|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: What is the biggest bible contradiction? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days)  Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
 The Book of Joshua, ... Since we do not know when it was written joshua appears to draw from the j and e sources, and appears as a direct continuation of deuteronomy, whose date of authorship is known (ironically, thanks to the bible) as ~621 bc. but this could be a trick of editting.
do we try and determine when it WAS written and study that particular historical cultural background, or do we establish the historical-cultural background of the period the Book of Joshua is claiming to describe? i'll leave tim to answer this, but i do feel that it's important to understand when the book was written, and why, and what role it played in society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There are no Bible contradictions i'll reiterate what others have said. anyone who espouses this view simply has not studied the bible. dogma and theology, sure, but not the bible. because a plain and literal reading of the bible is unbelievably full of contradictions. remember that whole idea in the torah about god being just? yet in job he punishes the righteous. that's the premise of the book: that god does not play by the rules the other books say he does. job is righteous and perfect -- yet paul says no man is perfect. and no man has ever seen god. except moses, elijah, enoch, jacob, and maybe abraham. nobody knew his name until he told moses -- yet the first sons of adam called him by the same name. the god in genesis is close, very anthropomorphic, and sometimes just petty. he wrestles with jacob in the desert. but the god of exodus is so holy you can't get within a thousand feet of him without bursting into flames. god is not a man, that he should repent, yet he does numerous times in the bible. god is perfect, but by his own admission makes errors (see repenting). he tells us to make no images of anything divine, yet commands israel to place golden cherubs on his ark. these are not minor things. they are major, major points about the character and identity of god. is he mysterious, or familiar? is he just, or forgiving? is he human-like, or abstract? does he allow for the existance of other divine entities, or not? can we be just in his eyes, or not?
there are merely bad Bible exegesis practioners. there are, and they are the ones who think that the bible has no contradictions. of course a text that was written by more than 50 authors, in three different languages, over the course of 1000 years, and stitched together from so many different sources and traditions will contradict. most people have problems not contradicting themselves, let alone someone several hundred years in the future, living in a different region, speaking a different language, and having a different set of beliefs.
quote: yes. exegesis is concerned with meaning. not with making texts agree. when that becomes our primary concern, we lose sight of the intent of the individual authors. texts lose their flavor and impact. the text becomes boring -- and all debate and discussion within disappears. it also does an incredibly disservice to the text when we are forced to assume that it doesn't actually mean what it says. so what if one author means something, and another means its opposite?
quote: this is sloppy. rules 4 and 6 are the same (and should be combined with 7) as a starting place. rules 8 and 1 are the same. really, we should be concerned with, in order:
we can extract from this what the author probably means. the problem with most christian exegesis supported by fundamentalists is that they often ignore #1, and start with a fault assumption about #6 (god's word, inerrant, consistent, etc). bad process leads to bad conclusions, and the process that start with a conclusion always end the worst. we MUST star with the text and work up from there. we cannot start with an assumption about the nature of the text that is easily demonstrated to be false by any actual study. Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I think you would do well to demonstrate your contention via the 8 steps I cited. i am somewhat well known on here for my biblical analysis. you will find that i tend to discuss all of the important factors described in your process (though less redundantly), and still come a very different conclusion. even when the contradictions are more subtle -- a revisement of intention, perhaps -- they are still there. it is still one author saying "don't read it this way, read it this way." for instance, in another thread, it came up that jeremiah and psalms both say that god doesn't ask for sacrifices. yet in exodus, he clearly does. can both be accurate? possibly. see that thread (old laws still valid) for the reasoning. there are a lot of "contradictions" like this, and they us a great deal about the changing ideas of the society that wrote them. so here's what i'm going to do. i'm going to call you out on this one. demonstrate to me, using your exegetical guidelines (or mine) why these three contradictions are not really contradictory. i'll start with two i give to noobs on occasion, to watch them scratch their heads and say "i never noticed that."
quote: the lord = satan?
quote: jesus = lucifer? i'll give you a hint, or perhaps a word of encouragement regarding these two. they are not contradictions, but it's up to you to figure out why, and then demonstrate your logic using the process you described. and then when you've done that, please explain this one to me:
quote: answer a fool, or don't? please note the sequential verse numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
How about the so-called doctrine of the Trinity? No where in the bible is the word "Trinity" found and yet it is believed by many in the Christain world today. you will find many christian concepts at odds with the bible. the trick to this thread is showing the ones that are recorded in the bible at odds with other parts of the bible. the trinity in particular seems to have been invented to explain just such a contradiction: is jesus god (john), or is he separate from god (matt, mark, luke)? Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Belief in the Trinity is one of many aversions that Judaism has with Christianity.... Interestingly enough, the pseudo-spiritual belief, Kabbalah... there is a more direct parallel in qabalah. actually, two more direct parallels in qabalah. one being ain, ain soph, ain soph aur. the other being adonai, shekinah, and one other party (the angel of the lord?). both are concepts of separate "facets" or even entities, but a single god. i don't think either fits the bible very well at all. nor does the trinity, imo.
When Jesus stated that He and God are One (Echad, in Hebrew), that text is in greek, and the hebrew is quite irrelevent. especially since jesus spoke aramaic. john contends that jesus is god, quite literally. this isn't exactly a trinitarian concept as it is that he thinks jesus is god incarnate. but in matthew and mark, jesus and god are separate to the extent that he pleads with god in gethsemane, and call out on the cross, "elahi, elahi, lamah shabaqt-ani?" meaning "my god, my god, why have you abandoned me?" a VERY odd statement to make if you are your own god. the trinity idea seems to come about to rectify john's almost gnostic ideas with the more human-prophet ideas of the synoptic gospels. it's just not biblical, even if you can read it in here and there.
