Your favourite Bible absurdity

He was talking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The new testament says, "In the beginning was the word (referring to Jesus). And the word was with God."Of course, there were also a myriad of Angels he could talk to as well. A third of the Angels were cast from Heaven with Lucifer, but two-thirds of them were still around.There are many auto-biographies today that include the authors death within them. Obviously, these parts are written by a supporting author.Amalek is blotted from History. We have no idea who he was, only his name. That actually makes it worse. Because now, people know the name, but have no concept of who it is. If he was someone important, that is the ultimate insult, because you want your name to be known - but only within the context of have great you were. It's normal to not know about people whom you can't even name... but to have your name remembered only as being blotted from history... that's harsh.-Sagg[This message has been edited by sagg, 04-17-2003]

Why are you being so defensive? All I stated was factual responses to your post. I didn't start off my post going, "OH Boy....", in an attempt to make you feel inferior - as if your ideas were pathetically inadequate. Yet, your first reply is a direct assault on my credibility - which you know nothing about. Why should I answer your questions if you can't extend the smallest amounts of common courtesty and respect towards a stranger?However, I will provide you with a few references you should be able to find more yourself. I didn't state anything that isn't widely understood...

quote:

---

Oh boy. Now you're complicating things by creating three distinct entities in Genesis? Or at least distinct enough that they could carry on a conversation? You seem to be saying that Christianity is at its roots polytheistic. Unless, of course, you're saying that God was talking to Himself, which brings me back to the personality disorder thing. You have some kind of textual support that Jesus = The Word, and that the Holy Spirit was sitting there as well at the Beginning?

---

John Ch 1
[b]1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with R3 God, and the Word was God. 2 He F1 was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. [b]Ok, so the Word was in the Beginning with God, and at the same time WAS God. This is the basic idea of the trinity... like a clover, three distinct parts, but part of a whole: God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son.There came a man sent from God, whose name was John (the baptist). He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.First, note in vs 14, the word became flesh, dwelt among us, and possessed the gloary of the "only begotten from the Father". The only begotten son is Jesus (John 3:16). Therefore, the word is Jesus. Which is exactly what you asked for a correlation between in your reply. This proves that Jesus was in the beginning.Also note in vs 10, that the world was made through Jesus. This is also stated in Colosians 1:16-17 (All things are made through Him, and sustained by Him). This is because Christ is the Word of God, and God spake through his Word during creation. Obviously, according to scripture, Jesus was present during creation.As for the Holy Spirit:
Psalms 104:30
30 You send forth Your Spirit, and they are created
This is in reference to various items of creation... the stars, the moon, animals, etc.Genesis 1:2
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
In Genesis itself, the spirit is mentioned during creation.

quote:

---

And speaking of textual support, you have some for the "myriad of angels" you noted God could have been talking to? And while we're on the subject, who or what are the angels that you think God is talking to? If you're referring to the "sons of God" (Genesis 6), doesn't that put paid to the whole Jesus thing as the only son of God? If they are just a different kind of "people" or people who have gone to heaven as some texts have it, how could they be there before Adam, the first person? When were angels created? They're certainly bopping around (literally) on Earth by the end of Genesis.

---

The Angels are not people, they are a created being - a seperate type of being than man. Jesus in the only Son of God, because he is the only MAN born of God.Nehemiah 9:6
"You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.
The angels are the host of Heaven and were created by God(see Psalm 148:2,5). The time they were created isn't given... but most likely when the heavens were created. Sons of God does refer to Angels in some scriptures - however, this is a different title than Son of God used for Christ, because Jesus Christ was a Man, while the Angels are not. They could not pay the wages of sin because they were not man. Also, any christian can be called a son of God, because as stated above in John 1, Jesus gave them the right to be called children of God.Of course, all this depends on a linear understanding of time. It is possible, perhaps, that before creation, and currently in the Heavens, that time does not move in a linear fashion. In fact, if something is eternal, it has not concept of time - because there is no beginning or end. So when you ask, When were they created? Were they created before men? It may be the answers to these questions don't exists because these questions rely upon our feeble concept of space and time.As you can see, I directly answered your questions. I didn't try to dumb you down, or make you feel inferior. You asked a skeptical question, and I gave you a direct answer. I hope in the future you can extend that same amount of respect to everyone.-Sagg

