The Trinity [Archive]

stark

05-11-2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Jesus is/was not God.

He prayed to God: "Why hath THOU forsaken me?"

If he considered himself God then he would have said "Why hath I forsaken mineself?"...

Don't forget Jesus has two natures, His God nature, and his man nature:
Phil 2:6-8 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!"
See the two natures there? When Jesus says stuff like "the Father is greater then I" or "Why have you forsaken me?" he is speaking out of his human nature. By nature Jesus and God are the same, but functionally the Father is greater then Jesus. Why go through all that trouble? Read:
Heb 2:14-18 "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-- that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."
Everything you are going through Jesus understands. That may mean nothing now, but one day things may seem pretty bad...remember there is one who understands.

Ed Blank

05-12-2004, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by stark
Don't forget Jesus has two natures, His God nature, and his man nature...

God is manifested as every object and personality in the Universe including men, dogs, and worms.

Every object has this "dual" nature. Every man is God incarnate.

Jesus was different from us because God manifeted himself in Jesus directly and purposefully (the immaculate conception) but like all of us, once limited to a physical size, senses, and linear time, Jesus was an individual. The very essence of God is that God is everything. Once limited to a spacetime coordinate, Jesus becomes "seperate" from God.

It's not like the rain stopped falling or the Milky Way stopped churning for those few decades that Jesus walked the Earth. God was still in heaven during that time.

stark

05-14-2004, 06:27 PM

The idea that “God is everything” is a pantheistic belief and does not line up with what God has revealed to us in His Word. The Bible clearly separates creation from God. From the creation account in Genesis through the New Testament God paints a picture of His transcendence above His creation. Creation itself is physical where as God is spirit except, of course, where He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, Col 2:9 “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,”. We are all created by God, and have some of the attributes of God, (we were made in the image of God, Genesis 1:26-27), but we ourselves are not God or God incarnate. I do recognize that Psalms 82 calls those in authority “gods” but that is only in the sense that those in authority stand in place of God as judges over people.
Most importantly we are loved by God and He seeks to have a personal relationship with us, so I invite you to invite Him into your heart and feel the joy of knowing God.

Jwjames111

05-17-2004, 07:21 PM

since I was the one who started this post I offer any of you this:
If you can show me a scripture that proves Jesus said he was GOD i'll leave it alone. But I promise you I can refute ANY claim you may bring up. Just try me.

DrewM

05-17-2004, 07:38 PM

Doesn't depend who wrote which Bible.

Duelling Bibles - got to love it.

Jwjames111

05-17-2004, 07:44 PM

Thats an interesting statement DrewM ... Ppl get upset at JWs when they pull out "their" Bible and claim that its different than theirs. All I have to say is that unless you enjoy reading Olde English then our Bibles all right with me. But even if you take an old KJ bible written 50 yrs age and match it up to a new Kj bible written last year you'll be shocked at the differences, at least you "Bible Purist" will. You claim the JWs rewrote the Bible but you are blind to your own usage of uninspired junk

stark

05-18-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Jwjames111
since I was the one who started this post I offer any of you this:
If you can show me a scripture that proves Jesus said he was GOD i'll leave it alone. But I promise you I can refute ANY claim you may bring up. Just try me.
So, before you believe that Jesus is God you want a verse where Jesus says “I am God.” If that is the only evidence you will accept for proof, what verse do you have where Jesus stands and says “I was created as Michael the Archangel.” Or where he stands and says “I am human.” I will, however, give you some verses demonstrating his Deity. A very popular one is of course:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
This verse speaks for itself. The next verse I’d like to point out is John 1:3 this one isn’t used often to demonstrate the Deity of Jesus, but it makes a good point:
John 1:3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
Look at what this verse is saying, everything that had a beginning was made by Jesus. That means that either Jesus made himself (impossible) or he is not a created being. That makes him God. Now if Jesus is a created being then the Bible contradicts itself. Some would say that this verse was added by men and God never intended to have it in the Bible. If that is true then that means an all powerful God lost control of His Word. God doesn’t lose control.
Another verse is found in Philippians and there are a couple of verses there I’d like to look at. The first one is pretty straight forward:
Phil 2:5-7 “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
Look at the first verse it’s pretty obvious, Jesus very nature is God, he didn’t hang on to that nature, but took on a new nature that of a human. It’s verse 7 I’d like you to look at, “taking the very nature of a servant,” if he took the nature of a servant that means he didn’t have the nature of a servant to begin with. All of creation is a serves God, and if it’s true that Jesus was created by God as Michael the Archangel and used as a tool to create everything else then he (Jesus) was already a servant (all angels are servants of God). But we see in verse 7 that he took on the very nature of a servant. The only being not a servant is God. There are many other verses to look at, but I’m sure you’re itching to answer this post, so I’ll leave it here and post.

Jwjames111

05-18-2004, 06:29 PM

O.K lets first take John 1:1:

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo´gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A._Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J._M._P._Smith and E._J._Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L._Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

this was just to prove that its not the JWs bible thats so different; this is common. I can delve deeper into this one verse if u want me too.

the next verse i believe you mentioned was at phil 2:5-7:
AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:

1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.” The New Testament, by G._R._Noyes.

1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.” Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.” La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” Today’s English Version.

1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1)_Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2)_he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa´zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7,_8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”

Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul’s point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one’s Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.

I think that generally answers your question, bu if you want to get more in depth i will. Sorry for the very long post, but thats the best i could put it ;)

stark

05-18-2004, 08:52 PM

Okay I only have time to touch on John 1:1. I have a quote here from the Bible translator William Barclay who isn't a believer in the Trinity. He admits that the essence of John 1:1 is referring to the nature of Christ, he says:
"In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." (Many Witnesses, One Lord, p.23, 24)
I'll talk about the Philippians verses another time.

Jwjames111

05-18-2004, 09:25 PM

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os´ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo´gos] was with God [a form of the·os´]”). This first the·os´ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os´ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os´ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo´gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the_noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L._McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ._._. ‘the word was a divine being.’”

So in other words. Yes Jesus is a God. But he is not GOD, the Almighty

Jwjames111

05-18-2004, 09:28 PM

There was a Greek scholar, E.C. Colwell, who assserted that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun “has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb.” By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article (“the”) in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os´), the predicate, precedes the verb—“and [the·os´] was the Word.” So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read “and [the] God was the Word.”

But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: “That one was a manslayer” and “he is a liar.” Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns (“manslayer” and “liar”) precede the verbs (“was” and “is”) in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word “a” because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: “It is indefinite [“a” or “an”] in this position only when the context demands it.” So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell’s questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article “a” at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God’s Word.