Perhaps, even when the prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) declared, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Name of the Lord,” he was not being redundant for effect. He was conveying the principle of the Trinity. The intimation given by Isaiah is implicit, but this isn;t the only verse. in biblical hebrew, one repeats to mean "very." if we were to exlcude all the repition in the bible, it would be less than half the length. nearly all poetry is redundant (that's the style). it's just the way the hebrews wrote, and there is no cause to read anything else into it. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Adonai, just means, the Lord. I don't think its meant descriptively about His nature. yes, sorry, i didn't mean to be confusing. i was using it as a replacement for "yahueh" the masculine attribute of god to the shekinah's feminine.
Whether you believe in the Trinity or not, would you agree that it is unreasonable for early Christians to have surmised such a thing based off of the scriptures I presented? yes. did you mean "not unreasonable?"
I think its reasonable to assume that Jesus not only spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, but Greek and Latin, being that He was able to converse with centurians and procurators of Rome. the story almost demands him speaking greek at the very least. latin would be optional, and hebrew would only be good for talking to the pharisees. which would have worked just as well in greek or aramaic. but since this particular passage is part of jesus's ministry, which was directed at the local masses, it would have been in aramaic. the point i mean to say is that there is no reason to bring up hebrew here, nor is there an significance. it adds no information to the debate other than the hebrew word for the number one, which is generally pronounced "achad" or "achat" depending on gender anyways.
Only odd in human relation, which is why I quoted Paul. Of course, we have hundreds of verses of Jesus speaking with the Father. So, from a human perspective, it appears that He is speaking to someone sles. does one beg or plead with himself? i think this "it's hard to understand from a human perspective" stuff is a cop-out for an argument that doesn't actually make any sense. lots of things are hard to understand -- but also make sense when you do. this is something that simply does not make any sense at all.
Then why did Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc corroborate the same claim that God equals the Father, Son, and Spirit, if this is uniquely a trait of John? read your quotes again. i will not address them directly for now (i'm tired, and this is off-topic), but separate them into different piles. one for matthew, mark, and luke. one for paul and john. now look at them. in john, jesus claims to be the father, or literally have the father in him. in matthew, jesus claims to be the father's son. they are separate and distinct ideas, and matthew, mark, and luke do not contain the idea of the son EQUALING the father, as john does. john is a text with much, much more gnostic tendencies to it. not turly gnostic by any means, but probably written to appeal to them. the idea of the trinity comes from combining the two sets of texts, with no regard for the fact that they are separate traditions. it takes the elements of one, and the philosophy of the other, and pretends that we can just add them up.
No, what it does in that poetic style is make an affirmation, then it is followed up by example. The Psalms are riddled with this poetic style. Being redundant for effect doesn't seem to fit the style, especially for a prophet, not a poet. i don't mean to sound snarky about this, but i really know what i'm talking about. and the prophets are highly, highly poetic. even much of the "prose" of the bible (say, genesis) contains hebrew poetic elements. but isaiah is actually written entirely in parallel verse. if your bible fails to present it this way, i'm sorry. you're missing out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Would you agree or disagree that based on the Scriptures, that it is either reasonable or unreasonable for Christians to have come to believe in the Trinitarian concept? i would agree that based on some scripture it is unreasonable. man and god are wholely different things. god cannot be a man, and vice versa, and to worship a man (a created entity) as a god is idolatry.
Fair enough. Then what about Elohim, which is not singular, but used plurally? elohim, when applied to yahueh, is never plural. it simply looks plural, and it's plural case is spelled the same way. grammatically, it is always singular when applied to god, yahueh. all of the verbs used with it are singular. it's appearance of plurality is more of a hint about the polytheistic culture that surrounds and pre-dates judaism. the word also exists, in singular, in ugaritic, but as the name of a council of many gods.
Are you limiting God's power? no, i am opperating under the assumption that god is not a fool.
Is incapable of providing for Himself the acceptable sacrifice by becoming both man and God and Spirit simultaneously? god is said to have (perhaps taking?) a human form throughout the old testament. when he wrestles with jacob in the desert, he is in human form. when he shows moses his body, he is in human form. when he walks through the garden with adam and eve, he is in human form. in many instances, he has forms that are considerably less solid, as a pillar of cloud and fire, or a burning bush. and there is a passage where god provides his own sacrifice. but to take this as evidence of the trinity is nothing short of absurd. god provides a ram caught in the thickets for abraham, because he takes compassion and does not want abraham to sacrifice his son. this is the kind of passage that carries with it the implication that god will never make such a demand of anyone. god provides the lamb because he does not desire human sacrifice, rather a willing heart.
See, there are several verses, some of which I already presented, that unambiguously describe the trinity. no, there are not. read them more carefully, and separately this time.
It does make sense. Especially when you look at in context with scripture. i am, and in the context of scripture, it is utterly abhorent to call any descendant of adam "god." it is what time and time again foreign kings are mocked for by the prophets.
As David said, "there are none that are good, no, not even one." and you talk to me about context? david is not commenting on the state of all human kind, but the the transgressions of his country. the implication of the rest of that very verse, "they have all gone aside" is that people have lost their way, not that they never had it, or could not have it. clearly, according to the old testament, there are a number of people who are called "perfect" by god. including david. even after he sins in the text. surprise, god is forgiving.