Oh boy, here we go again, tsk tsk tsk... *sigh* , rolls eyes, *sigh*How is that an absurdity? This was a response Jesus gave after telling the disciples how he must suffer and be killed in Jerusalem, and Peter says, "No, this must never happen to you". Jesus reponse was:"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men"The things of men, here being, Peters desire for his friend, Jesus, not to suffer and die - even though doing so mean salvation for all mankind. Satan was tempting Christ, through Peter, to consider not fulfilling the aduous task he was sent for.Get behing me meaning, don't block the path ahead of me (the cross).[This message has been edited by sagg, 04-17-2003]

Well, actually, your top one should be creation itself. If creation isn't an absurdity, if it is possible that God did indeed create the heavens and the earth -- then it is difficult to believe that any event within that creation is an absurdity.

[quote]or feel that it is in any way denigrating to YOU as a person rather than to the apparent contradiction you posted[quote] I did not post any contradictions. You asked for references to my earlier post, and I reponded with those references. Please take this statement back, as it is an erroneous attempt to discredit my position.

quote:

---

Right. I understand the three-in-one rule. It is literally no different than the Hindu Trinity of Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Siva the Destroyer - also a three-in-one god, or at least three Aspects of a single entity. However, this is consistent with Hindu polytheism. It's only Christians who seem to have major problems squaring the idea with monotheism. Even your refernces to "sending forth your Spirit" can be either interpreted as sending a messenger - a separate entity - OR as an appendage of the deity. However, the Genesis reference tends to indicate the former, as while God was doing His thing, the Spirit was doing Its thing elsewhere. Of course, you can always just say that "God can do anything He wants how He wants to do it", which while begging the question is a good conversation stopper.

---

I think you have a misconception here of the Christian view of the Trinity. There ARE three distinct entities. They can be in seperate places: for example, when Christ was on earth, he wasn't in Heaven with God the Father. They work together, though, and are part of the same unit that is God in total. Again, however, this is just a limited understanding of something that is beyond the capabilities of our minds. The finite cannot understand the infinite. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. You seem to demand a detailed explanation on God, which is irrational. The supernatural cannot be solved through mathematics or science. Science can't explain Deja-Vu, or the Triune nature of God. All we can know is what God reveals to us through His word, or by His spirit.

quote:

---

And the concordance with John is arguably an attempt by the new Christians to shoehorn the Jesus myth they base their religion on into the old Jewish traditions. After all, John was writing thousands of years (allegedly) after the Genesis account was related. This is quite plainly post facto rationalization. When I asked for textual references, I was expecting a reply that contained references to a third entity in the OT and that distinctly pointed to Jesus = The Word. You're badly twisting and distorting what is actually written.

---

I did not twist anything that is written. Again I ask you take this back. I quoted exactly what was written to show that the Word = Jesus. Please take back this statement, again, as it is an erroneous attempt to discredit my position.Your logic here is faulty as well. You can't discredit the NT because you make some assumption of the writers' motivations. If this were the case, we could not osbserve as truth any historical documents - as most historical writings have either a social, political, or religious agenda, at least, in the eyes of some. If you can discredit it because you assume their motivations were untrue, then I can just as simply credit it because I assume their motivations were true. When the authors were living, there was no organized christian church. They were letters written to scattered groups of followers hundreds of miles apart. They had no idea these letters would be compiled together into the New Testament. They were also willing to watch their families tortured and killed, and then be tortured and killed themselves without recanting a bit of their story. Maybe they had a reason and a power for enduring so much.

quote:

---

Note the highlighted section. Obviously this is a translation (KJV), so could be erroneous. Still, if that is the case, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the bible, which has also been translated multiple times. I suppose you could make an argument that these were fallen angels (and thus the translation is incorrect), although in that sense you have a timeline problem since this interpretation is contradicted by separate references to the nephilim who ARE supposed to be the fallen angels. It's your mythology, YOU figure out a way to make a literal interpretation consistent.