stark

05-21-2004, 08:27 PM

Ok, you’ve given me a list of Bibles that say “the Word was a God” or something to that effect. Now I have a list of Bibles that says “the Word was God.” in this list there are two bibles that are very interesting and I’d like for you to check them out, the first one is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures interlinear. This one directly translates “the Word was God” and doesn’t add “a” until they bring it into the side column. In other words they translate it first as it should be and don’t add “a” until they get ready to change the wording to fit their doctrine. Another interesting version of the Bible that says “the Word was God” is Called -The Bible in Living English - can you guess who publishes it? WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. International Bible Students Association Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A. 1972. Yeah I was stunned also. The other bibles on the list are: King James, New King James, American Standard, Living Bible, Revised Standard, International English, New American Standard, New Jerusalem with Apocrypha, New American Bible with Apocrypha, New Revised Standard with Apocrypha, Young’s Bible, Darby’s Bible, Weymouth’s New Testament, Webster’s Bible, New Living Translation, International Standard Version, William’s New Testament, Montgomery New Testament, Hendrickson’s Interlinear Bible, and of course my favorite the NIV.
Now, after all that I’d like to concede your point for a moment and say “the Word was a God.” Stunned again? I’ve first got to add that none of the major scholars of the Greek language seem to agree with your assertion of Greek grammar, but that aside, I still want to concede your point so that I can make my point. Now, here’s my point; even by saying “a God” you are still recognizing Jesus as part of the Trinity. We see in Isaiah 44:6 that God the Father says: "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” He states here that there is only one God, so by saying that the “Word was a God “you’re admitting that the “Word was God” I understand that the bible calls certain men “god” but like I said earlier that is only because God put them in a place of judgment over other people. Of course we know that Satan is called “the god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 but the only power he has is what God allows him to have (see Job). But, look at Jesus. Did you notice in Isaiah 44:6 God the Father says “I am the first and I am the last”? Turn to Revelation 1:17-18 it says "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” Here Jesus is saying “I am the First and the Last…” There can only be one who is first and last. We see that Jesus had power over storms (nature), and the power to forgive sins. We know from John 1:3 that Jesus was uncreated, (which means he is eternal) that it is Jesus that created all things, and it is Jesus who holds all things together: Col 1:15-17 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
I’ve already mentioned that Jesus, until he became man, was not a servant of God, which makes him equal with God. There are many more proofs that Jesus is God, and if you want more evidence I’ll be happy to share them with you. Just to conclude: if Jesus is “a God” he’s the God.

Jwjames111

05-26-2004, 04:54 PM

Sorry for the layoff of replying, cable modem has been out;) Now to get to your points...Dang u wrote a lot!!:D. From now on i'm going to use God's personal name, Jehovah (Ps 83:18) for ease of understanding.Ok, im going to put my response under headings/subheadings for ease of reading:

Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1)_At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2)_Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3)_Revelation 21:6,_7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5)_At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17,_18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3,_4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi´a', rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

And Colossians was an easy one. By it saying "First-born over all creation" it clearly makes a distinction. Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
_Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
_Does Colossians 1:16,_17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created ._._. all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all ._._. other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16,_17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created ._._. All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

I hope that's clear. All Biblical abbreviations can be given if u need them, but i figure you basically know what they are.

Jwjames111

05-26-2004, 04:56 PM

How old are you stark and what religion are you?

stark

05-26-2004, 04:58 PM

Another thought: Look at John chapter 9, it's the account of Jesus healing a man born blind. What's interesting about this is what takes place in verses 35-41, and that's where I want to direct your attention. See where Jesus asks if the man believed in the Son of Man? When the formerly blind man finds out that Jesus is the Son of Man he immediately starts to worship him. My question is why? What does this man, healed by Jesus, know about the “Son of Man” that would cause him to worship Jesus upon finding out that Jesus is the Son of Man? Look at Daniel chapter 7 verse 13-14. There you see Jesus in the Old Testament, a demonstration of the Trinity. See how the “Ancient of Days” (God the Father) is sitting there and all of a sudden a being, “one like a son of man” comes in and right in front of God the Father we see someone being worshipped. What being is worthy of worship right in front of God the Father? Answer: Jesus the second person of the Trinity. I urge all people to go to prayer and ask God the Father to reveal his one and only Son to them. God promises that if we ask with sincerity He will.

stark

05-27-2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Jwjames111
How old are you stark and what religion are you?
I'm forty as of september 28, which makes me rather close to 41.

It's not so much that I have a religion, it's more like I have a relationship with the God of creation. I am a child of God by Jesus Christ. Of course I know what you mean, so I'll say I'm a Christian who goes to a Baptist Church.

Jwjames111

05-27-2004, 10:27 PM

cool, i asked because you are more"learned" than most Baptist i've met.

DrewM

05-28-2004, 12:05 AM

I won't get into the your Bible is better than my Bible stuff - because I have no clue which bible is "correct" - I guess you'd have to learn ancient greek and read the originals.

Regarding the trinity - I am sure there is some meaning behind it - something that is far more interesting than the 'fit it in a nice box Bible view'. Mythology holds some incredible truths - I'm not sure if the trinity is a recurring mythological theme - I cannot think of a myth that incoroporates it.

Ok - back to duelling Bilbles..

stark

05-28-2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Jwjames111
cool, i asked because you are more"learned" than most Baptist i've met.
I owe a good deal of my love for the word of God to the J.W.s. I had always just believed in the Bible, and had read it without much interest until the J.W.s came knocking. They challenged my beliefs and left me with my head spinning so I started studying and discovered that the Bible is more amazing then any other book I've ever read. It's more than amazing, it also introduced me to Jesus and showed me his great love, his great compassion, and his great sacrifice. Sadly the J.W.s very rarely come around any more and when they do they refuse to come in and sit down and talk like they used to. The one older gentleman that used to come around got mad at me one day when he was visiting me, I showed him some verses from his interliner, he slammed his book closed, got up, and said “the devil’s in you boy!” and stormed out of my house…I haven’t seen him since. Ever since then the J.W.s come by, as I said, rarely. This guy is someone important in the organization, and I suspect he labeled me a “goat.” I pray for him once in awhile. Anyway, James, I’ve got a question for you; what led you to the Watchtower organization?

Jwjames111

05-29-2004, 02:51 AM

My parents accepted the religion when i was small. I grew up in the religion and through my own research, etc and just studying the ppl i realized that what the J.W.s were saying made sense and I was baptized n 2000. I wasnt forced or ething it was just the right thing to do

stark

05-29-2004, 06:26 PM

You're willing to discuss it, that's cool. Now, I'd like to ask you: Do you think you and I have a different Jesus, or a different Gospel? (Thinking of 2Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:6-9)

Blibblob

05-29-2004, 07:50 PM

I won't get into the your Bible is better than my Bible stuff - because I have no clue which bible is "correct" - I guess you'd have to learn ancient greek and read the originals.
The very ancient gospels were in aramaic(Dead Sea Scrolls). Although Jesus is a greek name, the first bible was compiled from the Romans. And the oldest hardcopies that have been found other than the Dead Sea Scrolls were all in Latin.

Regarding the trinity - I am sure there is some meaning behind it - something that is far more interesting than the 'fit it in a nice box Bible view'. Mythology holds some incredible truths - I'm not sure if the trinity is a recurring mythological theme - I cannot think of a myth that incoroporates it.
It's mostly about the Supreme Goddess in ancient christian sects. The trinity that you see scribbled everywhere now(the three circles) is an ancient Celtic symbol. It and along with other three based symbols appear constantly in ancient religions, the precursors to the western swatstica were originally three running feet and such like that. There is an ancient asian one that looks like yin yang but with three things. The whole "power of three" that's been popularized from Charmed existed, three and it's multiples, especially nine, are considered the luckiest numbers around the world. The whole concept of a trinity is far predates christianity.

Jwjames111

05-29-2004, 08:47 PM

i appreciate you bringing that up Blibbob ;)

Beirut_Veteran

05-30-2004, 10:26 PM

SOmeone please tell me why people who call themselves Christians have to argue and judge others? Also why is it that an Atheist cares what a Christian believes? If you dont believe why is it that you care if someone else does?
Like the militant Atheist movement which goes out of its way to break up prayer groups whenevr they can, thats just ridiculous.

BorgHunter

05-30-2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
SOmeone please tell me why people who call themselves Christians have to argue and judge others? Also why is it that an Atheist cares what a Christian believes? If you dont believe why is it that you care if someone else does?
Like the militant Atheist movement which goes out of its way to break up prayer groups whenevr they can, thats just ridiculous.
Before I reply to anything of value in your post, the word "atheist" is not a proper noun. :)

That said, I, as an atheist, don't give a damn what anyone believes as long as they're not interfering in my life. Sure, go ahead on to church, to your prayer groups all you want, but I'll get testy if you hand me a tract. Even testier if you scream at me about how I'm going to Hell. And I sure as Hell don't like the government showing preference toward Christianity whatsoever (Ten Commandments statue, gay marriage ban, etc.)