Now, can we fully understand God with or without the Trinity? No, of course not. according to you, we cannot fully understand the trinity. apparently, we have a better chance of understanding god without this concept.
All men have been building up Adam, as ben, in Hebrew, means, ”builder.’ ben means "son." banah means "build" or "builder." in plural, they are spelled the same in hebrew (but the vowels are different). singular case is different, but many cases are similar. i can understand why this would be confusing. ben-adam means "son of man" literally, but look it up in a dictionary and you'll find "human being" as the definition. it literally means descended from the first human.
In Biblical times, the father’s seed counted towards lineage, not the mother. Even today, tradition maintains that a son or daughter from a marriage typically takes the surname of the father. not entirely true. if your mother was jewish, and your father a gentile, you are a jew. if your father is jewish and your mother a gentile, you're a goy.
This is precisely why intermarriage was forbidden in Biblical times. i think you'll find another reason much prominent in the old testament, if you actually look for where it's spelled out. i'll give you hint, i discussed it above, and it starts with an "i" and ends with a "dolatry."
This was not done out of issues of race, as so many have presupposed. clearly not, all of israel's neighbours were (and are) semitic.
Even today, a Jewish person is considered either a ”Cohen’ (Priest), or a ”Levy,’ (Levite), according to who is father is. cohen = levi, for all intents and purposes. while technically, kohanim are a subset of the tribe of levi, they are close to be synonymous today. and actually, kohanim can be identified by their genes. it's called the kohanim modal haplotype, an irregularity in a single chromosome found only in sons of "y-chromosomal aaron," and uniquely in middle eastern people -- a large percentage of which happen to be named "cohen." oh, and one south african tribe that identifies itself as jewish.
Many Davidic kings on the throne of Israel had Gentile mothers. Did this make them Gentiles from the Tribe of Judah and the family line of David? can you document this?
The prophets, Micah and Isaiah, wrote these prophecies some 700 years prior to Jesus’ birth. In these messianic prophecies they describe the Messiah as being eternal. that is highly, highly debatable. it's definitally not the case in micah, but i do not feel like getting into messianic prophecy here. there are other threads for that.
Aside from this glaring point, since when is a man, any man, referred to as ”Mighty God’ and ”Everlasting Father?’ here's some good ones to search for:
want some more? there are tons of names in the hebrew bible (AND the christian bible) that end or start with "el" or "yah." some of them more debatable than others. but these are ones that have meanings close to what you're looking. i skipped a bunch of "eli-" names, too, because those mean "my god" and aren't as obvious. the thing is that hebrews named, and continue to name their children after god. sometimes qualities of god, or as statements about god. so a name that says "god is with us!" or "god is forever" does not mean the person who has this name is actually god. anymore than jehu or joel was actually god.
So, what else are we to deduce, other than, that the Messiah is God incarnate? this actually somewhat ironic, because there isn't a whole lot said in the bible about the messiah, because the tradition didn't even start until after the exile. that's pretty late in terms of old testament chronology. that's right at the end of kings, or after. the traditional view (and the biblical one mind you) present a great phophet-king, someone like moses. he will be given great power by god, but he will be a human being. in fact, he will be a son of david. this is a great contradiction, btw, for anyone noticing how far we're strayed from the topic. if being the messiah is partially defined by being a son of david, how can god (who is not the son of david) or the son of god (who is not the son of david) be the messiah?
I mean, really, is belief in the Trinity so unfounded to you? yes. it's purely, and simply dogma. it might be the most apologetic way to read certain contradictory elements, but "it's both and we're too stupid to understand" is NOT a good answer. the parts about strict, strict monotheism cannot possibly combine with worship of more than one entity. and pretending that 3=1 is not the solution to this.
Each gospel adds to it its own special element. Matthew presents Jesus as the Mashiac and appeals to the Jewishness of it all. Mark appeals to the Power of Christ, appealing to Him as the "the Lion from the Tribe of Judah." Luke focuses on the humanity of Jesus and how He has borne our afflictions. John presents Jesus as the eternal Lord and Saviour. All of them, divinely inspired, present the same Jesus in all His forms. perhaps they are genuinely four different points of view.
There is nothing gnostic about it. Read the gnostic gospels and vastly different they are textually than any of the actual gospels. There is no comparison. john is vastly different than the other gospels. and the stuff jesus walks around saying has very gnostic tendencies. it's not a gnostic gospel itself, but i have a suspicion it was written to attract gnostic tastes.
Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I have thus far backed up my claims with Scripture. you have back it up by combining texts willy-nilly, with little to no regard for the separate traditions they represent. my conjecture that the concept of the trinity comes from combining of texts is actually demonstrated in full by your argument. break the texts into groups, and no one set says all of what you want it to say.
If you want to undermine the concept of the trinity, you are going to have to do it using the Scriptures, otherwise you are just supplying your personal opinion yes, it's my personal opinion that god absolutely rules out worshipping anything made in his image, any human being, or anything else besides him and him alone? it is my opinion that a mortal being, a "son of man" is the exact opposite of god within the contexts of the hebrew bible? i have used scripture, i just haven't especially thrown it at you in bible-thumping manner. i have used a fair portion of my own understanding of the text, the textual context, and the socio-political and religious context. i have used a few years of study about the structure and history and contents of the bible. it's simply not what you think it is. at some point, you just have to accept that certain things are contradictory, and that "god" and "not god" contradict. otherwise, you are simply saying that you do not believe in the rules of logic, and that god is irrational.