---

In this passage, it is understood by most Christian scholars, that the sons of God are the offspring of Seth. They were not suppose to take wives from Cain's offspring... and what we see here, is in fact that crossover. However, we really don't know for sure what is happening here. There isn't enough supporting evidence to say one way or another. It certainly isn't something that discredits the Bible. Again, I ask you take back the statement, "It's your mythology". I don't discredit your belief systems, and I appreciate the same from you. This is again, a shallow attempt (that reveals your true character) to discredit my position - and it was exactly for reasons such as these that I rightly took your "Oh boy" statement to be an exclamation of shrugged off superiotity.

quote:

---

Nice wiggle. "Most likely"? You have some support for this, or is it merely your interpretation? As to the different terms used, again you can't use the NT as textual support for events or passages in the OT since the NT was written thousands of years after the OT was supposedly handed down. After all, the folks who wrote the NT were trying to justify and clarify their new sect - and writing in a different language, to boot. This is pure rationalization on your part. Once more, do you have textual support for your assertions from the Old Testament? I'll concede that God made the angels - assuming He made anything, we'll agree for the sake of argument that He made everything. That being the case, I'll concede He could have been talking to the angels, OR a be suffering from multiple personality disorder if He's talking to Himself, OR being talking to two other distinct deities. Would you care to try and support and/or eliminate the ones that don't apply?

---

There was no "wiggle". Yes, this is an assumption. I assume the HOST OF HEAVEN were created when HEAVEN was created. The Bible doesn't say when they were made, so all we can do is assume. This isn't a wiggle, it's called an educated guess. It could be wrong. It could be right.Already covered the discrediting the whole NT thing. You know, if the Bible was presented simply as a historical document, and wasn't the backbone of a major religion, you would accept it as truthful. It has been proven to be one of the most historically accurate ancient texts we have. Unfortunately, because it is the backbone of Christianity, it is met with a skepticism and rejection not usually seen in text from different origins.You are also trying to project human characterisitcs onto God. No, I can't explain how God works to you, sorry. If I could, then I'd be God. Can you accept that something greater than yourself is possiibly out there, something you can't fully understand or explain?

quote:

---

Ah, so the Genesis account doesn't refer to "linear time"? Interesting. Please provide your interpretation of the days, evenings, first/second, etc in Gen 1 and 2.

---

There are multiple possibilites for the references to days in Creation. A day could be a span of millions of years, or it could be a 24 hour period. How would you possibly expect me to know? I wasn't there. When we say something like, "in the day of Julius Caesar..." - does that me a 24 hour period, or a broader expanse of time? Obviosuly the word "day" can have several meanings. Creations could have taken place over millions of years, and possibly evolution could have been the means through which God created the animals. Or, it could have taken place in one week, and everything was made instantaneous. There is no right or wrong answer here... we simple don't know. You are asking me to be God and explain His ways.It is really simple: there is no intellectual answer to whether or not God exists. You are trying to solve something with your intellect, that is a matter of the soul, and of destiny. You can't intellectually make a decision, because you have to admit that many people far smarter, far greater than you in science, philosophy, mathematics, etc. have chosen to believe in the Christian God and in Jesus. Just as I have to realize that people far greater than me, smarter than me, have chosen not to believe in God, or in Jesus. Our own pride and arrogance will try to convince us that we are unique, and that we are the one person who has figured it all out. But this isn't very logical, is it? I'm comforted in knowing, however, if I'm wrong - that I won't have suffered for being wrong. I'll have lived a good life by wordly standards, and then disappear into the meanigless abyss of nothingness from which I randomly crawled out of. So, can you admit you might be wrong? That there might be a God? That perhaps Jesus was the savior? Or are you to prideful to admit that? If you can admit it to yourself - what are the consequences if you are wrong? Are you willing to gamble your soul?-Sagg

quote:

---

On what basis do you judge the accuracy of the Bible? What external influences from other cultures would you accept as having made their way into the Bible?