Beirut_Veteran

05-30-2004, 10:41 PM

Ok so neither is WHO cares. :)

I get angry if someone preaches to me as well. I dont care who believes what.

Oh by the way Borg, hehe I found this post by you, notice the caps. hehe

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they are probably in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

Sorry couldnt resist. :D

BorgHunter

05-31-2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Oh by the way Borg, hehe I found this post by you, notice the caps. hehe
Out of context! I was quoting somebody, and I was too lazy to fix their grammar mistakes. :hitout:

Blibblob

05-31-2004, 11:38 AM

I like to study religion to figure out the minds of the stupid people. :D

Beirut_Veteran

05-31-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Blibblob
I like to study religion to figure out the minds of the stupid people. :D
Well so only stupid people believe? What is the basis for that assumption?

DanF

06-01-2004, 12:55 AM

With no particular reason in mind I am going to tell a little story from my past.
An old man in Arlington, Ga. had as long as I remember been a non believer in the existance of a God. He had gotton in quite a few discussions as the years went by. Mainly I suppose because this area is in the Bible belt.
He was a good old man and we gathered at the hospital on his last day.
What has kind of stuck in my mind is the fact that as he drew his last breath and exhaled the words "oh God" as his last words.
I was suprised at this. Never having heard him say such.

BorgHunter

06-01-2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
With no particular reason in mind I am going to tell a little story from my past.
An old man in Arlington, Ga. had as long as I remember been a non believer in the existance of a God. He had gotton in quite a few discussions as the years went by. Mainly I suppose because this area is in the Bible belt.
He was a good old man and we gathered at the hospital on his last day.
What has kind of stuck in my mind is the fact that as he drew his last breath and exhaled the words "oh God" as his last words.
I was suprised at this. Never having heard him say such.
Tis just an expression. I say "Jesus!" all the time; doesn't mean I believe he's sitting up in the sky ready to throw a rock in my path because I'm a nonbeliever.

Beirut_Veteran

06-01-2004, 05:49 PM

I agree Borg but I had an odd experience when my Dad passed away.
I was holdig his hand as his body fought to stay alive but I could see his mind was wanting to let go. Anyway as he drew his last breath I heard what sounded like a sonic boom, a fast double clap of thunder but faint and moving away. I dismissed this as it was Florida. Three days later at his grave side service at Florida National Cemetary as the service ended and my Mom said the words good bye I heard the same exact sound. I turned to the director from the cemetary and asked do you have cannons here? She said no and I asked is there another service nearby? (thinking it might have been a volley from an honor guard) Again she said no we were the only service that day. Both days clear no shuttles inbound in a three day period and the locations 70 miles apart. I am not sure what that was but maybe, just maybe the departure of ones soul can be heard by the family. Being that he was Army Ordinance it was kind of fitting.

stark

06-01-2004, 07:15 PM

Blibblob, your post has a couple of interesting statements. One you said: “Mythology holds some incredible truths…” Now, I’m not sure, but it appears you are suggesting that Christianity is mythology. If that is your assertion would you tell me what you use as evidence to support your view?
Another interesting statement is this: “It's mostly about the Supreme Goddess in ancient christian sects.” I
I think I may need this clarified also. When you say “christian sects” are you speaking of those sects who claimed Christ, but really didn’t follow the teachings of Christ or his disciples, such as the “christian sect” that produced the Gospel of Thomas? In the Gospel of Thomas we find Jesus suggesting that for a woman to be “saved” he would have to turn her into a man. The teal teaching of Jesus is that salvation is through belief in him, and the disciples taught “That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9. It’s the sayings such as that, supposedly coming from Jesus, that caused the early church to reject it as a true gospel.
I find your comments on the images of the Trinity coming from a Celtic symbol or possibly Asian common in the non-trinity culture. I’ve seen non-Trinity believers use “images” of some Egyptian gods such a the Triad of Amon-Ra, Ramses II, and Mut, or some three faced Triune god from the Hindus, or some such image and claim that this is what Christians believe. That is just not true. First, the very idea of finite beings accurately depicting an infinite being in stone or wood just doesn’t work. And second, just because someone makes up some weird three headed god or an image with three circles, doesn’t mean they speak for all of Christianity, or even accurately represent what the Bible teaches. I’ve had people tell me that they don’t “get the Trinity” it confuses them, therefore it must not be true. It runs along the same lines of those who say “I choose not to believe in God, therefore He doesn’t exist.” Just because we can’t imagine it or choose to not believe doesn’t mean it isn’t so. In a nutshell Gods existence isn’t contingent on our belief.

Blibblob

06-01-2004, 07:21 PM

Well so only stupid people believe? What is the basis for that assumption?
My father is a catholic. Pat Robertson is... religious. *Points to the Catholic Church* And what's with hokey pokery without any inkling of proof? Organized religion, Give us money so we can feed you bullshit through your ass.

Beirut_Veteran

06-02-2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Blibblob
Well so only stupid people believe? What is the basis for that assumption?
My father is a catholic. Pat Robertson is... religious. *Points to the Catholic Church* And what's with hokey pokery without any inkling of proof? Organized religion, Give us money so we can feed you bullshit through your ass.
Issues on the home front Blib?
Not all believers are stupid people. Did you ever think it takes alot of courage to stand up for something you cant prove or see and take this kind of heat everyday?
And by saying your dad is Catholic doesnt prove your point, unless of course your dad is Kerry. :hitout:

Blibblob

06-02-2004, 03:46 PM

“Mythology holds some incredible truths…” Now, I’m not sure, but it appears you are suggesting that Christianity is mythology. If that is your assertion would you tell me what you use as evidence to support your view?
My view is that either you call it all religion, or call it all mythology. I perfer mythology since it has the connotation of being false.
Now then, the definiton of myth is: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society
Christianity's sections inherently fall into that category, being a religion. It is passed down through traditions, even though it's not quite ancient. It is a book of storys, that deal with supernatural beings. God, the devil, demons, angels. It even has heroes, though in a different way, showing bravery in death. It is meant to teach morals to people, and explain the world.

When you say “christian sects”
I'm talking about any sect that was before the rise of the Catholic church. Back when the number of gospels was a hundred or so.

In the Gospel of Thomas we find Jesus suggesting that for a woman to be “saved” he would have to turn her into a man
You mean the last line in the Gospel of Thomas? Would you care to explain what exactly that meant, turning a woman into a man? It could mean anything from giving her a sex change to having her on the same standing as a man. The gnostics believe the later. The one that would be shown as the overwealming view in the bible and the lost gospels. Also, earlier in the Gospel of Thomas:
Thomas:79 A woman from the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you."
He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'"

The teal teaching of Jesus is that salvation is through belief in him
Where did he say that. I don't remember anywhere where Jesus claims to be better than anyone else, claims to be a godly figure. The opposite holds quite true. I place more trust in ancient texts recently found that date to the time he was supposidly alive, then I do on the bible which was compiled by an emperor, and been edited throught history by kings and popes.

It’s the sayings such as that, supposedly coming from Jesus, that caused the early church to reject it as a true gospel.
It's sayings that made Jesus look more like a man and sayings that would keep people's allegiances away from the Emperor that kept most of the ancient texts out of the bible.

The rest of your post doesn't make much sense. What I said was that Christianity takes many of it's beliefs out of other local religions. And that is quite true. The whole idea of a three pronged god, or something like that, is not new. More specifically there was a god from Indian culture that practically mirrors Jesus and predates him by thousands of years. The name escapes me currently, I believe it began with a 'K'. He was a half human half god, his cult even has a symbol that resembles a cross. It is a 't' with a hook. Hercules was half man half god. Ra was born a man. I pointed out the connections because it was asked if the trinity is a reacurring mythological theme.

