• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

Apparently your mind is prone to such rationalizing flips. (I am water, I do not flip) I have no problems reading the passages and seeing no problem. There is no need to reach- just that your construct was incomplete at best.

I'm glad to note that I'm not the first to be misquoted in your signature line. Lincoln, DaVinci and now Edison. I'm glad you have removed the dubious Edison quote. If you go to prelinger archives you can find Edison films of him hunting in Wyoming and Brasil and electrocuting all kinds of animals including an adult African Elephant.
 
sabro said:
Apparently your mind is prone to such rationalizing flips. (I am water, I do not flip) I have no problems reading the passages and seeing no problem. There is no need to reach- just that your construct was incomplete at best.

I'm glad to note that I'm not the first to be misquoted in your signature line. Lincoln, DaVinci and now Edison. I'm glad you have removed the dubious Edison quote. If you go to prelinger archives you can find Edison films of him hunting in Wyoming and Brasil and electrocuting all kinds of animals including an adult African Elephant.
Click to expand...

lol. I`ve seen to have hit a nerve with you Sabro. Sorry it makes you so moved when the religion of your beliefs is being exposed for fraudulant claims.

Have you found that the quote of Edison was wrong?

Yes, he did do that to animals. Doesn`t change the truth of his message though -- just makes him to be a hypocrite. <snicker snicker>
 
Biblicists are high on prophecies. They dart back and forth between the pages of the Original Sacred Jewish Books to their Hijacked One and point and read and get into the ?gSee?! Right there! That is speaking about Jesus,?h and on and on ad nausium.

Have you ever heard the, ?gYou can find the New in the Old?h or vice versa line? That is there way of saying Jesus and other things of the Hijacked Book are found in the Original Book.

However, that is mere inventing on their part and makes them to be taking things out of context -- a charge they like to level at skeptics -- but refuse to accept it when they do it. In addition they just ignore some truely important aspects of implicating that prophecies exist and have a reason. They find something similar in the old and then just affix it to the Jesus story by graphing it on and proclaim it to be speaking of Jesus.

Besides the birth of Jesus, what would have to be one of his other most noteworthy accomplishments? Sure, there may be several, but one as it would pertain to a Mesiah which was sent to set up its Kingdom on Earth would have to be His FAILURE. Jesus utterly failed. That is why he needs a second chance at it (Second Coming). Now, why would such a momentous event not be prophesied?

Not one place in the Original Book of the Jews does it say that the Mesiah would fail and that He would need a second chance. How could God fail?

If it doesn`t preclude a second chance, then that would make it open season for needing a 3rd, 4th, or even 5th chance. C`mon. Reason.

Question to Xtians: Where in the Original Jewish Books does it say the Massiah will fail? -- that when he comes he will not accomplish what He has come to accomplish. Where does it say He needs a 3rd try at it? Xtians are so fond of finding the ?gNew?h in the ?gOld,?h with their love of prophecies, find it in clear cut terms that are not ambiguous.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Sorry it makes you so moved when the religion of your beliefs is being exposed for fraudulant claims.
Click to expand...
You haven't done that yet though, as you have attacked none of the core doctrines of Christianity, and taken it apart logically. The only people you have exposed as not holding true claims is the fundamentalist who believes that every word is literal. Sabro believes in evolution, so he doesn't entirely believe the Bible is literal.
 
Is there some kind of problem with the page that my PC drug up to my screen, or did all this talk really come into being on this very day alone, up to my point in time (Fri. Jan 13, 2006, 2:30pm)?

I would like to know more about the foundation, working premise, assumption, if you will, upon which this tread is based, please. For example, are we working on the assumption that the writing in John's name is historically accurate--that is that those writers had actually known what had happened at that point in time? That history was that way?


The point sabro brought up in his #19 is valid enough for understanding Aramaic-based colloquialisms, although I'm not sure it could be ascertained as to whether that were the case with pantote (pantote) as used at John 18:20b. This is a compound word literally meaning (at) all times, and appears to be a NT construct not found in the classics much, if at all? I'll check on the possible Aramaic base, but again, what is the working premise of the thread's introductory abstract? It may not be anything to discuss or argue at all, really, if we firstly agree to allow the 'non-historical factor' to be possible.