---

Can you point out where I said anything about the accuracy of the Bible? Because I don't seem to recall ever saying anything about it. Way to presume!I believe scripture was divinely inspired, because it claims it was. However, I do not believe the gathering, copying, and translation processes weren't necessarily divinely directed - so sure, there could be some errors in there. This doesn't discredit the document as a whole. Many of the historical texts we base history on have errors in them - but we don't discredit them. Whenever we uncover a historical text, we assume it is truthful, and I treat the Bible in the same way. There is no reason not to, unless you feel threatened by what it says. But then, you are somewhat biased. Parts of it that seem in error, in fact, sometimes turn out to be true. For years, numberous cities mentioned in the Bible that appeared to be "missing" were pointed to by skeptics as proof the Bible wasn't true. However, when archaelogist found some of those cities, you didn't hear the skeptics apologize. Or, when they said the Romans didn't nail through victims to the cross, especially their feet (only tied them to the cross) - they didn't apologize, or admit they were wrong, when Jewish remains of a crucified man were found with a nail still in the heel bones. So, unlike a biased skeptic, I assume the Bible is a trustworthy historical document - and more.Please don't make invalid assumptions about me in the future. An apology would be nice, if you can admit you were wrong.-Sagg

quote:

---

This is excellent and summarises Christianity, and the teachings of Jesus very well. Essentially it says this, 'if you do not believe my fairy stories then you are to be prepared to have a loving God cast you into hell'. Well this may have been convincing enough for uneducated peasants centuries ago, and it is even convincing for anyone who goes through the cerebral bypass known as being 'born again', but for 'normal' people, this is no more than a threat on a level with 'if you stand on a crack in the pavement then you will break your mummy's dishes'.

​

The threat of a revengeful God means absolutely nothing, God is absent from the universe, He only exists in the delusions of ex drug addicts, ex alcoholics, brain washed chldren and people who need the 'comfort blanket' of eternal life.

---

That's an arrogant statement if I've ever heard one. So you don't think people far smarter than yourself, more knowledgeable in science, philosophy, art, music, history, etc. have believed in God? Because, they have. It's happened on more than one occasion where skeptic scientist have set out to dissprove God, and wind up converting in the process because of the evidence they find for him.I hope you can suck your pride back up and admit this was a cheap shot. You can't discredit the belief of millions of people, many of them as smart or smarter than you, because of what your own little mind supposes to understand.Really though, you do owe an apology. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you are right, or give you the power to discredit others' beliefs - which have just as much room for validity as your own.BTW - the Bible doesn't say people are condemned to Hell because of God's revenge, people make that decision for themselves. Actually, all people are condemned to Hell, because we all choose against God. It is by God's GRACE that some are SAVED FROM HELL. So, your little emotional spat runeth over in errors...-Sagg

No no no. I came here expecting logical debates that extends respect to the other side. Read above, Brian (I believe) says that for someone to believe in the Christian God - they have to be stupid (a cerebral bypass), and that only uneducated ancient peasants could believe such a thing.THAT doesn't belong in a sphere of logical debate. That is a pathetic insult, and that DEMANDS an apology.As for favorites absurdity? OK, assumption: that all scripture is directly from God, and wasn't influenced by its authors. Then why, in God's Word, did Paul ask Timothy to bring his robe when he visited? Is there some profound spiritual insight here? Or was Paul just cold?As for the other responses - again, I didn't say the Bible didn't contain inaccuracy, but those don't discredit the whole Bible. And this idea that only idiots would believe in Jesus has got to stop. Science cannot prove, or disprove God or the the Bible. We don't have all the answers, and many things that happened in ancient times are too far removed to get insight into.Yes, I am defensive. When someone calls me a brainless, mesopotamian peasant... I'm offended, and take defense. SO, an apology should be made, and it should be agreed that intellectuals far above any of us here fall on both sides of the fence. Many great scientists have, and do, believe in God and Jesus, and many do not.-Sagg