Not all believers are stupid people.
Mostly, it is organized religion. The vast majority of people in organized religion are dimwits. They may be bright in other areas, but the vast majority know nothing about their own religion. Just pointing to the Catholic church should prove a point. They've yanked in countless morons for 2000 years.

Beirut_Veteran

06-02-2004, 08:21 PM

Some may not see your point of view but that doesnt make them stupid. I dont walk around saying that atheist are stupid, I am a non aligned Christian who firmly belives in the Druid ways as well. I believe that Earth is a force and that a Deity is divine. SO to break it down for you, God is the Father and Earth is the Mother. Am I stupid? I dont think so, may not be Einstein but I dont belive that I am stupid. Maybe just a romantic

Blibblob

06-02-2004, 09:41 PM

Organized religion in the way it is set up preys on the ignorant and clueless. Give us money. Commercializing personal religion.
And the joke.
There was a Rabbi, a Priest, and a Muslim religious leader were all talking. They got into the topic of church money. The Muslim was confused about the way the others led their collections.
The Muslim said, "Well, I make a circle, and throw the money into the air, whatever lands in the circle is mine, and outside is for Allah, how do you do this?"
The priest said, "Well, my way is a bit more efficient. I draw a circle too, but what falls in the circle is god's and the rest is mine"
Then the Rabbi spoke up. "I just throw the money in the air, whatever god wants, he can keep".

Ah, I love that joke...
Speaking of jokes, you taken mine and went too far with it.

stark

06-04-2004, 06:30 PM

Blibblob, in your post you said about Christianity:
“I perfer mythology since it has the connotation of being false.” and then you went on to explain the definition of mythology, but what you failed to tell me is what evidence do you have that suggest it’s false. Simply because the Bible has elements such as God, miracles, demons, and angels, which you don’t personally believe in, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. When someone says “I don’t believe in God or miracles, therefore neither exists,” they are speaking from philosophy not history.

You said: “…Back when the number of gospels was a hundred or so.”
The number of gospels are still “a hundred or so,” it’s just that the early Church accepted only four as inspired, the other ninety six "or so" got lost in the shuffle.

Next point I’d like to look at, you said: “It could mean anything from giving her a sex change to having her on the same standing as a man. The gnostics believe the later. The one that would be shown as the overwealming view in the bible and the lost gospels.” I’ll have to let the gnostics define what they believe, but I would say that the Bible does put women and men in the same standing in that it says in Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Next you said: “I don't remember anywhere where Jesus claims to be better than anyone else, claims to be a godly figure. The opposite holds quite true.”
Really? Let’s see if I can scratch up a couple of verses for you. First let’s pop into The Gospel of John, in John 3:16-18 it says:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.”
Look at the last part it says “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already…” Jesus is talking about himself here and he seems to be saying he’s the only way to salvation, which makes him better then anyone else. Another verse is John 14:6 “Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
It says here that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. This makes him better then anyone else. As far as his claim to Deity one reference is found in John 8:58 where he says “"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" If you remember the story after Jesus said this the Jews picked up stones to stone him, why? Look at Exodus 3:13-14 “Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you." When Jesus says “I am” the Jewish leaders knew he was calling himself God and wanted to stone him for it. Another interesting verse is in John 14:7 there is a discussion between Jesus and his disciples, the disciples want to see God, it goes like this: John 14:7-9 “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Another thing you said that I’d like to discuss is: “I place more trust in ancient texts recently found that date to the time he was supposidly alive, then I do on the bible which was compiled by an emperor, and been edited throught history by kings and popes.”
Actually much of the New Testament was written between 49 and 90 A.D. Papias mentions the four Gospels around 110 A.D. We have a fragment of Johns Gospel dated 120 A.D. As early as 180 A.D. Irenaeus mentions the four Gospels in the order we have them today and in 200 A.D. Muratorian published an almost complete list of the current New Testament. But, on the Gnostic side of things, they didn’t start writing their gospels until well after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas wasn’t written until 150 A.D. No pope or emperor changed the Word of God. Although to be fair I would like to see what ancient documents you know of that demonstrate any of the New or Old Testaments where changed.

Finally you said: “The rest of your post doesn't make much sense.”
Is that an Atheist thing? In school math didn’t make sense, the other students and the teacher said it did make sense and tried to teach it to me, but they were all wrong, the math didn’t make sense.

Wait, you said there is a god in the Indian culture that practically mirrors Jesus? Wow. So this “god” created all things, came to earth as a man, lived a perfect sinless life, claimed that he is the only way to heaven, suffered and died for our sins to purchase a place for us in heaven, and rose physically from the dead where his disciples touched him and ate with him and were so convinced that he lived that they lived in poverty and died horribly all for the sake of telling everyone they could that he had risen? That is uncanny. What god is that again? Something with a “K”?

Beirut_Veteran

06-04-2004, 07:05 PM

Anyone ever heard of the 137 theory?
It states
1 God
3 forms
7 manifestations

This could account for the different religions and their Messiahs. Just a thought.

stark

06-05-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
This could account for the different religions and their Messiahs. Just a thought.

Jesus' claim is that he is the only way to heaven, and only those who accept him as Lord of their life, will get to heaven. If there are actually any other ways to "the Father" then Jesus is wrong. If Jesus is wrong then all of Christianity is a lie and a waste of time. This isn't my idea, I'm not telling people that they must follow my way, I'm saying they must follow Gods way. How do we know God's way? The Bible (God's Word) will tell us. On the other hand, if Jesus is right all the other "religions and their Messiahs" are leading people away from true salvation.

Beirut_Veteran

06-05-2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by stark
Jesus' claim is that he is the only way to heaven, and only those who accept him as Lord of their life, will get to heaven. If there are actually any other ways to "the Father" then Jesus is wrong. If Jesus is wrong then all of Christianity is a lie and a waste of time. This isn't my idea, I'm not telling people that they must follow my way, I'm saying they must follow Gods way. How do we know God's way? The Bible (God's Word) will tell us. On the other hand, if Jesus is right all the other "religions and their Messiahs" are leading people away from true salvation.
I am going to say that since the bible was written by men then it might contain errors. Also Jesus was speaking in the context of the religion of the people following him. I have a hard time believing that the God of Isaac is different than the God of Ishmael. Would God abandon one brother and fovar another who had done nothing other than to be born first? I do not believe so. So if that is the case why would he pick Christians to save and even abandon his chosen people or better known as the 12 tribes of Abraham? He wouldnt.

stark

06-06-2004, 09:38 PM

Beirut
I’d like to jump right into Your post, first you said: “I am going to say that since the bible was written by men then it might contain errors.”

I suspect any Christian would agree that men physically wrote the words of the Bible, matter of fact some 40 men over a period of 1600 years in 3 different languages physically wrote the Bible, but the Christians claim is that the words written were inspired by God. That is God didn’t sit down at a desk with pen and ink, slip on his glasses and pull out a clean sheet of paper and start writing. He guided what was written so that it would say what he wanted it to say. The bible uses the phrase “God-breathed”: 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that because the bible says it’s God-breathed, it must be God-breathed. I’m saying that the Bible proves itself God-breathed, it doesn’t contradict itself, it is archaeologically correct, historically correct, and scientifically correct. You get a bunch of guys writing over a period of 1600 years and you’ll find problems. If God is in charge there won’t be.
Another point you made was: “Also Jesus was speaking in the context of the religion of the people following him.”

I can’t agree with you. There is no suggestion that he was speaking only to a particular religion. Look at the words used, words like; “whoever believes” and “whoever does not believe” in John 3:18 and “No one comes to the Father” in John 14:6. These statements of Christ sound as if he’s including everyone. But, say I accept your assertion that Christ intended those words only for a particular religion. I would immediately run into a problem when I got to Matthew 28:18-20 “Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
This sounds like Jesus is including the whole world. I will concede that I may be missing something, so if you wouldn’t mind, what verse would you say best supports your idea that Jesus was speaking only to a particular religion?

