Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
jar, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (6 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,849 Year: 16,885/19,786 Month: 1,010/2,598 Week: 256/251 Day: 27/58 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 181 of 381 (188868)
02-27-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 1:31 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
Warring factions of Christianity have alternately accepted and rejected the 'apocrypha.' In my opinion: Arguments made against the validity of these books may also be made against many books of the canon.

One good source of information is the site quoted below. While I do not necessarily endorse this man's conclusions, he does provide a lot of background information on the subject. The history of Christian treatment of these scriptures seems to show an arbitrary rejection of any script which displeases the ruling party.

c. 90 A.D. Jewish rabbis fix the Old testament canon at the Council of Jamnia in Palestine, leaving out the books that only appeared in the Septuagint (Note: Some scholars dispute whether this Council ever actually took place)
c. 382 A.D. St. Jerome begins his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). Jerome views that only Hebrew texts are authoritative, but grumpily includes the Apocrypha anyway
1534 Martin Luther places the Apocrypha in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments
c. 1536 Menno Simon, leader of the Anabaptist movement, accepts the Apocrypha as canonical
1546 Roman Catholic Council of Trent approves the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon
1629 The Apocrypha is omitted from the King James Version
1646 Westminster Confession places the Apocrypha on the same level as “other human writings”
1827 British and American Bible Societies decide to omit the Apocrypha from their Bible editions

Arguments for and against inclusion of these books may be taken separately or as a whole. In either case, they are debatable and have been debated for thousands of years.

If you are looking to get out of the box, then I will do what I can to help you break free of the ignorance and superstition which characterize the box.

If, on the other hand, you are seeking ways to confirm your faith in the men who prepared the Bible for your consumption, then you may send your generous donation to His Holeyness - doctrbill, c/o this forum. And,

Thank You for believing.:D

db


Theology is the science of Dominion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 1:31 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 182 of 381 (188873)
02-27-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 1:31 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
Looks like I forgot the most important part:

xevolutionist writes:

I don't know that they cited any of those writings in their letters. Where can I find that they [the apostles] considered them inspired?

According to the Greek New Testament, a text prepared for use by translators and scholarly pastors: All New Testament writers quote from the 'Apocrypha.' See a partial list of apocryphal scriptures from which Paul quotes. This page also includes an alternative perspective on what Paul meant when he said, "all scripture is inspired by God ..."

*GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, American Bible Society, British and Foreign Bible Society, National Bible Society of Scotland, Netherlands Bible Society, Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1966, Maurice Jacobs, Inc. Philadelphia, U.S.A.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 1:31 AM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 12:02 PM doctrbill has responded

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 183 of 381 (188896)
02-27-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by doctrbill
02-27-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
The "evidence" does not appear convincing so far. I've just checked a few of the supposed quotes by Paul and it seems that he could have got them from other sources. For instance Hebrews 11:5 is found in Genesis, and Hebrews 11:35 could refer to the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the widow's son returned to life by Elijah in 1 Kings. The other "quotes" I've investigated could have come from Paul's own experiences or other parts of the Bible.

One qualification for "scripture" is that there is some value to the text relating to God's stated intentions.

The Maccabees were written during the silent years when no prophets were forthcoming.They are valuable as history and very important to the Jews, with incredible stories of perseverance and heroism, but with no communication from God.

Is there reference to the other writers of the NT quoting the disputed writings?

I'll hold off on my donations for the time being. The Bible seems to read as a remakably complete and cohesive work, especially considering that it was written over such a long period of time and by so many different inspired writers. Kings, fishermen, prophets and physicians, all writing at different times with different styles, yet not contradicting each other.Giving the unvarnished truth and the wonderful promise of God, who offers salvation for free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by doctrbill, posted 02-27-2005 9:09 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by doctrbill, posted 02-27-2005 1:36 PM xevolutionist has responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 184 of 381 (188912)
02-27-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by arachnophilia
02-25-2005 12:19 AM


Re: answer: an intelligent person. sometimes.
quote:
solely a faith issue. i refuse to believe in a jesus who walked around attracting worship, claiming to be god or the way to god, etc, as such things ARE blasphemy. even if you're related to god.

