Paul supporters we should all be smart enough to know that groups (Fox, CNN, the Church) can and will says things, or write things (articles, bibles) to get a mass of people to agree on an idea (war, the meaning of life, worship) and that is exactly what the Church did. They stole from Pagan ideas to try to get them to except this new religion more easily. It is about mass control of the mind. and Fear.

All we have is the earth, us, and our ideas. Stop wasting your time on a book of propaganda. Just exist. and be Free.

nate895

12-29-2008, 12:05 AM

Dude, it's a book. Just because it was written a really long time ago doesn't mean it is true. I know it makes Christians feel better, because it answers that question of Why and How. But it is a book. With a really really good promoter.

As Paul supporters we should all be smart enough to know that groups (Fox, CNN, the Church) can and will says things, or write things (articles, bibles) to get a mass of people to agree on an idea (war, the meaning of life, worship) and that is exactly what the Church did. They stole from Pagan ideas to try to get them to except this new religion more easily. It is about mass control of the mind. and Fear.

All we have is the earth, us, and our ideas. Stop wasting your time on a book of propaganda. Just exist. and be Free.

Oh, yes, cause Pagan myths are actually backed by physical evidence. Much of the Old Testament has been proven by archaeological record, or historiography of foreigners mentioned in the Holy Bible. Jesus is known to be a religious leader from slightly before the writings of Josephus, so we know he existed, and we know he was crucified from archaeological evidence.

BTW, I believe Ron Paul, a Baptist, would be offended by you using his name in an attack on Christianity.

tremendoustie

12-29-2008, 12:59 AM

So If I told you I was god and you are completely wrong, and the historical content you worship is false and grossly manipulated by man you wouldn't believe me. So why would you believe the bible so literally.

So, here's my plan to make people think you're a god :D:

1. Write an entirely false account of your life in which you fictitiously perform many highly public acts in SoCal. I'll say you became the mayor, miraculously solved the water crisis in Los Angeles by setting up a plant that turns saltwater to fresh without using any energy, magically transformed skid row into a productive manufacturing district, turning everyone rich, and after being executed by the state of California and certified dead, you subsequently went on a greater LA book tour, topped the NY best seller list, and ascended to heaven in front of everybody.

There's a bunch of prophecies about some god-like figure showing up in LA, so I make sure my account matches all of these thousands of references perfectly.

2. Get a bunch of other people to write other false stories about your life, like mine. Make them just different enough to be credible as different eyewitness accounts, but not different enough to contradict. You know, like the slightly varying accounts cops get from different witnesses to a crime.

3. Go to downtown LA, near skid row, and recruit thousands of followers based on the idea that the above story is true. Also hope that they don't follow current events, know who the mayor is, notice that skid row is the same, or that they're not rich. Convince them to lie and say they witnessed it all.

4. Recruit much of the rest of LA, and also convince them to lie that they personally witnessed all the public acts I wrote about in the book.

5. Convince the local political leaders who are vehemently opposed to my efforts not to produce any public records (or bodies of course) disproving me.

6. Convince much of the rest of the US to believe what I say is true.

7. Recruit people in other countries, so that my texts are well preserved at the other end of the known world. This part must be done within 15 years or so of when I publish the accounts.

8. Get respected historical records like Encyclopedia Brittanica to corroborate my account.

9. All of the scam originators agree to endure all kinds of nastinesses in promoting these ideas -- prison, shipwreck, disease, poverty, etc.

10. We all are tortured and killed for our beliefs -- you know, crucified upside down, burned alive, lots of fun stuff, we all endure this rather than recant this wacky story we just made up on a lark.

11. All those thousands of eyewitnesses don't recant either, despite persecution. They're so motivated to get people to believe the lie that we made up that they go on to spread this new religion all over the world, to the point that it becomes the dominant religious view.

So many copies of the original texts are distributed that for later historians, this will become the best documented series of events from our era or any preceding it.

Bound to succeed, right! ;)

And why would you believe that these men had been touched by the holy spirit more so than I have.