I'll wait for some response on the working premise. :-)
 
SVF Post #23. S-3...Big K!
Very basic theology and hermeneutics. Messiah did not fail. Just like the house analogy, you again miss the point...eternal life for those who enjoy it begins now- not after you die. The Kingdom of God is here...you just missed it. Obviously you missed basic Christianity 101 and you still have not checked out the concordances that I recommended. As far as the prophecy corallary- we "biblicists" have about 300 of them. What you said is nice clean logical backtracking. A very very basic Sunday school understanding of the book and religion you claim to be de-bunking might actually help your "arguments."

The Edison quote always seemed a bit dubious, but it was when I was looking over some student website info that I came across the electric elephant footage- I clicked over to a timeline of his life and the same year he "invented" the lightbulb he spent lots of time in Wyoming doing some amatuer astrology, fishing and hunting. So if you say he is a hypocrite, I guess he is in good company. Where do all the phoney pro animal rights quotes come from?
 
Straightvoicesforward, I'm not by nature a mean-spirited person. I'd like to be of service. This obsessive pathology you are displaying can still be helped. We have come a long way with classical conditioning. Exposure treatment, and flooding paired with modeling has shown promises as well as some of the newer medications with fewer side effects. We forum dwellers can help you develop an anxiety heirarchy and backtrack to where the initial traumatic experience happened. Although I know that regression therapy is sort of out of vogue these days...well dude we are all here for you and are willing to chip in.
 
Mars Man said:
I would like to know more about the foundation, working premise, assumption, if you will, upon which this tread is based, please. For example, are we working on the assumption that the writing in John's name is historically accurate--that is that those writers had actually known what had happened at that point in time? That history was that way?
Click to expand...

MM, I come to Biblical discussion using the Bible as Xtians who speak of it in terms of innerrancy do. The premis in my intro is that Jesus is not/could not be the SOG due to what the Bible says.


The point sabro brought up in his #19 is valid enough for understanding Aramaic-based colloquialisms, ...
Click to expand...

MM, biblical translators, sometimes with as many as 100 people on their translating boards/committees have thousands of hours between them. Individually, some have 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years of experience in ancient biblical languages. Translating is the art of catching the nuances and relaying the meaning of what is being said -- not word per word translating. Now, if those experts in their fields did not use another word or phrase to relay the real meaning of what Sabro or someone else thinks it means by fingering through their Concordance dictionaries, then why didn`t those experts with thousands of hours of experience feel a need to use another word? Would you suggest Sabro has found something that they did not? Sabro`s fight and anyone who holds to the "that`s what it says, but not what it means" defense, is with translating boards and committees of well respected translators -- not me.

Multiple word meanings is one of the sanctuaries Biblicists try to hide in. I don`t afford them that sanctuary because there is no basis to do so. If another word that these apologists feel fit better than what is in a Bible or multiple versions exists, then why haven`t they gotten together to write the perfect Bible that has all the "right" words that they keep running to to show that supports their interpretation? I`ll be happy when they do, but as of yet, many have been waiting for that version of the BWOG and it has not materialized -- because it doesn`t exist and it can`t be made to exist.
 
Have you ever heard the, ?gYou can find the New in the Old?h or vice versa line? That is Xtians?f way of saying Jesus and other things of the Hijacked Book are found in the Original Book.

However, that is mere inventing on their part and makes them to be taking things out of context -- a charge they like to level at skeptics -- but refuse to accept it when it is leveled at them. They find something similar in the old and then just affix it to the Jesus story by graphing it on and proclaim it to be speaking of Jesus.

Besides the birth of Jesus, what would have to be one of his other most noteworthy accomplishments? Sure, there may be several, but one as it would pertains to the Mesiah would have to be His FAILURE. Jesus utterly failed. That is why he needs a second chance at it (Second Coming). Now, why would such a momentous event not be prophesied? Prophecies are meant to let us see that what was spoken of in the past was accurate and that when it materializes, it affirms what was said.