Next you said: “I have a hard time believing that the God of Isaac is different than the God of Ishmael. Would God abandon one brother and fovar another who had done nothing other than to be born first?”

First, the God of Isaac and the God of Ishmael is the same God, and God didn’t Abandon Ishmael read Genesis 21:8-21 and you’ll see that God promised to make Ishmael into a great nation. So what happened to Ishmael? It appears that his descendants turned away from the one true God and eventually started worshipping a false god, a moon god named Allah. By the way Ishmael was born first, the term first born doesn’t always mean he who was born first, biblically it sometimes means of most importance.
Finally you said: “So if that is the case why would he pick Christians to save and even abandon his chosen people or better known as the 12 tribes of Abraham? He wouldnt.”

God didn’t abandon His chosen people. All through the Old Testament there is a promise of a coming Messiah, one who would be “pierced” for our sins. Read Isaiah 53 it’s amazing seeing as it was written 700 or so years before Jesus was even born. Now flip over to the New Testament. Look at Jesus, he was a Jew, (his human nature) his followers where Jewish, he reached out to the Jews first. Look at what Paul, possibly Jesus’ greatest disciple, wrote in Romans 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” And also in Romans 2:10 “but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” This message was intended for the whole world, yes, but for the Jews first. One final verse look at Acts 11:1-18 here you’ll find Peter before the leaders of the Christian Church, (the Jewish leaders of the Christian Church) explaining why he had the nerve to step into the home of a Gentile, considered to be an impure thing. You can read for yourself why he did it by reading Acts chapter 10 (it’s a good read). Anyway the verse I want you to see is Acts 11:18 it says: “When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Do you get the significant of this verse? The Christian Church started out Jewish, it’s message spread by Jews, and the places of leadership filled by Jews. No, God has not abandon His chosen people, he has given them a Messiah that died for their sins just as He’s given you and me a Messiah that died for our sins.

Beirut_Veteran

06-06-2004, 09:57 PM

Stark, then if the bible is not a collection of stories why is it that the following stories were in the early writings of other religions.
1. Joshua and Jericho. (names changed but story was identical and 1000 years before Joshuas time.)
2. The Great Flood.
3. Cain and Able.

And why is it that the formilzed religions have ignored what is purported to have been written by Jesus himself, The Gospel of St. THomas?

I am sure that the men who wrote the Bible intended to help us with stories to inspire and to show us the right way to live.

By the way I have read alot of on Islam to help me understand the conflicts since I was in Beirut, I believe that your view is mistaken. Most believe that the God of Abraham, is the God of Ishmael and the God they call Allah. And alot of the middle eastern people I have spoken to believe that Isaac has stolen their God and split the house of Abraham, thus the reason of alot of hatred toward us and Israel.

Now when Jesus spoke to those gathered around him, was he speaking to other religions? No he was directing his words to those who believed the way he did.
Now the Jews believe that the Messiah is still coming and maybe he is for them or maybe he isnt and it was also Jesus. To say that an all knowing God would have not forseen the split in the human belief system is not giving God enough credit.
God used the Jews and the Romans to kill Jesus and thus making the Prophecy real, so then he punished the Jews for killing his son that also tends to tell us that God as portrayed in the bible is bot compassionate or all knowing and that is not the God I have always believed in.
Answer this for me, there has only been one person who could logically.

Cain killed able, he was banished and took a wife.
Who did he marry?

Dont take this the wrong way, it is hard to make a point if you quote the book in question as supporting proof of its own accuracy.

I believe that God exists but I also believe that we are being sold a bill of goods on the bible. I sit and read and find many problems with the language differences. Aramaic doesnt translate to Greek well and Greek doesnt translate to English well either. Certain phrases must be altered to fit into the new language. So in this alone the bible loses it accuracy. I would like to be abel to read the dead sea scrolls myself to see if the current editions are even close.

Vilepagan

06-07-2004, 04:42 PM

Posted by Stark:

I’m saying that the Bible proves itself God-breathed, it doesn’t contradict itself, it is archaeologically correct, historically correct, and scientifically correct.

The Bible has dozens of contradictory passages, like:

Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)

and then there's,

Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."

Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

For a long list of biblical contradictions:

http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

As far as being archaeogically and historically correct,

From an article on the Cornell University website:

The archaeological findings blatantly contradict the biblical picture: the Canaanite cities were not "great," were not fortified and did not have "sky-high walls." The heroism of the conquerors, the few versus the many and the assistance of the God who fought for his people are a theological reconstruction lacking any factual basis.

Article:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm

Regarding the Bible's scientific accuracy,

Leviticus 11:5-6

5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Coneys (rabbits) and hares, are NOT cud chewing animals.

Leviticus 11:13-19

13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

I don't think classifying a bat as a fowl is evidence of scientific accuracy.

The Bible is a great book containing much wisdom, but it is certainly a mistake to assume it's a history textbook or a scientific treatise.

stark

06-07-2004, 09:13 PM

Beirut, I’ll answer your post first and then work my way into vile pagan’s and finish his later, but here I go.
First you said: “if the bible is not a collection of stories why is it that the following stories were in the early writings of other religions.”

At this point you listed the stories of Joshua and Jerico, Noah’s food, and Cain and Able, one you forgot is the story of the fall of man from the Garden of Eden. Through out the cultures all over the world there are stories of man being driven out of paradise for some reason. Now to answer your question, the reason these stories are found all over the world is that they really happened. Look at the stories of man kicked out of paradise, Cain and Able, and the flood, biblically they take place when men are together, before God confuses their language and spreads them all over the world. So before Genesis 11 man is together they have a common history and a common language, after Genesis 11 they spread over the face of the earth, many of the cultures and nations remember their history, but over time they change to only resemble the original. However, the original is of course remembered by God and told to Moses. Of course if someone doesn’t believe in God, they will have a problem with this answer.

Next you said: “And why is it that the formilzed religions have ignored what is purported to have been written by Jesus himself, The Gospel of St. Thomas?”

I’ve already written about that a couple of posts ago, but I do have to ask; “purported” by whom?

Next you wrote: “By the way I have read alot of on Islam to help me understand the conflicts since I was in Beirut, I believe that your view is mistaken. Most believe that the God of Abraham, is the God of Ishmael and the God they call Allah. And alot of the middle eastern people I have spoken to believe that Isaac has stolen their God and split the house of Abraham, thus the reason of alot of hatred toward us and Israel.”

First, if Islam (Muhammad) is right, then the Bible is wrong in many places. Islam says that God has no son, Jesus claimed to be the one and only Son of God. Islam says that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, that God took him and exchanged him for Judas, of course making Judas to only look like Jesus. Jesus’ claim from the start was that he would die on the cross and rise from the dead. If you read my post just before yours you would see that even the Old Testament said that he would die for our sins. If Islam is correct, the bible is wrong. If the bible is correct Islam is wrong.

Next you said: “Now when Jesus spoke to those gathered around him, was he speaking to other religions? No he was directing his words to those who believed the way he did.”

I’ve already covered this rather extensively in my previous post. Check it out, one of the questions I had for you, in that post, was for verses that suggested that Jesus was only speaking for those who believed like him.

Next you wrote: “Now the Jews believe that the Messiah is still coming and maybe he is for them or maybe he isnt and it was also Jesus. To say that an all knowing God would have not forseen the split in the human belief system is not giving God enough credit.”

Yeah, I’ve already covered that in my previous post also. Wow, I’ve got to go and reread that post of mine, could it be so long and boring it’s not being read?

Next you wrote: “God used the Jews and the Romans to kill Jesus and thus making the Prophecy real, so then he punished the Jews for killing his son that also tends to tell us that God as portrayed in the bible is bot compassionate or all knowing and that is not the God I have always believed in.”