But if you really are God, as Jesus stated He is, then it wouldn't be blasphemy, would it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 12:19 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by doctrbill, posted 02-27-2005 1:52 PM xevolutionist has not yet responded
 Message 187 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 2:17 AM xevolutionist has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 185 of 381 (188926)
02-27-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 12:02 PM


Re: Wise as Serpents
xevolutionist writes:

The "evidence" does not appear convincing so far. I've just checked a few of the supposed quotes by Paul and it seems that he could have got them from other sources.

If you can't trust those who actually created the Greek Testament (Bible Society scholars) then why should you believe those who merely interpret it?

One qualification for "scripture" is that there is some value to the text relating to God's stated intentions.

The only qualification for 'scripture' is that it be something written. What you are talking about is how church authorities determine what should be included in the canon of scripture. Everything written is scripture.

At any rate: The book of Esther doesn't mention 'God,' much less his 'intentions.'

The Maccabees were written during the silent years when no prophets were forthcoming.

What silence? There are four books of the Maccabees, the book of Daniel, and others coming from this period. And who decides who's a prophet? Are you saying that Daniel wasn't a prophet? And while we're on the subject of Daniel ... why have portions of that book been deleted from the canon?

They are valuable as history and very important to the Jews, with incredible stories of perseverance and heroism,

... and answers to prayers
... and miraculous deliverances,
... and fulfillments of prophecy.

You haven't actually read them, have you?

but with no communication from God.

Answered prayer is not 'communication from God'?
If you make communication from God a pivotal issue then you must throw out the Book of Esther.

Is there reference to the other writers of the NT quoting the disputed writings?

Yes.

The Bible seems to read as a remakably complete and cohesive work,

Things are not always what they seem.
After forty years of Bible study I am convinced that the Bible is neither complete nor cohesive.

... not contradicting each other.

That is debatable, of course, and has been debated here on numerous occasions. I don't care to participate in another such exercise.

db


Theology is the science of Dominion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 12:02 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by xevolutionist, posted 02-28-2005 12:41 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 186 of 381 (188928)
02-27-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 12:51 PM


Gods and Sons of God
xevolutionist writes:

But if you really are God, as Jesus stated He is, then it wouldn't be blasphemy, would it?

All the royal house were Gods, if you believe the word of Jehovah.

It was Jehovah who called Moses a God.

All the kings of Israel were Sons of God, and thus - Gods in their own right.

Such is the nature of the - Divine King.

Such is the nature of - King Jesus;

or would have been, had he lived to sit on the throne of his Father (David).

db


Theology is the science of Dominion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 12:51 PM xevolutionist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 2:20 AM doctrbill has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 187 of 381 (189098)
02-28-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 12:51 PM


Re: answer: an intelligent person. sometimes.
But if you really are God, as Jesus stated He is, then it wouldn't be blasphemy, would it?

yes. jesus, whether or not he was god, was also man, and a man descended from jacob. that means he is held to mosaic law. breaking mosaic law in such a manner would justify death.

besides, why believe someone who walks around teaching humility and then claiming to be god?

also, i can reasonable prove, biblically, that jesus could not have been god. the title he calls himself, "son of man," although having messianic implications, literally means "mortal." part of the definition of god (see gen 3) is immortality. "son of man" is a common prophetic name as well, ezekial is called this name several hundred times.

"son of god" although possibly rendered properly as "other god" is common title for entities below god. both satan and david are called by this name, as well as adam (god's literal son).

there is nothing about jesus or any messiah that indicates deity, except in the book of john. and even then it's based on faulty aramaic rendering of the name of god in the targums.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 12:51 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by xevolutionist, posted 02-28-2005 1:08 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 188 of 381 (189099)
02-28-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by doctrbill
02-27-2005 1:52 PM


Re: Gods and Sons of God
or would have been, had he lived to sit on the throne of his Father (David).

kings in other local cultures were gods. this was unacceptable to the monotheistic jews. and so their kings were the next step down, sons of god.