Not one place in the Original Book of the Jews does it say that the Mesiah would fail and that He would need a second chance. How could God fail?

If it doesn`t preclude a second chance, then that would make it open season for needing a 3rd, 4th, or even 5th chance.

Question to Xtians: Where in the Original Jewish Books does it say the Massiah will fail? -- that when he comes he will not accomplish what He has come to accomplish. Where does it say He needs a 3rd try at it? Xtians are so fond of finding the ?gNew?h in the ?gOld,?h with their love of prophecies, find it in clear cut terms that are not ambiguous.
 
Isaiah 2 is often agreed by Christians to be a prophacy of Jesus coming a second time to do what he didn`t do the first. The problem with this is, the Original Jewish Texts no where say that the Messiah will fail in his first try. Therefore, to say it is a sign of his second try is not warranted. It must be viewed as a sign what the Messiah will do when He does Truely appear.

Xtians may try to get around it by referring to ?gLast Days.?h Obviously we have not experienced any ?gLast Days?h yet, have we? Of course not. Therefore, the Messiah has not appeared yet. But, when the Messiah does appear, this is what we are to expect as the prophecy foretells:

Isaiah 2:4
He will judge between the nations
?????? and will settle disputes for many peoples.
?????? They will beat their swords into plowshares
?????? and their spears into pruning hooks.
?????? Nation will not take up sword against nation,
?????? nor will they train for war anymore.

When did Jesus ever judge between nations?
When did he ever settle disputes for many peoples.
We still have a proliferation of terrible weapons (Just ask George Bush).
Nations are still warring, preparing for it and most definitely training for it.

Jesus fails to qualify. He did not affect any of those above.
 
Where in the Original Sacred Hebrew texts of the ?gFirst Book?h does it say we must believe in the Messiah and accept him as the Son of God before He comes or before our death? I won`t say it doesn`t exist, but I haven`t found it. Has anyone else? Where is the ?gNew in the Old?h as they like to say?
 
Again, a basic understanding of hermaneutics and Christian theology would answer all these concerns quite adequately. Check out the bible.org site or possibly read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.
 
P.S. Jesus Christ - the person show to this world " other view " ("Light")... But He never was That whom name "Branch" or "?Romforter(Spirit of truth)" - as "Light" cannot "create"... "Light" it is the "Light"... And second time Jesus does not come... "Light" has made that should make - showed to the world "Light"... These are people, switching and Apostles, have attributed to him that never belonged to "Him"...
 
sabro said:
Again, a basic understanding of hermaneutics and Christian theology would answer all these concerns quite adequately. Check out the bible.org site or possibly read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.
Click to expand...

A basic understanding of reason would let you see the BWOG is not the WOG.

I have heard about Biblical hermeneutics and it is gunk. It wants you to assume from the beginning that the Bible is the WOG. Hardly sounds like an unbiased tool to examine something.

For those interested, look at the first few paragraphs of a hermenuetic site here:
http://in.geocities.com/msudhir9/hermaneutics.htm

Sabro, I`ve been to a lot of sites, can`t remember if I was actually at the one you posted above, and I have read a lot on the topic, too, and that includes some works by CS Lewis years ago (like some of his writings on animals). As you can see, though, I am still a skeptic.

Why don`t you internalize some of the information in those sites and use them for your arguments here so the discussion can flow. It wouldn`t be too fun if we just went back and forth posting, "You go here, you go there, you go here, read this book, read that book, etc..." We can all do that if we wish, but most come and enter into a discussion because they want to hear what the person we are debating with has to say on the topic.
 
I didn't suggest either the sites or CS Lewis to convince you,only so that you would be more familiar with basic Christian doctrines and hermaneutics. My answers to your skepticism tend to be a repeat of the basic tenets that one would learn in Sunday school. I was thinking that a better understanding would help this along and avoid the repition.
 