Here’s the question, did God use the Jews and the Romans to kill Jesus, or did He know the Jews and Romans would kill Jesus? Or is it true that God sent His one and only Son to earth to die for our sins, if that is the case did we, in our sins, kill Jesus?
Now, from what verse in the bible do you get your idea that God punished the Jews for killing his Son? This is who God punishes: II Thessalonians 1:8-9 “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power”
Here is another type of person who God punishes, only this is a different type of punishment: Hebrews 12:6 “because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

Finally you wrote: “Cain killed able, he was banished and took a wife.
Who did he marry?”
I’ve seen this question before, it’s really rather easy, But first a couple of questions for you: 1) How many children did Adam and Eve have before Cain? I myself don’t know, was it none, or 3, or maybe 10, the bible doesn’t tell us, it just says Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant. 2) How many children did Adam and Eve have between Cain and Able? I don’t know, the bible only states that later Eve gave birth to Able. 3) How many years passed after Adam and Eve were tossed out of the Garden of Eden before Eve gave birth to Cain? The bible doesn’t say. 4) If Adam and Eve had children before Cain, would there be enough time for those children to have their own children before Cain was born? Bible doesn’t say. I've got more questions, but I’ll just go ahead and jump to my point; the Bible tells us a story of Cain and Able, it doesn’t fill in the blanks for us. To answer your question, Cain married his own sister or at least his niece.

Oh wait one final quote from you: “Dont take this the wrong way, it is hard to make a point if you quote the book in question as supporting proof of its own accuracy.”
Why not? The Bible, in the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would die for our sins. In the New Testament we see Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, dying for our sins. I quoted the Bible to demonstrate it’s accuracy. But I do know what you meant to say, and I already explained myself in the previous post.

Vilepagan I’ll get to your post later.

Beirut_Veteran

06-07-2004, 09:41 PM

Stark I read the post but I also ignored the quotes as it was those quotes that are in question.

Now to the Joshua/Jericho story if it happened then it happened 1000 years before the Israelites came to the promised land. So are you saying that this story was taken from another culture? That also applies to the rest of those mentioned.

As for the Gospel Of St. Thomas, it was authenticated by the same team who worked he shroud of Turin and said it was authentic. I have read passages from it and it sounds as if it could be the words of Jesus.

You asked where does it say God punished the Jews? You quoted a passage that says he would punish those who do not believe in Jesus Christ, well most Jews dont.

As for the last part of the post I said what I meant.
Here is an analogy, if you asked me to prove that the encyclopedia was accurate, it would be pointless to use the text of the books to prove it is accurate, outside sources to support its accuracy is what it would take.
Much like saying, I am right, I can prove it, I said so I am right.
No dont get me wrong I am non-aligned Christian who happens to believe that the bible having been translated and written in some cases 100 years after the facts contains errors.

Did you know that if we take the Bible literally then Revelations has already happened, it was an almost total destruction of a known world. Using the formula that 666 is six hundred and sixty-six and taking the greek alaphabet the number correspondts directly to Nero Caesar and he did allow Rome to be destroyed. John was a roman captive, and he may have written about what he foresaw. The fall of the roman empire.

stark

06-08-2004, 08:02 PM

Vilepagan okay I’ll just jump into this. First as evidence of biblical contradiction you quoted Exodus 20:5 compared with Ezekiel 18:20, and the “contradiction is that in the Exodus passage it says God punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation, and the Ezekiel passage says the son shall not share the guilt of the father. I’ve seen this contradiction before and the web site that claims this is a contradiction makes a common mistake: they didn’t really look at the passage. Here they are in full:

Exodus 20:5-6 “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Notice the “of those who hate me,” and the “of those who love me” parts? Now look at:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Notice the “Soul who sins” part and the “son has done what is just and right” part?
There is no contradiction, in both passages (Exodus and Ezekiel) those who love God and do right are spared guilt of their father, but those who continue in wickedness, punishment will come. The passage in Ezekiel (verse 19) starts with the question “Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?” God answers, that if you are righteous it will be credited to you and if you are wicked, that will be credited to you. It’s the same in Exodus ,those who are wicked (“those who hate me”) will suffer and their children who are wicked will suffer, but say the child of the wicked man loves God, (“those who love me”) look at verse 6 of Exodus 20 they are shown love from God.
Now I ask you, is there a contradiction between those passages in Exodus and Ezediel?
I’ve got to go now and will finish your post later but I’d like to add that in many of the “contradictions” that people throw at me, most of the time, the contradiction is from verses left out or something is assumed that the text doesn’t reveal.
One more thing. The rabbit and bat problem is no problem and I’ll have an answer for you when I can find the time, right now I’ve gotta run.
By the way the city of Jericho had walls six and a half feet thick and around 23 feet tall, Jericho is located in the Canaan region. Canaan covered a huge area, but I’ll get more technical later.

Beirut_Veteran

06-08-2004, 09:16 PM

My response to Jericho is here (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5831)

Vilepagan

06-09-2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by stark
contradiction you quoted Exodus 20:5 compared with Ezekiel 18:20, and the “contradiction is that in the Exodus passage it says God punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation, and the Ezekiel passage says the son shall not share the guilt of the father. I’ve seen this contradiction before and the web site that claims this is a contradiction makes a common mistake: they didn’t really look at the passage. Here they are in full:

I looked at the passages, and I still find them contradictory.

Exodus 20:5-6 “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Notice the “of those who hate me,” and the “of those who love me” parts? Now look at:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Notice the “Soul who sins” part and the “son has done what is just and right” part?
There is no contradiction, in both passages (Exodus and Ezekiel) those who love God and do right are spared guilt of their father, but those who continue in wickedness, punishment will come. The passage in Ezekiel (verse 19) starts with the question “Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?” God answers, that if you are righteous it will be credited to you and if you are wicked, that will be credited to you. It’s the same in Exodus ,those who are wicked (“those who hate me”) will suffer and their children who are wicked will suffer, but say the child of the wicked man loves God, (“those who love me”) look at verse 6 of Exodus 20 they are shown love from God.
Now I ask you, is there a contradiction between those passages in Exodus and Ezediel?

Yes, a very obvious contradiction.

In one verse it says that the righteous will be spared the sins of their fathers

Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.

The other verse says that the children of sinners will be punished for the crimes of their father:

punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation

Note how it says that these children are being punished, not for there own sins, but "for the sins of their fathers".

You wrote:

It’s the same in Exodus ,those who are wicked (“those who hate me”) will suffer and their children who are wicked will suffer,

But you added the part about the children being wicked too, because it clearly says they are being punished for the sins of their fathers

How can this be regarded as saying they were punished for their own wickedness?

One more thing. The rabbit and bat problem is no problem and I’ll have an answer for you when I can find the time, right now I’ve gotta run.

That should be interesting...I look forward to it...

Dio Seijuro

06-09-2004, 02:34 AM

It's a quoting mess here and I never read the bible so I'm not going to participate. But on the nature of such discussions I must voice some questions. One main question is on the bible itself. Its magnificent impact aside, whether the bible is actually "words of god" depends on an initiation of belief, does it not? Without somehow believing in something about the Christian god *first*, the Bible's text does not self-prove anything to an un-initiated reader. For example, on the passage saying "these words are god-breathed" a non-religious reader could easily convince himself that the passage itself was written by men. In short, whether the bible is a collection of actual god's words depends completely on reader's belief before one word has been read, and it is not likey to change the reader's opinion on this matter. The belief in bible's (or any divine text) validity must by nature be completely pre-constructed. But where does this pre-constructed belief come from?

Vilepagan

06-09-2004, 10:52 AM

Posted by Dio Seijuro:

The belief in bible's (or any divine text) validity must by nature be completely pre-constructed. But where does this pre-constructed belief come from?