Of those of more poetic prose, we have The 150 Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Songs of Solomon. those are poetry, not poetic prose. also, the three major prophets (isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel) are largely poetry, interspersed with prose (usually taken from other books) for context. most of the minor prophets are the same way. i suppose i shouldn't have said that isaiah is entirely poetry, there's a lot of prose in it too.
But what exactly are you referring to about a parallel verse? well, here's an example. let's look at a passage from isaiah that supports my point.
quote: do i have to point out the structure? it goes: A-A-B-B-C. D-D-C. E-E-D-D. F-F-G. H-H-I-I-G. it's like rhyme structure in english, except instead of rhymin, it works by reptition of concept, generally with synonyms. sometimes with antonyms. this one is a bit more complex, as it has recurring elements that repeat at the end of certain groups -- but generally, things are found in pairs. this is a standard hebrew poetic device. look for it anywhere in the bible, and you will find it. Edited by arachnophilia, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
except for that bit where he says logos is god?
but you do raise an interesting point. thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I hope that wasn't serious ... somewhat. i was just saying that it was a fitting (if unintentional) title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I see God doing as He pleases, and if becoming the propitiation of sin fancies, I think He is well within reason to do so. Muslims make a similar claim as you do, that God wouldn't dirty Himself by becoming a man. But did they ever think that speaks disparagingly of His creation? no, that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is strictly logical. god can becomes a man if he wishes. but if and when he does, he ceases to be god, by definition. you are either god or man, but not both. they are opposites.
I would say that Elohim is a cryptic word to use because it can be used both ways. so can "deer" and "fish." nothing cryptic there.
I would even dare say that the more proper enunciation for Elohim in plurality would be, Eloah. eloah is the word elohim is probably derived from. and it happens to be singular.
If this is the case, then I certainly would concede that Elohim is used singularly and only causes a misunderstanding when it is transliterated into English on the basis of face value, rather than how Hebrews would have used it. shall i prove it to you again? every case of the word elohim in the bible, in reference to yahueh, is singular because it is used with a singular verb. because the word ends in -im, it's plural case looks identical. i have an even better example for you, in english. look at the word "mathematics." it ends in -s, our "plural" case, but say it in a sentance for me. "mathematics is hard." hmm, "is." singular verb. the word is singular, it just looks plural to someone who doesn't know better. no one who speaks english would say "mathematics are hard."
What about the Trinity would make God foolish? because one would not beg themselves for something they could just easily do without the fuss. and anyone who sits around whining for themselves to do something it a fool.
Isn't that the ultimate way of proving His love for humanity? Think about it. Its genius, not foolishness. this makes jesus as a sacrifice to mankind from god, not a sacrifice from mankind to god. are you ok with that reading?
So, which is it? Would God never become as a man or would He? god taking human form and god being born of a human being are very different things. there would be no need for god to impregnant mary -- why couldn't jesus just stroll down from heaven one day, fully formed and adult?
And how can you explain prophecies concerning the Mashiac in terms of Him being equal to God by doing things that only God can do? moshe split the red sea and produced water from a rock. those are god-like tricks, aren't they? one can be given power and authority by god without being god. see for instance in job, where satan is given godlike power over job. satan is not god, is he?
Is it? Then what mortal can overcome the curse of Jehoiachin and still be apart of the line of David without inhereting the curse? any son of his brother, zedekiah, is a rightful heir to the throne of judah. zedekiah, as you recall, was the last king of judah after jehoiakim and his son were removed from power. jehoiakim's claim to the throne ended there, and the line should have continued from zedekiah. (read kings a little more carefully. i have a thread on this somewhere)
Because Jesus was conceived by the Spirit, rather than, by the will of a husband through natural procreation, He did not inherit the curse of Jehoiachin. you have to be in the line of david to sit on the throne. i'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. if you are not a descendant of david, you are not in his line. and there are lots of rightful heirs in the line of zedekiah. however, it's a moot point, since jesus was never king of judah, and never sat on the throne.
However, because Joseph was His legal guardian, and Joseph and Mary were both from the line of David means that ONLY Jesus could still sit on the throne and avoid the curse. mary is irrelevant. women determine cultural heritage. men determine royalty.
Jesus elucidates this point to the Pharisees by showing that David himself has considered the Mashaic to be God in the flesh. “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, ”What do you think about the Christ (Messiah)? Who’s Son is He?’ They said to Him, ”The son of David.’ He said to them, ”How then does David in the Spirit call Him ”Lord,’ saying: ”The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool?’ If David then calls Him ”Lord,’ how is He his son?’ And no on one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to question Him anymore.” -Matthew 22:41-46 you're misreading that rather egregiously. the issue is about who's son, not about being god. in hebrew of the hundred and tenth psalm has:
quote: the two "lords" are NOT the same. one is the name of god, the other is a relatively common title. see for instance how lot addresses the disguised angels in genesis 19:
quote: same word. and he didn't know they were angels. i think the best explanation (even though it makes jesus mistaken) is that the lowercase "lord" here is david. it's a psalm of david, but it's a mistake to think these were all songs by david, just because tradition says so. but even if you don't like that reading, and accept that it is about the messiah, then at least understand that in the bible, adonai carries little or no implication of divinity, just of heirarchy.
Even supposing that David was speaking of ONLY his countrymen, this still presents a problem because Scripture was clear on what line, what nationality, and what faith the Mashiach must come from. The Mashiac is Jewish, through and through. So, if no Jew is good, no, not even ONE, then who will the Messiah be? listen. you're thinking about this way too hard. if i say "this whole country is dumb for electing george w. bush" do i mean that every single person who lives here is an idiot? even if i say so? and do i mean that every person who has ever lived here or ever WILL live here is also an idiot? at best it's a statement about the present.