I think the authors have a unique perspective, as personal witnesses, and as people who spent time with Christ. I do think the authors of the New Testament were inspired in a special way. I certainly don't think I could have written anything like what Paul did, for example, without some sort of divine inspiration.

Lastly why would you read it and disagree with someone when they say something different from you on a certain section of the bible.

All I can do is my best to examine the the scripture, bringing my own reasoning, experience, etc, to bear. Hopefully the holy spirit will help. I think it's only natural that thinking people will disagree about things like this, just as we disagree about scientific theories, etc.

Hopefully we can discuss our different thoughts on the issue, and come to an understanding at least, if not agreement.

And how can you know gods will over another man who posses the same knowledge of the writtings just a different idea on the meaning and relevance of the meaning.

I can't, I can only do my best, just as we do with everything. I mean, a person can't wait until everyone agrees with them before taking action based on what they believe is right.

Hope this helps :)

tremendoustie

12-29-2008, 01:07 AM

BTW, I believe Ron Paul, a Baptist, would be offended by you using his name in an attack on Christianity.

I dunno, it doesn't offend me, I think he's just trying to make a logical point. People should be able to draw analogies from whatever they think is illustrative, no? :)

haaaylee

12-29-2008, 01:20 AM

Oh, yes, cause Pagan myths are actually backed by physical evidence. Much of the Old Testament has been proven by archaeological record, or historiography of foreigners mentioned in the Holy Bible. Jesus is known to be a religious leader from slightly before the writings of Josephus, so we know he existed, and we know he was crucified from archaeological evidence.

BTW, I believe Ron Paul, a Baptist, would be offended by you using his name in an attack on Christianity.

I in no way was attempting to say that Pagan myths/beliefs are true. In fact, that is the entire point really. They are so obviously not true - so therefore why is your similar god apparently true? Even if Jesus existed, what makes him the son of who supposedly created all that exists? Because a book said so?

I know Ron Paul is religious. I don't think, however, he would in any way be offended by arguments and discussion. He encourages this. That was my point. He wants us to think. Are we only going to be thinking politically? Are we not allowed to discuss religion as well? We don't all agree on everything Paul has to say, and argue all the time.

Don't attempt to make me feel bad by assuming Ron would be offended.
Though i'm not suprised, Christians are good at guilt tripping.

PS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coSNIIE4JxA (The Pagan Christ)

tremendoustie

12-29-2008, 01:29 AM

All we have is the earth, us, and our ideas. Stop wasting your time on a book of propaganda. Just exist. and be Free.

I think a lot of times people discuss the historical veracity of the Bible, when they really disagree about philosophy. Obviously you're not going to believe the Bible is true if you believe nothing supernatural is possible.

I'd love to discuss the philosophy of materialism. Maybe in another forum, I don't know where the appropriate place would be. If someone's interested, maybe we could start a thread :).

In any case, logically I think the belief that the supernatural is possible comes before the conclusion that a particular account of a supernatural event is credible. That is, if I believe mushrooms can't exist even in theory, I wouldn't make a very good mushroom judge at the county fair.

raiha

12-29-2008, 02:18 AM

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what HE means." G. Bernard Shaw

Mushrooms! Are you talking relative reality or absolute reality?

if I believe mushrooms can't exist even in theory, I wouldn't make a very good mushroom judge at the county fair.

You could always bluff. Everybody else does.

Bman

12-29-2008, 03:50 AM

I think the authors have a unique perspective, as personal witnesses, and as people who spent time with Christ. I do think the authors of the New Testament were inspired in a special way. I certainly don't think I could have written anything like what Paul did, for example, without some sort of divine inspiration.

All I can do is my best to examine the the scripture, bringing my own reasoning, experience, etc, to bear. Hopefully the holy spirit will help. I think it's only natural that thinking people will disagree about things like this, just as we disagree about scientific theories, etc.

Hopefully we can discuss our different thoughts on the issue, and come to an understanding at least, if not agreement.

I can't, I can only do my best, just as we do with everything. I mean, a person can't wait until everyone agrees with them before taking action based on what they believe is right.