I agree with your conclusion that a belief in the Bible's validity must come first. The perpetrators of this belief are those who will benefit most from having the masses believe...the church. I think this is why the church attempts to indoctrinate people into their belief system when they are very young. It cuts down the number of dissenters.

Sorry about the quoting mess, I didn't want to get into a whole quote fight, but Stark posted something I couldn't ignore.

I am curious how he's going to convince me that referring to hares as cud-chewing animals, and calling bats birds, is scientifically accurate. :D

stark

06-09-2004, 08:37 PM

Okay, I’m back and I’d like to answer the rest of your post, vilepagan before I move on to the next post.
Right on to Canaan. The Cornell assertion is that the biblical narrative concerning the Canaanite cities is “lacking any factual basis.”
My guess is that Dr. John Garstang, and Dr Kathleen M. Kenyon would probably debate that point. Garstang led a British School of Archaeology expedition from 1930-1936 to dig at Jericho, and Kenyon led a British School of Archaeology from 1952-58 to dig at Jericho. What was discovered, as I mentioned in my last post, was that Jericho had walls over six and a half feet thick and around 23 feet tall. Part of the wall is still standing at 12 feet. Jericho was the first city reached upon the Hebrews entering Canaan. One more thing to add about archaeology and the bible, William F. Albright one of the greats in archaeology says “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.” I wonder if he is the only archaeologist ever in the world to think that the bible is archaeologically correct?

Next, the “science” of the bible, first I’d like to say that I agree with what you said at the very end of your post, the bible is not a history book or a book of science, true, but it is historically accurate and scientifically accurate. Back in Old Testament times the major thinking was that the world rested on something. The Egyptians thought the world rested on 5 or 7 (I can’t remember which) sacred pillars, the Greeks thought the world rested on the back of a god, (Atlas) and the Hindu’s thought the world rested on the back of an elephant. But in Job 26:7 we find it stated about God: “He spreads out the northern over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.” He suspends the earth over nothing? Who told the writer of Job that the earth wasn't resting on anything? Maybe he guessed
Anyway, on to the rabbits, you brought us Leviticus 11:5-6 here it is in the NIV: “The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”
Let me remind you that the bible is not a book of science, and often speaks in phenomenological language, (basically the language of appearances). We or at least I speak that way now. If my four year old says “Wow, look at the pretty sunset, I don’t say “actually the sun isn’t setting the Earth is revolving.” Instead I say “that is a pretty sunset.” In the same way Leviticus 11 is giving a list of unclean animals that God, for whatever reason, is forbidding the Israelites to eat. There are two animals that appear to chew their cud that does not have a split hoof, again for whatever reason, God is making these animals off limits for the buffet table. Well instead of going into great detail about the animals that are really chewing their cud are called ruminants, that they have four stomachs, and they regurgitate their food back into their mouths to be rechewed. But the coney and the rabbits although they appear to be chewing their cuds they aren’t really ruminants they are practicing what is called reflection. They don’t regurgitate their food, instead the vegetable matter absorbs certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. And after all that God says don’t eat them anyway. Instead the Bible quickly let’s the people know what animals they can’t eat, and how they can recognize them, such as chews (notice the chewing action) the cud but doesn’t have a split hoof.

Now on to Leviticus 11:13-19 and the bat. Instead of taking up space with all the birds I’ll just put in verse 13 and 19 anyone can look it up for themselves or just read your post, here are the verses in the NIV: verse 13 “These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable:…” And verse 19 “the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.” Again the bible, not being a book of science, isn’t going into great detail about the biology of a bat or bird. I think the problem is classification. We in the year 2004 classify birds as any animal belonging to a class of warm-blooded vertebrates with wings and feathers. And the bat as an order of flying mammalia. That is how we classify birds and bats, but is it scientifically false if God classifies animals differently? So instead of birds being listed as warm-blooded vertebrates with wings and feathers, it’s any animal with wings? Do you see what I’m saying? This isn’t a scientific inaccuracy, it’s a scientific reclassification.

stark

06-09-2004, 09:57 PM

Okay in order here. Beirut I looked at your link and you only state that there are stories dating a thousand years before the Joshua story. What stories, who wrote them, and how were they dated? Could it be that Jericho was attacked a couple of times before Joshua got to it in the 14th century B. C. and that’s where the stories came from?

Next Vilepagan. You still see a contradiction ay? Let’s look at the verses:

Exodus 20:5-6 “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Really there is no contradiction here, what we have is a matter of sin and turning from God versus righteousness and loving God. Looking at Exodus; we see the children are punished. Why? For the sins of the father. But by reading on we see this only happens to those who continue to turn against God. The person who loves God doesn’t receive punishment but love from God. Now look at Ezekiel and answer the question asked in verse 19;
“Why does the son not share the guilt of the father?”
Because,
“the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees,”
Look at how the two verses fit together, not a contradiction.

Real quick, it’s getting late. Dio Seijuro you wrote concerning the bible:
“whether the bible is actually "words of god" depends on an initiation of belief, does it not?” And later you wrote: “whether the bible is a collection of actual god's words depends completely on reader's belief before one word has been read,…”
I’m leaving room for the fact that I may not be understanding what you are saying here, but I’ll answer, and wait for your explanation. But to answer what I think you are saying: The Bible does not depend on an “initiation of belief” for it to be the Word of God, any more then it would take an initiation of belief for it not to be the Word of God. Either it is the Word of God or it isn’t. If reality is -the bible isn’t the Word of God,- no matter how much I believe that it is, it still isn’t. Conversely, if reality is that -the Bible is the Word of God,- it doesn’t matter how much someone believes it isn’t, it still is. The truth of reality doesn’t depend on the level of our belief.
Of course if that isn’t what you meant, I truly believe I’ll feel like an idiot.

Next you wrote: “the Bible's text does not self-prove anything to an un-initiated reader. For example, on the passage saying "these words are god-breathed" a non-religious reader could easily convince himself that the passage itself was written by men.”
True if some one opened the Bible to the passage that says “All Scripture is God Breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) there would be no reason to assume that the book they were holding was actually God breathed, it could very well be man written. Now if this same person read the whole Bible, observed the predictions made in some of the books of the Old Testament that came true after they were written, read the resurrection account of Jesus and looked at the evidence supporting the event. One could (with an open mind) conclude that the Bible was the Word of God. Am I right? There are many people who went at the Bible just that way and discovered the Bible is the Word of God. Not to discount the help of the Holy Spirit, the Bible promises that if you honestly search for God, you will find Him. Why don’t you take God up on that promise and see what happens? First pray and ask God to make His presence known to you and then read the book of John, ( I suggest the New International Version) you don’t even have to tell anyone you’re doing it, if nothing happens, you will be at least honest enough to say you gave it a shot.

Vilepagan

06-10-2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by stark

Next Vilepagan. You still see a contradiction ay? Let’s look at the verses:

Exodus 20:5-6 “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Really there is no contradiction here, what we have is a matter of sin and turning from God versus righteousness and loving God. Looking at Exodus; we see the children are punished. Why? For the sins of the father. But by reading on we see this only happens to those who continue to turn against God. The person who loves God doesn’t receive punishment but love from God. Now look at Ezekiel and answer the question asked in verse 19;
“Why does the son not share the guilt of the father?”
Because,
“the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees,”
Look at how the two verses fit together, not a contradiction.

Stark, let me try this very simply.

When it says in Exodus that God is "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers", this means he is NOT punishing them for their own sins.

You yourself state the contradiction very succinctly:

Looking at Exodus; we see the children are punished. Why? For the sins of the father. But by reading on we see this only happens to those who continue to turn against God.

If you are ONLY punishing those that "continue to turn against God", then you will never be "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers".

Therein lies the contradiction.