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Bar" means son, "bat" means daughter-- as in, Simon bar Jonah, (Simon the son of Jonah). My concordance says that ben literally means, builder, while it is making allusions to sons. Meaning, we are building off of Adam. bar and ben both mean "son." bat means daughter, yes. just for fun, try and find the plural of "daughter" if you don't believe me. it's not bat plus the -ot feminine plural ending like one would expect. it's ben plus the feminine plural ot, and thos "banot." literally, a feminine plural of "sons."
Specific Ethopians, right? I can't remember their tribal name off hand. ethiopians are north-eastern african. their claims to judaism might be plausible, but are unverified. (they also claim to be in possession of the ark of the covenant). the south african jewish tribe is the lemba, the majority of which possess the kohanim modal haplotype, and thus are legitimately semitic sons of aaron, levites, even though the look completely african.
Ruth was a Moabite who was married to Boaz, who begat Obed, who begat Jesse, who begat David, etc, etc. oh, and while we're on contradictions.
quote: ruth is a late text, and generally not considered authoritative by jews. it fails to mention god in any significant way, and ruth essentially seduces a man if i recall. in case you're looking for the solution to this contradiction, obed's mother was a jewish woman, naomi. not ruth, his biological mother. it's an odd tradition, but when families are left without male heirs, sometimes children get re-arranged in the family tree.
No one can do this but God, right? So, Mashiac must either be God, or have so special a relationship with God that He can delineate His authority. the bible is full of people with special relationships with god. and certainly every christian i have ever met claims to have one too.
And again, “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish His kingdom forever. I will be His FATHER and He will be My SON. When He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But My love will never be taken away from Him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me; your throne will be established forever.” -2nd Samuel 7:12-13 Here we see that the Messiah has a father/son bond that cannot be broken. read more closely. look at specifically:
quote: and
quote: and compare that to "my god, my god, why have you abandoned me?"
Sin must be atoned for by blood. Halacha makes this very clear. halakah does not.
quote: flour and oil are acceptable sacrifices too. the focus on the blood is an entirely unfounded (and morbid!) reading of the text. it is the giving heart that grants forgiveness of sin, not death. don't believe me?
quote: and nobody died.
God cannot overlook sin for the sake of justice. clearly, he can and does. he told adam that if he ate from the tree, he'd kill him on the spot. he did not. time after time god forgives man in the old testament. christians just tend not to look for it. but it's there.
However, because of His mercy, God Himself became the propitiation of sin as the only acceptable sacrifice. Because Jesus did this, it is as if Father momentarily looked away from the Son. The weight of humanities sin was placed upon Jesus, which is why He cried out, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani! which is impossible if they are one and the same.
Therefore, we know from the gospels that Jesus was inflicted with some of the most horrific beatings ever endured by anyone. Romans were champions at torture. They employed some of the most painful tactics ever devised by man’s reprehensible mind. one day on the cross? they liked to keep people alive on those things, you know. better punishment that way.
To reiterate, while on the cross He would prophetically cry out, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani?” how is that prophetic? he's asking a question, out of despair and torment.
This is where we start to see parallels. When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son, God did not allow him to complete the task, because He had no intention of having Abraham complete this. God stopped Abraham and told him that He would provide for Himself an acceptable sacrifice. ever watch star trek? this is the biblical kobyashi maru test. there is no right answer.
This story was a prophetic foreshadow of what God was going to do for mankind out of His abundant love in the distant future. Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice, provided by God, Himself. the story tells us one thing, actually. it tells us that god does not want human sacrifice. by phrasing the jesus story in terms of this genesis story, and applying it as a parallel, you are actually undermining this jesus bit. because this story is the bit that removes all possibility of "jesus as sacrifice." it's like phrasing armageddon in terms of the flood myth, in which god tells us he'll never destroy the earth again. yeah, they line up nicely. but if the point of the first time is that there won't be a second... it's hard to use it that way.
Despite all of this amazing prophecy, most Rabbinical scholars seem confused about this prophecy. christian sure don't. they have answers for everything, usually involving very little textual analysis.
Probably the main reason why most do not believe Jesus was the Messiah is that He did not establish peace on earth. or, you know, actually fulfilled any messianic prophecies. no peace on earth. no return of missing tribes of israel. no king of judah. you kind of have to do those things to be the messiah. that's the definition.
And when the last individual comes to Christ, He will return for His bride. really? everyone on the earth has to be christian? that's not the way i remember revelation going at all...
Even if you maintain that view, which, even from a Rabbinical point of view would be absurd, just the one's I provided juxtaposed by the New Testament is enough to make an excellent claim for Yeshua. there are whole threads on that. we went through about 2/3rds of the supposed messianic prophecies, found most of them to not actually be prophetic, and every one that was we look at and found to not possibly be about jesus. perhaps you should find those threads. we only stopped, because people wouldn't shuttup about isaiah 7:14. and please don't even start on that here.
And Jesus was a Priest in the order of Melchizadek. melchizedek? the preist of yahueh in (jeru)salem, before abraham? i'm not aware of this line sticking around, but it's a detail i may have forgotten. was samuel one?
You cannot perform priestly duties before thirty, according to Halacha. it's not a surprise that jesus followed jewish law.