Hope this helps :)

I certainly find nothing wrong with what you are saying. It just drives me crazy when I see someone who comes accross dogmatic in their belief. I just want to throw a copy of Platos "Allegory of the Cave" at them. And also people who profess as if they were the almighty. Like Westboro nut jobs.

BeFranklin

12-29-2008, 08:40 PM

I certainly find nothing wrong with what you are saying. It just drives me crazy when I see someone who comes accross dogmatic in their belief. I just want to throw a copy of Platos "Allegory of the Cave" at them. And also people who profess as if they were the almighty. Like Westboro nut jobs.

You mean people that might be acting in the capacity of a prophet? Or Jesus, who in fact did profess to be God, and said that Jerusalem was going to be judged?

pacelli

12-29-2008, 08:49 PM

Bman

12-29-2008, 10:09 PM

You mean people that might be acting in the capacity of a prophet? Or Jesus, who in fact did profess to be God, and said that Jerusalem was going to be judged?

Where in the bible does Jesus profess to be god? But yes if you try telling me that god doesn't approve of what I do I will laugh right in your face. Just because something was written in a book does not make it true. And when we start talking about magic it becomes even less true. Now I can certainly understand arguments for a supreme controlling factor in the universe. But to see people with the audacity to pretend like they have a clue as to what the power is, intends, or believes is utterly ridiculous. Here's a simple fact of life. You are human. Which means you do not understand the nature of infinity or infinite wisdom. Now people may be capable of profound thought. That doesn't mean God was talking to them, sure it could, but to tell you the truth I've met these types of people and I also know what drugs they were on at the time. Just like the people who wrote the bible.

Look if you believe something that is great. Now if you think it is how people should live their lives, well then you better have a better reason then "my god says so".

BeFranklin

12-30-2008, 12:29 AM

Where in the bible does Jesus profess to be god? .

John 10:30-33

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

John 20:25-29

25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And many others if you want to know.

Jesus Christ sits on the throne of his Father. When we pray in Jesus Christ's name, we should know that all power has been given unto him and he is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Mathew 28:18
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

tremendoustie

12-30-2008, 12:29 AM

Where in the bible does Jesus profess to be god?

Here are a few:

John 4:25-26
25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

Mark 14:61-62 Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-70 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Matthew 16:15-17
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

John 8:57-58
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

(What's more, "I Am" was a name of God in the Hebrew tradition, as spoken to Moses)

If you actually sit down and read the gospels, I think it's pretty clear. Maybe he was a liar or a madman for making the claims he did, but he wasn't just some inspiring teacher that the disciples got too excited about and misunderstood. With any knowledge of Hebrew tradition and prophecy it becomes even more clear.

But yes if you try telling me that god doesn't approve of what I do I will laugh right in your face. Just because something was written in a book does not make it true.

Well certainly you'd have to examine the evidence and decide whether the book is credible.

And when we start talking about magic it becomes even less true.

This goes to the philosophical question, of whether the supernatural exists or not.

Now I can certainly understand arguments for a supreme controlling factor in the universe. But to see people with the audacity to pretend like they have a clue as to what the power is, intends, or believes is utterly ridiculous.

Well, if there is a supreme controlling factor in the universe, he/she/it either wants to be known, or does not want to be known. Why are you so sure that it must be the latter?

Here's a simple fact of life. You are human. Which means you do not understand the nature of infinity or infinite wisdom. Now people may be capable of profound thought. That doesn't mean God was talking to them, sure it could, but to tell you the truth I've met these types of people and I also know what drugs they were on at the time. Just like the people who wrote the bible.

Well, as you say, if someone thinks they're hearing from God, they either could be, or they could be on drugs. That's why you examine what they say, if they seem like a drugged out crazy person, if there's any corroborating evidence, etc.

Look if you believe something that is great. Now if you think it is how people should live their lives, well then you better have a better reason then "my god says so".

For me, God is the basic organizing principle of the universe. So, true morality, reason, physical laws, etc, are all tied up in God's character. I guess then, I think if God says something, it will be borne out by reason and morality. Ultimately, it will be the most constructive course of action anyway. The more mature I get, the more I understand the wisdom behind certain principles.

