Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What you want to know about Christ.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 300 (428982)
10-18-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by nator
10-17-2007 6:20 PM


quote:
her proposal was that as the church evolved over the course of 300 years, they just developed new books to fit their needs.
No, that's not what I said.
What did you mean by this:
schraf in msg 70 writes:
It is also great evidence that myth changes as the needs of the religion change.
John is very different in character than the other three Gospels. All the talk of a literal, in-the-flesh, very, very soon Second Coming present in the others is downplayed in John. Jesus's gift to us was changed into a spiritual, symbolic rebirth rather than the military victory of the rest of the Gospels.
That's why the timing of the crucifiction was changed. Jesus becomes the symbolic "sacrificial Passover lamb" for all of humanity.
You did say that the myth changes as the need changes, so brenna got that part right. You did not mention the "church", so who do you think implimented the change in the timing of the crucifiction? Just John? It certainly sounds like you saying that new books were developed to fit the needs. Is your only contention with the word "church"? Maybe brenna meant something other than what you are defining as the "church".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 10-17-2007 6:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 122 of 300 (428985)
10-18-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by gen
10-18-2007 7:16 AM


I need to call you on this as well..
Pharoah had numerous chances to allow the Israelites out. But he declined.
And, as you conveniently keep ignoring, the ONLY reasin why pharaoh didn't allow them to go was because GOD hardened pharaoh's heart! You need to stop repeating unbiblical beliefs if you are informing us of how wonderful the Bible is.
But even some of the Egyptians painted blood on their doorposts and were spared. All of Egypt could have done this.
Again this is mere invention and wishful thinking on your part, and again it is contrary to what the Bible says.
Exodus 12:29-30
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.
"not a house without someone dead", and this was why Egypt was wailing, this sort of contradicts what you are telling us doesnt it?
Now you say that some Egyptians put blood on their doorposts, this is news to me and I would be very grateful if you could supply the Biblical support for this claim. Many thanks.
Oh, before I go, I have an issue with this claim as well.
They were given the choice.
Well, according to what I know about the book of Exodus, this is also contrary to what the Bible says.
Exodus 12:3
Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb [a] for his family, one for each household.
Now where does the Bible say that the Egyptians were given the choice, all I see here is God telling Moses to tell Israel and Egypt isn't mentioned? So, I would appreciate biblical support for you claim that the Egyptians were told. Thanks again.
There are some other claims that you have made in other posts that I have some real difficulty in finding support for in the Bible, but my main interest is the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern history, and since you have made claims about the Exodus that I cannot find in the Bible I would apreciate some help from you in locating them.
Thanks again.
PS, this is not a debate I am only asking for clarification from you for the Bible references that support the claims I have highlighted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by gen, posted 10-18-2007 7:16 AM gen has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 300 (428990)
10-18-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by gen
10-18-2007 4:58 AM


Thanks, but that really doesn't answer the question.
You made the claim that God has the right to take our lives away. I'm asking why does God have the right to take our lives away? Even if God created us, why does that give him the right to take our lives away?

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by gen, posted 10-18-2007 4:58 AM gen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by gen, posted 10-25-2007 6:35 AM Chiroptera has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 300 (429018)
10-18-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
10-18-2007 10:17 AM


quote:
You did say that the myth changes as the need changes, so brenna got that part right.
Sure.
quote:
You did not mention the "church", so who do you think implimented the change in the timing of the crucifiction? Just John?
John, and whatever early sect he was a part of and most influenced by. The book shows a strong Gnostic influence, as others have pointed out, which the other three Gospels don't.
quote:
It certainly sounds like you saying that new books were developed to fit the needs. Is your only contention with the word "church"? Maybe brenna meant something other than what you are defining as the "church".
When brenna mentioned "the church", she wrote, "THE CHURCH", which I took to mean Roman Catholicism. That wasn't what I was referring to at all.
All I wanted to say was that, as time went on after Jesus' death, John seems to change Jesus's crucifiction and ressurection to be a symbolic sacrifice for the spiritual salvation of all of humankind. That's why he shifts the timing of the Last Supper and the crucifiction, so Jesus can be the "Passover Lamb".
The other books read far more like straight histories, and those other books have Jesus coming back from the dead as a military leader who would deliver the Israelites from their oppressive masters. The "Kingdom on Earth". John is much more concerned with a "spiritual kingdom" and downplays the whole military leader thing.
Why would John be written in this way if the needs of the religion weren't changing. "100 years later and Jesus still hasn't returned like he said, so maybe he wasn't talking about a literal return, and the "kingdom" isn't on Earth, but in Heaven?"
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-18-2007 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-18-2007 12:31 PM nator has replied

reiverix
Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 125 of 300 (429025)
10-18-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by gen
10-14-2007 2:45 AM