The son of David ----> the son of Adam----> the son of God/the son of man. in hebrew, ben adam means "mortal." ben elohim are a class of angels or demigods. ben david were kings. which one was jesus?
Nobody is saying that anyone is too stupid to understand the Trinity. Humanly speaking, I would be the first to point out how the logic fails. But the belief is supported by Scripture. how about we just acknowledge that the scripture is contradictory, instead of supposing contradictory ideas to rectify it?
God is One. We all know this. We're not saying there is three, we are saying there is 3 charachteristics, three manifestations, equaling One God. Think of it in another term: Ice, liquid, and vapor are three distinct characteristics of water-- but its all water and nothing is going to change that whether its in different forms. Its all H2. Does that makes sense? yes, but one cannot be all three at once.
Its the same as Kabbalah in that, Kabbalah says, One God-- many characteristics. havaing looked into qabalah (before it was popular) i can confidently say that it is mystical bs, the equivalent of gnosticism in the christian church. it bases its beliefs on a completely separate set of texts, basically saying that the bible is the dumbed-down version intended for man, but the qabalah is the secrets given to the angels.
If the gospel of John was the inspiration for some or all of the gnostic texts, then, whatever, I guess. more like vice-versa. it's a pet hypothesis of mine, that john was attempting to attract gnostic-minded people back to mainstread early christianity.
I am comparing text by text. I'm not using the gospel of John to corroborate the gospel of John. I'm using Zechariah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc, etc, to corroborate the claims. exactly. read them carefully and independently. you'll find that, well, the devil is in the details.
If you worship Satan, you worship Satan, and not God. If you worship Moses, then you are worshipping Moses, not God. If you worship Jesus, you worship God. That's the point. yes, and to say that a mortal being is god is also blasphemy.
God, coming in the form of man, whose goings forth are from old would highly suggest that's what God had in mind from the beginning. Cripes, even line up the names in Genesis 5 and its spelled out for us. 1.Adam = Man2. Seth = Appointed 3. Enosh = Mortal 4. Kenan = Sorrow 5. Mahalalel = The Blessed God 6. Yared = Shall Come Down 7. Enoch = Teaching 8. Methuselah = His Death Shall Bring 9. Lamech = The Despairing 10. Noah = Rest “Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring the despairing rest.” i've heard this before. and there are a number of problems. let's examine them. first is that while "shet" does mean "appointed," he is given that name because he was "compensation" for abel. it means "appointed in the place of another." second, "enosh" means "man." the sense is mortality, but it comes from the word for "sick," anash. the modern hebrew ish and isah for man and woman are probably related as their plurals are nashim and anashim. third, mahalalel comes from mi-halal-el. "from light of god" halal, btw, is the same word as hillel, or heylel ("lucifer"). just so you know. "enoch" or chanok comes from chanak, meaning "dedicated." not a surprise, as enoch was the one who walked with god. "methuselah" apparently means "man at arms" lemek means "fool" or perhaps "poor person" (in the sense of money) i don't think it says what you want it to say.
I have no idea what you are referring to. Call me dense, if you will, but can you expound on this? What does a,b,c,d,e,f,h,i, and g represent? Lines of order? it's like a rhyme scheme, but instead of rhyming it repeats. can you see how the lines are parallel? one line will say something, and the next will say the same thing in slightly different terms? sometimes adding something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I thought you were saying ... * it is important that* the "NAME" [sic!] of genesis is b'reishit * (even though Torah titles are no more than conventions) * therefore [?] * "in the beginning" could refer to basically everything sort of. the book is called "in the beginning" or "genesis" and describes the beginnings or genesis of people, places, and practices. it's marginally coincidence, as this happens to be the first word. but it's also likely the first word because of the content of the story that contains it, and similar stories were compiled under that collection. regardless, it is a good title for the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Why can't you be God and man at the same time, by definition? What is God by definition? That's like saying God can't be in more than one place at the same time because its contradictory. I don't follow your logic. It seems like you are limiting God. no, being man limits god. that's the point. god cannot be both infinite and finite.
Its not foolish, its genius. God could decimate the wicked right now, especially if he has the foreknowledge of the spiritual demise. He could forgo all of it if He wanted. Is that foolish too? The fact that God would come to us lowly, born in a manger, only to be brutally executed for a peoples who don't deserve it speaks volumes to us His love for humanity. no, it's foolish to beg to know your own will.
Aside from which, I've already shown you in the Tanakh that Mashiach is God, and God is Mashiach. those texts do not say what you think they do. you presented a lot of texts that say the messiah will be given god-like powers, or blessed by god, or sent from god. but none that actually say "god will take human form" or "the messiah will be god himself."
Don't you know that God has never been interested in animal sacrifice? yes. god does not require sacrifice. that makes your point especially absurd.
The sacrifice was only a foreshadowing and only was a temporal covering, a temporary absolution. no, the repentent, atoning heart is forgiven. the sacrifice is only demonstration of that heart. in the case of jesus, we are not giving up anything, and so his sacrifice of his own life says nothing about our hearts. no one can sacrifice for their neighbor, only for themselves.
Because being impregnated by the Holy Spirit in Mary ensures that the Davidic lineage is preserved while avoiding the curse of Jehoiachin. royalty is patrilineal. and even accepting that adoption works (it does not), the line from david to jospeph goes through jehoiakim, who is cursed. the correct lineage is through zedekiah, his brother. if you are not the son of zedekiah, you are not in the royal line.