I think you have wrongly perceived that my goal is to argue you into believing what I believe, which isn't so. This started when you asked for references for something I said, which I gave. I don't have to prove anything to you. You can't disprove anything to me. These are not my ideas, beliefs, etc. They are truths I've accepted as being from God, ultimately, you have to answer to Him not me. I submitted several valid points to you, which you arrogantly dismiss. As for why I believe in the Chrisian notion of God, rather than others... well, Jesus made some very unique claims. He claimed to be God. The founders of all other major religions claimed to be Godly Men, but not men who were God. Secondly, the founders of all other Religions died - and are still dead. Jesus died, and returned to life, and will return again. Third, the disciples were crushed after Jesus' death. They lost their teach, and their motiviation to spread His teachings. They went into hiding, and even denied knowing him. They certainly weren't going to make an impact on the world. Something happened though... and they did a complete 180: to the extreme of watching their families tortured and killed before them, just before being tortured and killed themselves for proclaiming that Jesus had risen, and that he was the Messiah. I surely wouldn't watch my wife tortured and killed for something I knew was a lie, myth, misbelief. Do you think you could impact the world in only three years of work the way Jesus did? Could you do something so important in only three years that time would be marked from the moment you came into this world? So the origin of my faith starts with Jesus, and then extends to the Bible, not the other way around.I don't feel convinced to argue you into submission, because, one, I can't. As I said previously, this isn't an intellectual argument. Certainly an intelligent person can believe in Christ, and certainly they cannot. If I'm right, then one day, you will bow down and name God as your Lord. If you are right, one day I'll cease to exists - which won't bother me, because I won't be around to know I was wrong. Of course, you'd have an eternity of regrets to consume your thoughts if I'm right. So.. it's just a gamble. There's no way of being sure. There is only faith.When you apply the same standards to the Bible, it has proven to be true in many circumstances. And many that were thought to be incorrect, have been proven through archaelogy:The Hittites were presumed to be a legnedary creation. Archaeology uncovered their capital city and records in Bogazkoy, Turkey.Skeptics use to claim there was no Assyrian King named Sargon, because his name wasn't found in any Assyrian records. Arachaeology uncovered Sargon's palace in Khorsabad, Iraq. In fact, the event mentioned in Isaiah, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. Even more, stela were found at Ashdod itself that recorded his victory.According to recorded history, Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, there was no Belshazzar. Archaelogy uncovered tablets showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus son, who served as co-regent.The story of the flood is corrobarated in many other documents of many other ancient civilizations.Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language found in the Tower of Babel story.The walls of the Egyptian Temple of Amun in Thebes recors Shishaks campaign into Israel.the Mesha inscription records the revolt of Moab against Israel.The Taylor Prism records the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah.The Lachish reliefs record the siege of Lachish.The annals of Esarhaddon record the assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons.The Babylonian Chronicles record the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar.The Babylonian Ration Records record the captivity of Jehoiachin in Babylon.The Cyrus Cylinder records the freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus.Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud and Lucian record Jesus existence.Suetonius records the forcing of Jews to leave Rome during Claudius' reign.Obviously, other texts corroborate at least some of the historical events recorded in the Bible

Obviously, this is not a place for rational discussion, so I will withdrawl from this site. Again, Brian attacks the intellect of believers, saying they have to be Cuckoo.This is absurd, and childish. Of course a lot of Christians are arrogant and make harsh judgements.If you bothered to read my posts, I do say they I admit I could be wrong in my beliefs. I never claimed exclusively that my God is the only God. I BLIEVE He is the one and only true God, but I'm not saying that is a fact. It is a faith statement.Thank you for you closed minds, presummptions, and all.All of you are to prideful to admit you could be wrong, and resort to bashing someone's intelligence if they believe other than you.Way to go.Grow up. Good bye.-----
Note from Adminnemooseus: This type discussion needs to be taken to the "Change in Moderation?" topic.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-18-2003]

Do you not comprehend the english language? I'm leaving because I'm not debated with sound arguments, but met with childish attacks at my intelect, and the intellgience of all believers. NOT, because I didn't expect to hear arguments against my positions. If you could read and comprehend my posts, you'd understand that I admit my beliefs could be wrong, and that it is a matter of faith. But, I keep getting responses that put words in my mouth (like your last post), and then when I call people out on these lies, they aren't big enough to apologize and admit they are wrong.Therefore, there is no room for a logical debate.This will be my final post. I hope you all learn to respect others and extend them a common courtesy, at least until you know their position. I, for one, don't think evolution and creation are necessarily against one another. Evolution could be a possible means of creation. I also don't necessarily believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that the Bible says it is, or that the Bible is 100% error free. But all these presumptions were made against me...See you in the afterlife. But don't ask me for any water...