In essence, your statement that only the children who sin themselves will be punished for their fathers sins, is invalid.

stark

06-10-2004, 06:18 PM

Vilepagan you are missing the qualifier here, you said: “In essence, your statement that only the children who sin themselves will be punished for their fathers sins, is invalid.”
Because you say it’s invalid doesn’t make it invalid. No more then my saying it is valid makes it valid. I’m not saying that these texts aren’t difficult, I’m saying that they don’t break the laws of contradiction. I think my problem is that I'm trying to explain the text instead of discussing what a true contradiction is, let's start there...It’s like this. 1) What is “punishment”? Is it the results of sinful behavior handed down to the child? You might see this in the argument over environment vs. heredity. Or is God speaking of eternal punishment at the time of judgment? See how there are two separate definitions that could be applied here? Look at Ezekiel. 2)What is “guilt“? Is it the act or state of having done a wrong? Or is it a feeling in the heart after committing a wrong? See how we have different definitions lined up? Again, I know it’s a difficult passage and it requires a bit of study, and even prayer, (if you’re into that kind of thing) but because we have more then one possible meaning for each word it just doesn’t violate the laws of contradiction, which is basically --A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.-- Do you see my point? I’m not asking if you agree that I’m correct, I’m just asking do you see my point?

By the way you didn’t mention the rabbit and bat debate; what do you think of my answer?

One last thing. I’d like to ask you a question…what do you think happened concerning Jesus Christ, did he rise physically from the dead as he promised that he would, or is there a different explanation?

Beirut_Veteran

06-10-2004, 06:24 PM

I would like to believe that he rose, but there is so many things that might have happened.
1. He was moved by those who saw that the Prophecy wasnt fulilled.
2. He was placed in a tomb not found by anyone yet.
I can list a lot of possibilities, but I want to believe.
I just dont believe that the Bible is 100% accurate. I have been alive long enough to know that people cant tell a friend a story without it being changed. SO it makes it hard for me to believe that these stories remained unchanged during their journey to the Bible.

stark

06-10-2004, 09:27 PM

Beirut, I just popped in to tweak my last post a bit and saw your post, it’s very interesting and I’d like to discuss it a bit.
First I’d like to touch on something you said at the last of your post, you said: “I just dont believe that the Bible is 100% accurate. I have been alive long enough to know that people cant tell a friend a story without it being changed. SO it makes it hard for me to believe that these stories remained unchanged during their journey to the Bible.”

I agree with you that people can’t tell a friend a story without it being changed, and if the Bible is just a book written by men I’d bet it’s had a lot of changes. The difference is the claim of the Christian is that the Bible is inspired, guided, and protected by God. This may sound odd but I think a person is more reasonable saying the Bible is not the Word of God, then they would be saying the Bible is the Word of God but man changed it. (of course I believe it is the Word of God) I ask you, if God is powerful enough to create this universe, and clever enough to create a living cell, is he strong enough to create a message to man and have this message maintain it’s integrity through the ages? I’m not including the Bible itself right now, and I’m not asking --did he -- I’m just asking your opinion --could He?

Now on to the resurrection of Christ, you said: “1. He was moved by those who saw that the Prophecy wasnt fulilled.”
The implication here is that Jesus predicted that he would rise from the dead, but didn’t. The disciples realized that Jesus not only hadn’t risen from the dead, but it didn’t appear that he was ever going to. So somehow they got a hold of the body of Jesus, got rid of it, and came back with a we-saw-Jesus-alive story.
This whole scenario only survives if the disciples lied and was able to maintain that lie for the rest of their lives. The main problem with the “lie hypothesis” is the way the disciples lived and died. Every one of Jesus disciples (except of course Judas) lived in poverty, going town to town, nation to nation, being beaten, stoned, whipped, and hated. All of them died horrible deaths, well actually John died in prison on an island. Anyway, they all suffered like that, when all they would have had to say was, “never mind folks we made it all up, Caesar is lord, we’re sorry.” And then they could have gone about their lives. But instead they continued through their poverty and beatings, claiming that they had touched Jesus, had felt his resurrected body, had eaten with him, and that he was the way to heaven for all people everywhere. They told people stop sinning, turn to Jesus and be baptized. They promised these people changed lives. Why would they make this all up and live the way they did for a lie? To what end? Riches? They lived in poverty. Power? What power they were mock, and beaten most places they went. Not only that but “power didn’t come to the Christian church until 314 A.D. ( I think that’s the date, it’s close) when Constantine became a Christian and made Christianity a state religion. Maybe they liked a good practical joke. After a couple of days in a Roman prison I suspect they would have said, “jokes over.” The “lie hypothesis” just doesn’t work unless I‘m missing something, so let’s move on to the next possibility.

Next you said: “2. He was placed in a tomb not found by anyone yet.”
This doesn’t work either. Look at the Biblical account, it says that, 1) A rich man from Arimathea named Joseph donated his own tomb for Jesus burial. Certainly Joseph would have known where his own tomb was located. 2) Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” followed the body of Jesus to the tomb and watched as he was buried and the stone rolled in front of the entrance. They would have known where Jesus was buried. 3) The Romans had a guard on the entrance, they would have know where the tomb was. 4) The Jewish leaders would have known where one of their greatest enemies was buried, specially in the light of his claim that he’d be back in three days. In the case of the Romans and Jewish leaders, the growth of Christianity was a problem for them. It would have been very easy for them to go to the tomb, drag out the body of Christ, show it around town, and stand grinning as the Christian movement withered under the evidence. 5) If everyone had just gone to the wrong tomb then that means the disciples lied about what they saw and what happened to them. Read what I wrote in answer to that problem earlier in this post.

Finally you wrote: “I can list a lot of possibilities,…”
Let’s look at the other possibilities and see if there is a logical response to them.

No, wait one more quote, you said: “…but I want to believe.”
You can. I don’t think disbelief or belief is a matter of intellect. There are highly educated and intelligent people who believe and highly educated and intelligent people who do not believe. There are unintelligent people who believe, and unintelligent people who do not believe. There is plenty of evidence supporting Christianity for anyone to discover. I think the problem is in the heart. I’ve given this challenge before and here it is again: With an open mind and an honest heart pray to God that He would reveal His truth to you and then start reading the forth gospel the book of John, and then continue to pray. No one has to see you do this. Just reach out to God, see what happens. If you want I’ll be praying here for you.

I intended for this to be a short post, sheesh.

Jwjames111

06-10-2004, 11:53 PM

Ezekiel 18:20 shows that each individual, after reaching an age of responsibility, is judged on the basis of his own attitude and conduct. Early training and family environment can be a big help or hindrance to the offspring, and as a general rule children continue in the behavior patterns established during their formative years. (Prov. 22:6) Yet it is not always or invariably so, and upon reaching an age of responsibility the offspring acts on his own choices, regardless of how little or how much such decisions may be influenced by early training and environment. He adopts a certain course in life, and he is judged according to his own deeds. “God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.” “He will render to each one according to his works.” Jesus showed that families would be divided over him, some choosing to follow him in Jehovah’s service and others of the family opposing: “I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother.” The Christian son of an opposing father would not bear the iniquity of his father, but would be favorably judged on the basis of his own Christian works.—Gal. 6:7; Rom. 2:6; Matt. 10:35, NW.

Ezekiel 18:20 involves the extreme penalty of death: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” If the wicked turned to righteousness, “he shall surely live, he shall not die.” If the righteous turned to wickedness, “in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” Hence Jehovah’s climactic cry: “Why will ye die, O house of Israel? ._._. turn yourselves, and live ye.” (Ezek. 18:21, 24, 31, 32) Thus Ezekiel 18:20 corresponds with Deuteronomy 24:16 regarding who suffers the death penalty: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

The case of Exodus 20:5 is different. Through Moses Jehovah said to Israel: “If you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all other peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The older men, represe