It's not really my job to go around telling people how to live though -- really, Christian ethics are for Christians anyway.

As I say, I think Christianity is a relationship, not a set of self help rules for improving your life.

haaaylee

12-30-2008, 12:42 AM

I could find some really great quotes from the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. Does that mean it is real? Or that the book speaks the truth? No.

PS. the book is not credible.

tremendoustie

12-30-2008, 10:02 AM

I could find some really great quotes from the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. Does that mean it is real? Or that the book speaks the truth? No.

But, if I claim that in the book of the Flying Spaghetti monster he/she/it never claims to be God, and you find quotes where he/she/it does, that would make that particular objection wrong, would it not? ;)

I
PS. the book is not credible.

Why so?

BeFranklin

12-30-2008, 10:34 AM

FYI: I'm bugging out for the kingdom of God. It make a lot more sense then anyplace else you can bug out to.

haaaylee

12-30-2008, 11:48 AM

But, if I claim that in the book of the Flying Spaghetti monster he/she/it never claims to be God, and you find quotes where he/she/it does, that would make that particular objection wrong, would it not? ;)

Fair Enough. (Still doesn't make it true though ;) )

Why so?

It's been found to have fallacies, errors, and copied stories in it. Doesn't sound very credible to me.

I've started to read a book called 101 Myths of the Bible. Sure there is something online about this too. The bible just doesn't make any sense.

And to the argument that it's the best option there is- then that doesn't sound like legit faith. And possibly just fear that you might be wrong. And go to hell. Another issue i have with religion...

Bman

12-30-2008, 04:38 PM

This goes to the philosophical question, of whether the supernatural exists or not.

Well, if there is a supreme controlling factor in the universe, he/she/it either wants to be known, or does not want to be known. Why are you so sure that it must be the latter?

Well I pick the latter based off the first line you said. The supernatural defies physics. Now call me crazy but when things behave one way it's hard to say they happen another way without any real tangible evidence.

As far as Jesus calling himself god. Now he refernces himself to be the SON of god. Which really wouldn't make you god. And such a comment could be made by any person who believes their existance is of the hand of god. When I hear those versus, basing my opinion on other things Jesus is said to have said, I take it more philosophical than literal fact. Now that's for one person to decide over another, and I certainly can't help if it offends that I would laugh at someone for having what I would consider a naive understanding of how things actually work. But it comes down to this. When I perform an action it is me acting as myself. I would not blame you for my decision and I certainly would not blame god, no matter how righteous or wrong some may consider my action. At some point personal responsibility must come into play. God doesn't make your decisions, and a book can hardly be classified as god. Or gods word, since we all know that it was human hands that inked the pages that you read. Does the bible have some good words to live by, Yes. Does it have some not so good words to live by, Yes. Should it be the rule of the land, NO. And the very reason for this opinion is because it would not be god ruling. It would be man saying what gods rules are. And then watching people idiotically believeing that this person has a clue what they are talking about more so than you do. It's freewill my friend. The church for the most part would like to do away with the idea and is why theocracies must not be tolerated.

tremendoustie

12-30-2008, 09:43 PM

It's been found to have fallacies, errors, and copied stories in it. Doesn't sound very credible to me.

I've started to read a book called 101 Myths of the Bible. Sure there is something online about this too. The bible just doesn't make any sense.

I looked up "101 Myths of the Bible", and the arguments I found don't seem terribly forceful, and in many cases seem to be just based on a misreading of scripture. For example, the first objection "101 Myths" has is that the account in Deuteronomy occurs after the account in Exedus. But, it's clear that in Deuteronomy Moses is calling Israel together, to remind Israel, as they entered the promised land, of the covenant that had already been made - it's not supposed to have happened right then.

Here's the context of the account in Exodus:

1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on the very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said:

Wheras, here's how the account in Deuteronomy begins:

1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the LORD and you to declare to you the word of the LORD, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

I mean, this seems like pretty obvious stuff. Is it a contradiction if I write in my diary, "Today I had a conversation with Joe about TPF reports", and later write, "Today I reminded Ted about the conversation I had with Joe about TPF reports", because, *horrors*, the two entries appeared on different days?