calling jesus the son of god is designed to indicate kingship, and because of the restoration of the line of david, messiah-ship. but nt author misunderstood this idea, and took it literally. but you can't be both the literal son of david, and the literal son of god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by doctrbill, posted 02-27-2005 1:52 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by doctrbill, posted 02-28-2005 10:41 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 189 of 381 (189102)
02-28-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 2:28 AM


you're being ridiculous.
She couldn't and God didn't. That's what made the whole thing miraculous, and that's why the Jews were puzzled about that. Ask a rabbi since you appear to reject the Hebrew dictionary and make up your own definitions.

let's start by asking a CHRISTIAN dictionary what the word "seed" means since you don't seem to think context is a valid textual method (it is, btw).

quote:
1) seed, sowing, offspring
   a) a sowing
   b) seed
   c) semen virile
   d) offspring, descendants, posterity, children
   e) of moral quality
1) a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
   f) sowing time (by meton)

now, you can even go and find midrashim by hebrew rabbis before the time fo christ that think this is messianic. but there's what the text says, and there's what you want the text to say. this just says "child" and because god is talking to the WOMAN he refers to it as her child. that's how the text puts it, and this not absurd or foreign or out of place in the bible at all.

i'm not making up definition. but you are. i know what the word means, and there's nothing in it that indicates ANYTHING miraculous in the slightest. the theme is there, sure, but it can also be read literally. and was by many groups of jews.

English dictionary, DESCRIBE-[IN LITERATURE]PORTRAY, CHARACTERIZE.

alright, make me look stupid then. i'm gonna DESCRIBE something for you.

it's called a snake. it crawls along on its stomach. it licks the ground.

what am i describing? seriously, this is basic reading comprehension people. what does the book SAY?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 2:28 AM xevolutionist has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 381 (189103)
02-28-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 1:49 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
The Book of Mormon should agree with the OT pretty much because it was largely copied from the OT.

you misunderstood my statement. "they line with the ot about as well" means that the nt and the bom compare adequately to each other in relation to the old testament, in the aspect that they neither fit right.

parts of the nt were copied and influenced from the ot as well, btw. and often misinterpretted and misread. see the genesis 3 example we're talking about. see also virgin birth (which refers to an event within the lifetime of isaiah, doesn't involve a virgin, and is not the prophesy in itself). or see the passage about jesus riding two donkeys at the same time.

The OT books such as Psalms contain prophecy and history.

i'm gonna make the obvious statement. psalms contains poetry. songs, actually, because they were set to music. they are praises of god, usually, and never prophetic or historical.

and before you bring it up, psalm is david's coronation psalm. not prophesy. if any of the five books of psalms were prophetic, they'd be in the nevi'im (prophets) and not ketuvim (writings). wrong section of the tanakh.

most seem to claim authorship. but actually, we're not even sure that "a psalm of david" means that it was written BY david. it's possible it means that they were written by a psalmist in employment of david. (just as king james did not translate the bible himself)

16 copies of Isaiah were found among the Dead Sea scrolls, so somebody back then must have thought it was an important book.

yes, but written but isaiah, and not god. (or rather, THREE isaiahs. but that's besides the point)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 1:49 AM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by xevolutionist, posted 02-28-2005 1:49 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 191 of 381 (189104)
02-28-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by xevolutionist
02-27-2005 2:13 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
Among the criteria were whether they were quoted or mentioned by Jesus or His apostles. There is a difference of opinion between the Catholic church and the majority of Protestants about the Apocrypha. In John 10:35 and Luke 24:44, Jesus speaking about the OT omits any mention of them, but does mention psalms, the books of Moses, and the prophets. There are other criteria but I don't have a link. I read about it in a book titled :Church History in Plain Language, by Bruce Shelly.

sorry, but that's demonstratably flat out wrong.

here's the most books jesus mentions:

quote:
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

let's translate to hebrew for a second.
law = torah
prophets = nevi'im.

now, assuming that each division contains the same books now as it did two thousand years ago (which i could probably show that it did), the torah is the first five books. nevi'im contains, joshua, judges, samuel/kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets (hosea, joel, amos, obadiah, jonah, micah, nahum, habakkuk, zephaniah, haggai, zechariah, malachi). jesus also mentions psalms.