So, what probelm do you have that Jesus was granted this as well, and even more so than all other people? Like Jesus said, (paraphrasing) "If you don't want to believe in My testimony, fine, but at least believe the miracles." there is difference between moshe and god. moshe was not god, and no one ever claimed he was. yet he performed miracles.
I mean, even the Sanhedrin records His death as being attributed as "Sorcery," meaning, He was doing some crazy things. They simply thought that He must be doing witchcraft. if you are referring to the entries in the talmud, those do not appear to actually be this jesus.
Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is two different people. ARE two different people. i think you find that jehoiakim (son of josiah) king of judah is the cursed one, relevant to this discussion, and that jehoiachin/jechoniah/jechonias (his son) is not especially, other than the fact the he breaks the curse of jeremiah. (that's another contradiction for those paying attention)
But avoiding the curse is not the only reason to be born of a virgin. Messiah had to be born of a virgin is because He had to be without sin-- in other words, symbolically "spotless" like the perfect and acceptable sacrifice. the messiah is not a sacrifice. he is a king.
Since He is from the family of David, the Messiah cannot be a Levite, but must be a Cohen (priest). all cohens are levites, because all cohens are sons of aaron, a levite.
"The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'" melchizedek is not a cohen, nor a levite. in fact, he's not even hebrew, he's around at the time of abraham, well before israel.
The Israelites of His time, were all looking for the Glorious Messiah as a Roman butt-kicking warrior in the order of David. They were looking for a valiant warrior who dethrone the Caesar and set Israel above all other nations. yes. that's the definition of messiah. you don't get to change the definition to suit the case. either it fits, or it does not. and jesus does not.
What does that mean? What is the significance? God, speaking through Isaiah is telling His people, 760 years before Jesus would walk the earth, that the Gentiles would follow Him and that they would prosper, but His own people would be in derision. This is exactly what we have seen for the last 2,000 years. read it again.
quote: judah is in exile, beaten by the "gentiles." the verse says that things will reverse, and the jews will take what's theirs.
quote: and god will confuse them and make them think they have double. it's a day of vengeance, after all. and what has happened after 2000 years? we think we have a covenant with god, just like the verse says we will. we think we have double -- we think we have what the jews have, and they have nothing. yes, it's describing things pretty well, isn't it? only forgot that part about god exacting his vengeance.
I already explained it. Mary is the bloodline of David and Joseph is Jesus' adopted father, still making eligible for the throne. no. matrilineal bloodline has no bearing on royalty, and joseph is not in the royal line. you cannot be eligible for the throne unless you are a son of zedekiah, the last king of judah. joseph is not. the issue about not really being his father only complicates things if joseph was indeed in the royal line. but since he's not, it's kind of moot.
So, He gets to be physically connected to the line of David through Mary's blood, but gets to inherit the entitlements of the throne while avoiding the curse. Only God could engineer that. or any creative author who hasn't read the old testament carefully enough. if god had engineered it, jesus would be rightful king, and the line would go through zedekiah, wouldn't it? loopholes are for the pharisees. god does what he says, and what he says is straightforward.
So, you're saying that God said to the angel? i'm saying that adonai doesn't mean "god." it's just one thing that people call god.
How can that be? It says, "Then the LORD, said to MY Lord..." meaning that the "my" is David. He would clearly be talking about God and the Messiah in relation to himself. think about this a little more clearly. who says that david is the author? even the traditional addition (not part of the text) says "a psalm of david." does that mean by david or about david? and why assume this is accurate, instead of a tradition?
Then why would David ask why God had abandoned him if you say that he is perfect also in the sight of God? because david is a human being, and there's no reason to assume that god was always physically there by his side making sure he won every little poker game he ever played. david certainly lost wars from time, didn't he? in fact, i can think of at least one instance in the book of samuel and chronicles were god does punish david. and again, who says david wrote it?
Burnt offerings, grain offerings, and animal sacrifice are temporary sacrifices. And consider today how Jews are supposed to atone for their sins when there is no Temple remaining. you're missing the point. the point is that there are many forms of sacrifice that do not involve blood. god does not require blood in every circumstance. and as the prophets later tell us, it's not the blood at all.
Yes, that's true. God forgave before even the Law was introduced. However, the point is, sins need to be atoned for. God dies not desire sacrifice and concluded that in the New Covenant by making a final covering, which is why Jesus said, "It is finished." somehow you're getting past the problem with the premise, and jumping right to the conclusion. the premise is that god needs a sacrifice to forgive sins, thus christ. if the first part is not true...
quote: it seems god is talking about a permanent physical presence. one that does not require faith, because god is right there with us. clearly, this is not happened, though i'm sure you will pretend that it is. faith is still required, isn't it? where is god? point to him, and show me. i'd very much like to go and meet him, shake his hand, congratulate him on his creation.
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." -Genesis 2:16-17 It doesn't say that He will kill them on the spot. yes, actually it does. "when" (in hebrew) has the implication of causality. when you eat from the tree, you will die. not after, and probably not before.
Because He is quoting David, or should I say, David is quoting Jesus before the fact. congratulations, you are another person guilty of the pre-hoc, propter-hoc fallacy. it's wrong for all the reasons the post-hoc fallacy is, only with the additional reason of being in the wrong causal order. and it's still not prophetic, especially not for jesus to say. you wouldn't even have a case for david (who is speaking for himself -- post-hoc fallacy here) but certainly not for the person who quotes him.
it tells us that god does not want human sacrifice. You're right, which is why God sacrificed Himself. that doesn't even make sense. one does not follow from the other. why did god sacrifice himself, instead of simply changing his own rules, like your jeremiah passage says?