The second objection "101 Myths" has is that the wording of the tenth commandment is very slightly different in the two accounts:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Ex. 20:17.)

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Deu. 5:21.)

I guess, I really don't get this one. Apparently if my wife tells me to get eggs and cookies, and later asks about whether or not I got the cookies an eggs, a reasonable response would be, "Why do you change your mind all the time, woman!!" :D

Edit: I guess I do see that the field is listed in Deuteronomy, but not in Exodus -- it's not just the order. I still don't see a contradiction though, the meaning is pretty much exactly the same.

Maybe you could let me know specifically which arguments you find most convincing ;).

And to the argument that it's the best option there is- then that doesn't sound like legit faith. And possibly just fear that you might be wrong.

Sure, your point here makes sense, I don't think that's a good argument either. For example, I can't stand pascal's wager. Smart guy and all, but it seems like a really poor reason to believe something.

And go to hell. Another issue i have with religion...

What's your objection specifically?

Joey Wahoo

12-30-2008, 10:23 PM

Hey DH:

Looks like you kicked off quite a dust-up here, which may or may not have been what you intended.

Don't worry about the commentary. This may have been an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or it may not have been. It doesn't matter to the significance of the story. It's not intended to be read literally. It's a story meant to suggest a message (a moral, if you will).

bottom line (in words I'm sure you'll appreciate): There's no time to hate.

peace

haaaylee

12-30-2008, 11:16 PM

I looked up "101 Myths of the Bible", and the arguments I found don't seem terribly forceful, and in many cases seem to be just based on a misreading of scripture. For example, the first objection "101 Myths" has is that the account in Deuteronomy occurs after the account in Exedus. But, it's clear that in Deuteronomy Moses is calling Israel together, to remind Israel, as they entered the promised land, of the covenant that had already been made - it's not supposed to have happened right then.

Here's the context of the account in Exodus:

1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on the very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said:

Wheras, here's how the account in Deuteronomy begins:

1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the LORD and you to declare to you the word of the LORD, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

I mean, this seems like pretty obvious stuff. Is it a contradiction if I write in my diary, "Today I had a conversation with Joe about TPF reports", and later write, "Today I reminded Ted about the conversation I had with Joe about TPF reports", because, *horrors*, the two entries appeared on different days?

The second objection "101 Myths" has is that the wording of the tenth commandment is very slightly different in the two accounts:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Ex. 20:17.)

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Deu. 5:21.)

I guess, I really don't get this one. Apparently if my wife tells me to get eggs and cookies, and later asks about whether or not I got the cookies an eggs, a reasonable response would be, "Why do you change your mind all the time, woman!!" :D

Edit: I guess I do see that the field is listed in Deuteronomy, but not in Exodus -- it's not just the order. I still don't see a contradiction though, the meaning is pretty much exactly the same.

Maybe you could let me know specifically which arguments you find most convincing ;).

Sure, your point here makes sense, I don't think that's a good argument either. For example, I can't stand pascal's wager. Smart guy and all, but it seems like a really poor reason to believe something.

What's your objection specifically?

I'll have to get back to when im not so tired about the above, but for the last part you cut the sentence apart. Another issue i have with religion is the fear factor. Believe this or go to Hell. The whole "do you want to risk it!?!?" It's like fear mongering only instead of terrorists and wars, it's the afterlife.

Can't scare me!

tremendoustie

12-31-2008, 12:30 PM

Well I pick the latter based off the first line you said. The supernatural defies physics. Now call me crazy but when things behave one way it's hard to say they happen another way without any real tangible evidence.

You believe (or are at least open to the idea) that a supreme being exists. Now, suppose that that supreme being did want to be known in some way. What exactly would you expect to see? I mean, if you created the grasshoppers, and you wanted to go relate to them, wouldn't the best way to do it be to become a grasshopper? Also, if your character were the basis for grasshopper morality, the grasshoppers could expect that your life as a grasshopper would be the epitome of grasshopper morality. To me, the discription of Christ seems to fit this. If you were god of the grasshoppers, and you wished to have a relationship with grasshoppers, what would you do differently?