that means that jesus never once mentions the majority of the ketuvim (writings). that rules out:

proverbs
job
song of songs/solomon
ruth
lamentations
ecclesiastes
esther
daniel
ezra
nehemiah
chronicles.

now, chronicles is boring, and i've never read ezra or ecclesiastes, but i REALLY like job, and proverbs, song of songs, and lamentations. not to mention daniel. and i bet your bible has all of those books, doesn't it?

you really wanna know the defining characteristic of what's the christian "old testament?" what's in the hebrew tanakh. the books are exactly copied from the hebrew library at the time. there appears to be no other reasoning in this matter. when martin luther goes to make his german translation, he selects, suprise, only the books of the masoretic tanakh. as opposed to catholic's latin vulgate, which contains the apocrypha. (via the septuagint? i forget)

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-28-2005 03:14 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 2:13 AM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by xevolutionist, posted 02-28-2005 1:23 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 192 of 381 (189179)
02-28-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by arachnophilia
02-28-2005 2:20 AM


Re: Gods and Sons of God
Arachnophilia writes:

kings in other local cultures were gods. this was unacceptable to the monotheistic jews. and so their kings were the next step down, sons of god.

I believe it had more to do with politics than with religion. Jewish leaders were nervous about what Jesus said because: identifying oneself as son-of-god (royal) was a challenge to Caesar.

Jesus defended his statement (that he was the son of god) by quoting scripture to the effect that Yahweh had addressed the princes of Israel (royal household) as "gods." So, calling himself "son of god" shouldn't be such a big deal.

... you can't be both the literal son of david, and the literal son of god.

Why not?

Solomon was the son of David, and the son of god.

The anointed one (man selected to be king) becomes the son of god by virtue of his coronation, the crown symbolizing presence of deity; a halo, if you will. This is incarnation. The 'spirit of god' possessing the body of a man: the king.

By analogy: the anointed one is like the president elect. He is given all power in heaven and earth upon the occasion of his inauguration.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 2:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 9:11 PM doctrbill has responded

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 193 of 381 (189211)
02-28-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by doctrbill
02-27-2005 1:36 PM


Re: Wise as Serpents
I did read the maccabees but it was a couple of years ago. I may have confused that with some other research I was doing on that period. I'll reaccquaint myself with those texts before making any more statements about them.

You have raised some very interesting points and I'll be investigating them as I get time.

I'm not looking for any reasons to believe, my faith is based on very convincing evidence. Thank you for your stimulating comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by doctrbill, posted 02-27-2005 1:36 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by doctrbill, posted 02-28-2005 1:42 PM xevolutionist has responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 194 of 381 (189219)
02-28-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by arachnophilia
02-28-2005 2:17 AM


Re: answer: an intelligent person. sometimes.
quote:
yes. jesus, whether or not he was god, was also man, and a man descended from jacob. that means he is held to mosaic law. breaking mosaic law in such a manner would justify death.

My belief is that He was fully God and fully human. At this time He voluntarily relenquished certain aspects of His Godliness to accomplish His task, to redeem those who would repent and acknowledge Him as King. His resurrection, which was acknowledged by the other apostles, is just one proof of His deity. The fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Him is another proof. The most convincing one of all you will have to discover for yourself.

The proofs that you cite are not. PROOF, the establishment of a fact by evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 2:17 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 9:43 PM xevolutionist has responded

    
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 195 of 381 (189222)
02-28-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by arachnophilia
02-28-2005 3:13 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
quote:
now, chronicles is boring, and i've never read ezra or ecclesiastes, but i REALLY like job, and proverbs, song of songs, and lamentations. not to mention daniel. and i bet your bible has all of those books, doesn't it?

That is one of the criteria that I didn't mention because I wasn't sure that it was apparent to non believers. It's called a self evidencing quality in that it just reads like the word of God. Most people who handle large amounts of cash become so familiar with authentic currency that it is immediately evident when they handle a fake bill, unless it's printed on genuine currency paper stock. [An extreme rarity.]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2005 3:13 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019