Why does god have a problem with iron chariots?
quote:
Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots made of iron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gen, posted 10-14-2007 2:45 AM gen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by gen, posted 10-25-2007 6:49 AM reiverix has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 126 of 300 (429027)
10-18-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by gen
10-18-2007 7:16 AM


In all three of these circumstances, the people had a chance to surrender to God and live. Noah preached for about 100 years to the people asking them to repent. None repented, but they had the choice. Abraham argued with God enough so that if there were even 10!!! good people in Sodom, then they would be spared. Pharoah had numerous chances to allow the Israelites out. But he declined. But even some of the Egyptians painted blood on their doorposts and were spared. All of Egypt could have done this. They were given the choice.
Let's just start off by saying the Egyptians had no choice - their fate was decided by one man - Pharoah. And, of course, he was forced by God to deny the Hebrews their freedom. God, in this instance, set Pharoah up so that he'd have some "excuse" to perform some wanton slaughter. We know how much he loves blood.
But aside from that, there are still a lot of problems with this idea of yours. First, you just said that killing people for not believing in your God is okay. That's pretty messed up. When the 10 Commandments include such things as "thou shalt not covet" and several Commandments aimed at prohibiting worship of other gods (or no god), and ALL are supposed to be worthy of death...well, let's just say I'm very happy we don't live in that society any more.
As for good people in Sodom - the generally accepted "sin" of Sodom was homosexuality. So now it's okay to kill off an entire city becasue they're gay? When Lot is considered "righteous" after offering up his daughters to be raped by a mob who wanted to check out the new arrivals (God's angels), I don't have much faith in God's ability to discern righteousness. Oh, and in case you don't believe me (so many Christians haven't read the Bible, after all):
Genesis
quote:
19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them...
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Your position also ignores the scale of such an event. We're talking about an entire city - that means even children, even babies, who could not possibly have sinned, or "repented" if they had wanted to.
This problem only gets worse with the Flood. Now we're talking about a global event, one that kills ALL animals and human beings. Even with 100 years of "preaching," Noah could never have gotten to all of the people in the world. But God kills them anyway. Even the children. Even the babies.
Your "choice" philosophy is bunk, because even WITH choice most of the 10 Commandments don't deserve death. Even if I give you that one anyway, the rest is horseshit because God kills children and babies and lets Lot live after offering his two virgin daughters up to be raped.
Are you not getting it yet? This is a pretty horrible moral guideline. Try applying any of this, any at all, to modern society. If you kill someone based on their religion, or becasue they were gay, what would that make you? You would certainly be supported by the Bible...but would you think it would be right?
Please do not use profanity. I have eliminated those words in the quote.
Profanity has no bearing on my argument, and it's not against the forum guidelines, so I'll say what I like.
The sacrifice of the lamb is not merely for the sake of it. It points towards Jesus giving his life to save ours.
And the idea that someone else can take your punishment for you is barbaric. It takes a sick fuck to kill a lamb because you stole an apple. It takes an even sicker fuck to advocate human sacrifice to atone for sins the sacrifice never committed. And it takes a crazy deity to sacrifice himself to himself when he's the one who made the rules in the first place.
'The Creator of the Universe would rather die for you than live without you.' (Thats a quote, but I'm not quite sure who said it). Think on that quote for a minute.
So why die in the first place? If he's omnipotent, if he made the rule requiring death, he could just forgive us anyway and be done with it. The whole atoning self-sacrifice idea is silly.
In the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites by God. Anyone who breaks God's law is worthy of death.
Lies do not deserve death. Stealing does not deserve death. Adultery does not deserve death. Worshipping another god does not deserve death. Etc.
A lamb had to die in their place for their sins, because Jesus hadn't come yet. So those sacrifices pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice-Jesus Christ, the Son of God. When Jesus died, he paid for all of our sins. 'The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Romans 6:23.
Again, this is a barbaric and disgusting philosophy. The lamb doesnt deserve to die. Jesus, if he were truly sinless, didnt deserve to die. That makes his "sacrifice" murder, the one sin I could agree might deserve death. Besides that, he woke up 3 days later. That's not a sacrifice - that's a painful inconvenience in return for being worshipped for the next 2000 years. Small price.
He died so we could go to heaven. We, means anyone on this earth. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. It's a gift! All we have to do is accept it. That's what different about Jesus!
If it was a gift, you wouldn't need to be preaching, would you. He could jsut let us all in. I mean, he makes the rules, right?
All we have to do is accept it. That's what different about Jesus! Most other religions include people earning their own Salvation. But God gives it to us for free! Why shouldn't we accept? Romans 10:9 'If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raise him from the dead, you will be saved! It's that simple! God's grace is a free gift to all who take it. Not accepting is like refusing a birthday gift and saying 'I need to earn it.' Sounds silly, doesn't it? That's because it is. Accept God's gift!
No,it's more like me, from the internet, telling you I want to give you $10,000,000 for your assistance transferring some funds from Nigeria. All I need is $100 (the Church wants your money too, after all) and a bunch of your time. Oh, and admit that the sky is purple with yellow polkadots. I'm just going to assume you have received one of those scam emails, and can make the connection.
God's people don't always do what God wants. This is wrong. 'Do not commit adultery.' 'Do not murder.' No-one on earth is perfect. This is exactly the reason we need God's grace. Without it, we would be dead. It is not God that causes these things, but Satan.
The Bible says God specifically told the Isrealites to go kill people. Specifically, look at Jericho.
Without God, the whole reproduction process would not, could not happen. God has given us the ability to do so.
But the mother is still a key component in the "giving of life" thing. By your twisted, sick logic, she would still have the right to kill her child.
God fully deserves our praise.
For threatening us with Hell? For killing untold thousands in the Bible? For espousing barbaric, outdated philosophies like animal and human sacrifice? For forcing someone to disobey so that he can flex his killing muscle?!