Furthermore, if you would act differently, how can you be certain that the supreme being of our universe would necessarily follow your plan?

(I hope you'll forgive my somewhat obscure analogies, I often find the best way for me to think in new ways about a well worn issue is to try to find a new context).

As far as physics go, what exactly would you expect to see? If the laws of physics were "broken" consistently, and in an observable manner, the behavior would simply be re-classified as a physical law. We also observe, random, unpredictable behavior, in QM, but even this is not classified as a violation of physics

I guess, assuming that a supreme being exists, the world we observe, and more importantly the nature of our own minds, would not prove to me that the supreme being wishes to be unknown. If it proves this to you, I'd like to understand why.

As far as Jesus calling himself god. Now he refernces himself to be the SON of god. Which really wouldn't make you god. And such a comment could be made by any person who believes their existance is of the hand of god. When I hear those versus, basing my opinion on other things Jesus is said to have said, I take it more philosophical than literal fact.

That's not the sense in which Christ claimed to be the son of God -- for example:

Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Thus, he's claiming a unique status.

Also, even if you ignore the phrase "son of God", the claim is made in many other ways. E.g.:

Matthew 28:18-20
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

and

Luke 12:8-9. "I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God: but he who denies me before men shall be denied before the angels of God."

he claims to send prophets:

Matthew 23:34. "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes..."

There's more too, if you'd like. I understand people just not believing the Bible at all, but I really think this theory is the kind of thing you come up with by reading a lot of critiques and not much actual text. If you actually read the NT, and have any understanding of OT prophecy, it seems extremely obvious to me what Christ is claiming to be.

For example, Christ called himself the messiah, in the earlier posts I think some of those verses are quoted. If you don't think Christ claimed to be the messiah, let me know, and I'll post more quotes. The messiah was God, in hebrew tradition, e.g:

Isaiah 9:6-7 [6] For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [7] Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. ...

Let me know if you want more from the OT on the messiah.

Now that's for one person to decide over another, and I certainly can't help if it offends that I would laugh at someone for having what I would consider a naive understanding of how things actually work.

It certainly doesn't offend me, but I would be careful about laughing at beliefs, because when you're laughing about something it's hard to think critically about it. I wouldn't laugh at your position, for example.

I mean, probably one of our biggest obstacles to people thinking honestly about libertarian ideas is the laughter effect. It's not what they're familiar with, and the TV pundits tell them they can laugh at it, so they do -- and so avoid actual honest thought on the issues.

But it comes down to this. When I perform an action it is me acting as myself. I would not blame you for my decision and I certainly would not blame god, no matter how righteous or wrong some may consider my action. At some point personal responsibility must come into play.

I certainly agree with this -- our actions are our own, and we are responsible for them.

God doesn't make your decisions, and a book can hardly be classified as god. Or gods word, since we all know that it was human hands that inked the pages that you read. Does the bible have some good words to live by, Yes. Does it have some not so good words to live by, Yes.

The Bible certainly isn't God, but Christians think that it does contain a lot of important information about God's character, and a lot of valuable ideas about how to live.

Can you give an example of a word the Bible instructs us to live by, which you would consider not so good?

Should it be the rule of the land, NO. And the very reason for this opinion is because it would not be god ruling. It would be man saying what gods rules are. And then watching people idiotically believeing that this person has a clue what they are talking about more so than you do.

Agree 100%

It's freewill my friend. The church for the most part would like to do away with the idea and is why theocracies must not be tolerated.

Well, no one can get rid of free-will. Even in a dictatorial state, we can choose to disobey the government. But, I agree with you and am against theocracy as well.

To be honest, I think a few Christians with more theocratic tendencies tend to take the limelight and shape public perception. They don't have me or my pastor or my friends on the news, they have jerry falwell, and pat robertson. They want ratings, and people like me aren't going to blame Katrina on gays, so we're boring.