The only thing Jesus has yet to do is bring peace complete peace during His second coming. Everything else was fulfilled. except returning the lost tribes of israel. we're still missing around 10. and except sitting on the throne of judah. jesus never did that (i'm sure herod would have noticed). and except for destroying the foreigners in judah. the roman empire wouldn't like that very much at all. you just have to admit the "world peace" thing because it's so painfully obvious to everyone that it just hasn't happened yet, and you would appear completely dishonest (and possibly delusional) is you said anything else. but even assuming your statement is entirely true -- wouldn't that make jesus number 2 the messiah, instead of jesus number 1?
I didn't say everyone. I said His bride-- His elect. Most are going to be judged. And I certainly don't think that includes everyone who claims to be a Christian. you said when the last individual comes to christ. you mean "that is going to..." or "when the very last person on the planet..." ?
Who is "we." Was that on EvC or somewhere else? As for the messianic prophecies, they are very obvious and easy to spot. apparently too easy, as people seem to be spotting them in all kinds of places that aren't even prophetic, let alone about the messiah. yes it was here.
As for Isaiah 7:14 , I won't mention it, though guessing by your answer we probably disagree. yes, we probably do. this is the problem (with this verse, and others). people take things out of context. not only does this verse not say (in hebrew) what people think it says, but the context firmly indicates that it can only apply to something very, very soon after the prophet says it. not only does the hebrew grammar imply that the woman is in the room, but the prophecy is not the child. it's that ahaz will conquer the assyrian army. the child is the clock on the prophecy. but it's meaningless after ahaz is dead, and the assyrian army has been beaten. so what happens is that people take this one verse, ignore what the chapter says, interpret it out of context as prophecy. when faced with the overwhelming evidence from the text itself that it's not about jesus, they are forced to come up with this idea of "double prophecies." meaning, it's talking about that first obvious contextual case, but also about jesus -- out of context and removed from all other parts of the prophecy. so when zechariah talks about the messiah coming through the east gate on a donkey, that parts about jesus. but the part of the same prophecy where the messiah conquers the world and forces everyone into peace isn't. we call this "intellectual dishonesty" around here.
Adam's name means "man." closer to "mankind." and "son of man(kind)" means "mortal." look at the way god refers to ezekiel: son of man. it's god's way of calling him "lowly mortal."
Angels are not demigods, because there is only one God. i say "demigods" because in other surrounding cultures the same word is used to describe beings that are lesser gods, or half-gods. it's not exactly clear what they are in the hebrew text, other than divine and not god.
Which one was Jesus, what? I don;t know what that that means. was jesus a son of man, a mortal being? or was a son of god, divine and immortal, possibly angelic? or was a son of david, an earthly king? or was he god himself, son of nobody?
What is contradictory about the Scriptures? Its very clear. then i am forced to believe that you do not have a sufficient degree of familiarity with the scriptures.
Why not? We are speaking about Almighty God here. If God can't do that, then He couldn't hear everyone's prayers simultaneously or be ubiquitous either by the same human logic. I think that is really limiting God. no, again, being man limits god. god can limit himself if he wishes, but while he is limited, he cannot be without limits, can he? he either limits himself, or he does not. if he splits off part of himself, and limits that part (so as to be both at the same time), the part that is limited is no longer god, because he is limited. it's a definitional thing.
I would agree. My only reason for mentioning it is that many Jews seem to be a-okay with Kabbalah, but not the Trinity. They seem to grasp the concept that God can manifest Himself in 12 characteristics and still be one God, but for some reason equate the Trinity to polytheism. I don't understand that. having problems with contradictory logic? that's ironic.
The Ryland Papyrus is the earliest manuscript of John, placed in the first century. The gnostic texts emerged well after the 1st century. i am unaware of any document of any gospel dating before the second century. rylands 52 dates to 120 ad or later.
He isn't mortal. "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." -John 10:18 i'm sorry? he's immortal, but died? this isn't "highlander" you know. you are either immortal, or you can die. mortality can be his choice, but then he is not immortal. it's amazing to have to continually argue in tautologies as if they were logical points instead things self-evident.
His name means, "Appointed." if you really want to know, it means "butt." but that's not the usage we're talking about here.
Enosh means mortal, Adam means man. you completely ignored my reasoning. and besides, as i've been trying to explain to you elsewhere in this conversation, the concepts of "mortal" and "man" are related.
mahalalel comes from mi-halal-el. "from light of god" halal, btw, is the same word as hillel, or heylel ("lucifer"). just so you know. Mahalalel means, "the blessed God." And Lucifer isnt even Hebrew, so its irrelevant. Satan means, "The Adversary" or "the Accuser." i'm convinced that you're not paying attention now. i know "lucifer" isn't hebrew, that's why it's in quotes and parenthesis. but the word in the hebrew of isaiah 14:12 is "heylel." as in "ma-heylel-el." it means, literally, "bright" or idiomatically "glorious." so mahalalel means "from the glorious god." that mem prefix, "from" is important. and besides, if it really does simply mean "the blessed god" isn't that one more name to add to your list of double standards about why "immanuel" has to be god, but other names about god aren't?
And Methuselah means, "His death shall bring," which, interestingly, right after he died, the Flood began. again. no. it's from "mat" (another word for man) and "shelach" which means weapon. i don't know where this idea you're going after comes from.
Well, yes, I know the poetic style you are referring to, but I've never heard of a rhyme scheme. no, i was saying it was like a rhyme scheme. if you've heard of it, why so much trouble of me having to explain it to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