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by gen, posted 10-18-2007 7:16 AM gen has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 300 (429032)
10-18-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
10-18-2007 12:01 PM


When brenna mentioned "the church", she wrote, "THE CHURCH", which I took to mean Roman Catholicism. That wasn't what I was referring to at all.
Oh, I didn't read it that way. I read it more like: "John, and whatever early sect he was a part of and most influenced by."
The other books read far more like straight histories, and those other books have Jesus coming back from the dead as a military leader who would deliver the Israelites from their oppressive masters. The "Kingdom on Earth".
I don't see it that way.
But whatever, I don't really care to discuss it. I was just confused by what you said and now I'm not. Thanks for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 12:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 128 of 300 (429118)
10-18-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
10-18-2007 12:31 PM


ObeeKaybee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-18-2007 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 129 of 300 (429321)
10-19-2007 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by gen
10-14-2007 2:45 AM


I don't claim to have all the answers,
And what you do not know you will just make up.
I just want to provide answers through God's Word
So why do you not do this?
Why do you feel the need to lie about what is in the Bible and when it is pointed out that you are misrepresenting the truth you cry like a little baby and take your ball home with you?
to those who are searching.
Everybody here is searching for the truth, somehting that you seem to have no problem with avoiding.
Please don't argue in this one, because you won't change my beliefs, no matter what you say.
No one is trying to change you beliefs, but I hope I and other here have changed your belief about one thing, and that is how well you THINK you know the Bible.
Very disappointed in you Gen, I thought we might at last have a member who actually knows a bit about the Bible and would have the integrity to admit that they do not know something rather than make up blatant lies about what the Bible says.
I also must say that your excuse for not providing answers to very basic theo questions damages Xianity more than you know.
I have had xians all over the world praying for me for about 15 years, all I can say is that your God is utterly useless, and obviously a liar too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gen, posted 10-14-2007 2:45 AM gen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by gen, posted 10-25-2007 7:24 AM Brian has replied

gen
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 10-03-2007


Message 130 of 300 (429563)
10-20-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Fosdick
10-17-2007 11:01 AM


Re: Jesus's circumcision
The Bible does not specifically mention about Jesus genes scientifically, because there was little known about that 2000 years ago. Luke, a doctor, gives the most detailed account of the birth of Jesus:
Luke 1:26-38 writes:
...God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a Son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God."
"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
As you can see, Jesus was not conceived normally. It was a miracle. Jesus really had no biological 'father', but the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive a child.
Luke 2:21 writes:
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
Yes, Jesus was circumcised.
Thankyou for your interest and questions. I will pray for you, as everyone else I receive questions from, my brother/sister in Christ.
gen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Fosdick, posted 10-17-2007 11:01 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 10-21-2007 11:14 AM gen has not replied
 Message 162 by Equinox, posted 10-23-2007 12:48 PM gen has not replied

gen
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 10-03-2007


Message 131 of 300 (429565)
10-20-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by macaroniandcheese
10-17-2007 11:19 AM


brennakimi writes:
but the scripture says that the law is natural and all are without excuse. anyone who has or has not heard the law is still held by it.
Please give me a Scripture reference for this. Please consider the following verse, which is different to what you are saying.
Romans 2:12-15 writes:
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
I hope this texts helps you to see the difference.
God Bless you, my brother/sister in Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-17-2007 11:19 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2007 9:14 PM gen has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 132 of 300 (429566)
10-20-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by gen
10-20-2007 9:08 PM


Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
God Bless you, my brother/sister in Christ.
you know, that's the first time anyone on this board has ever said that to me. thank you. you have no idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by gen, posted 10-20-2007 9:08 PM gen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by gen, posted 10-30-2007 6:24 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

gen
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 10-03-2007


Message 133 of 300 (429567)
10-20-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
10-17-2007 12:19 PM


nator writes:
John, for example, was written something like 300 years later, IIRC.
Sorry, but no. John was one of Jesus close friends, an apostle in fact. He definitely didn't live for another 300 years.
nator writes:
John is very different in character than the other three Gospels. All the talk of a literal, in-the-flesh, very, very soon Second Coming present in the others is downplayed in John. Jesus's gift to us was changed into a spiritual, symbolic rebirth rather than the military victory of the rest of the Gospels.
All the gospels are different, because they were written by different people with different backgrounds and qualifications. Matthew was a former tax collecter, and a disciple, Mark was not a disciple, and was probably a Roman, Luke was a Greek doctor, and never met Jesus face to face, and John was a disciple, formerly a fisherman. Of course they will have different writing styles. They had different viewpoints, different relationships, and different statuses. So their view of Jesus was different, but they all mostly agreed. I know there are some discrepencies, but depending on how you look at them, they can usually be seen as the same. There are still some things that we can't understand until we get to heaven and ask the One with the nail-pierced Hands himself.
God Bless you, my brother/sister in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 10-17-2007 12:19 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Equinox, posted 10-23-2007 1:15 PM gen has not replied

gen
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 10-03-2007


Message 134 of 300 (429571)
10-20-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by iceage
10-17-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Why is Faith a Good Thing: Equivocation Fallacy
iceage writes:
Faith that the world is spherical and faith is Jesus are not the same thing.
True. But they are still both faith. You are still believing what someone has told you if you have not travelled around the world.
iceage writes:
Also no one is telling you that your belief in the geometry of the planet earth will decide heavenly eternal bliss or eternal damnation and suffering.
No, it won't. But I was giving an example of faith. I do not believe in an eternal hell. God will not have His creation, although it turned away from Him, suffer forever. They will die, and not become alive again. They will not suffer and suffer, because God is not that cruel.
iceage writes:
Why would the creator make it so critically important to have faith and believe in something "what we do not see"? Why would a creator give us eyes and a brain but require that we not use them. It all sounds more like a gullibility contest.
To have faith, you must have faith in your faith. I look around with my eyes, and they send messages to my brain of an earth filled with life that could not have come about by random. I can see the intricacy of nature, and it is obvious that there is divine creation involved.
God Bless you, my brother/sister in Christ. I pray that you come to know Him as your Saviour, for that is what He longs to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by iceage, posted 10-17-2007 12:37 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 10-21-2007 11:25 AM gen has not replied

gen
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 10-03-2007


Message 135 of 300 (429572)
10-20-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Fosdick
10-17-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Jesus's circumcision
Jesus' birth was a miracle. But that is nothing to be disappointed at! A miracle is something wonderful, not just something that can't be proved scientifically. If you believe in evolution, you must believe in some sort of miracles? How could chemicals randomly arrange themselves into a molecule, and then a cell? Miraculous, though not true if you ask me. My point is that you have to believe in a miracle somewhere. Like faith, it's unavoidable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Fosdick, posted 10-17-2007 12:45 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 10-21-2007 8:12 AM gen has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024