I just wanted to add that all we have done in all of these Bible discussions is to walk in two large circles that barely intersect.

Strongvoicesforward- your premise seems to be that the Bible cannot be the Word of God because it contains contradictions and errors and this conflicts with your definition of inerrancy. Also Jesus can't be the Son of God because he also violates your definition of inerrancy. And lastly there cannot be a God since these errors exist. Is this an accurate summmary?

My basic argument has been that these errors and inconsistencies are often products of misunderstanding cultural, and linguistic context, transcription and translation artifacts, or a misapplication of basic doctrine. The premise derives from a misunderstanding of "inspiration" of the Word of God, the realation of the Word to Christianity and the doctrine of "inerrancy." Others may be due to a difference between the current contemporary values and the cultural context represented in the passage. A simple, refutable error would be insufficient to prove the premise above.

If I was debunking Islam using the above method, it would look something like this- I define the parameters of what would make Mohammed the Prophet of God, and then use verses of the Quran out of context without a basic understanding of Islam to prove my premise. I then say Allah can't exist because he doesn't match my understanding or my modern sensibilities. A Moslem appologist would point out repeatedly my misunderstanding of the basics and of context and I would repeatedly ridicule them and ignore the basic arguments.

We can repeat the pattern over and over. SVF will find errors that he believes proves his premise- which I usually will say have simple or obvious explanations. I will give these explanations and if he responds to them at all, it will only be to ridicule and dismiss them. This pattern can be repeated ad naseum...but is unlikely to yield anything new in my opinion.

Do we need to examine basic Christian concepts or doctrines: Propitiation, inerrancy, inspiration, cultural transmission, the trinity, salvation, eternal life, hell... or can we just refer to a general website like the maligned Wikipedia? I could repeat the information for sake of argument, but that is all I would be actually doing- taking the basic information from one source and repeating it here.
 
Just a point (not another one, everyone groans). From his posts and a question I asked SVF on another thread, he is not an atheist. He does believe in a higher diety, just not the God portrayed in the Bible.
I agree that Jesus could not be the Son Of God. Actual historical eveidence for his existance is very weak and you can find various sites and works that will make out that Jesus is a personification of a pagan god, but we will leave that to any9one who knows more about that line of reasoning. My own belief is that Jesus did exist. He was a man that did not like the way his faith, Judaism, was going. Rather like Martin Luther. He tried to do something about it, but ended up paying the price or not, again depending on whether you believe the crucifixtion was faked (I do). Either way what he did created a cause and other men took up the flag. Peter and Paul both created the Cult of Jesus. Jesus fitted into the Messiah prophecy, not completely, but enough to create this cult. When the Bible was finally put together in the form we know today the myth of his divinity was created. Any books which cast doubt on that were removed and detroyed or kept back. To keep the new faith on track Jesus had to fit the messiah prophecy. To me and the evidence I see in the Bible and other sources, Jesus was a reformer. Other people have made him into what he is today. We do not know what he really said, did and thought because he didn't put anything he did down in writing. Instead we have to rely on the Gospels, each written long after his death, and how Paul interpreted his sayings and life.
In some ways it is like believing Mohammad was illiterate, but was inspired the recite the Q'uran word for word from an angel. I sorry the man was a successful merchant and was from the merchant class, I doubt very much that an iliiterate man could be as successful as he was in business and then in war without being able to read or write, but he is another subject.
 
Mycernius said:
I agree that Jesus could not be the Son Of God.
Click to expand...

When Jesus supposedly past away and gave up his "spirit" on the cross, the land shook and the weather suddenly changed. Everyone scattered.

What was customary when someone died and was prepared for burial then, was for all the bones to be broken. Jesus' bones were not broken. If Jesus were in fact a historical figure (which I don`t agree he was), not breaking his bones makes me think that in he was not actually dead when they took him off the cross. He may have appeared dead -- and it is even quite possible that he revived -- hence no breaking of the bones.

In the Bible it is said that when Jesus was stabbed by the centurian with the spear that the water of life (or something similarly described [sorry, not looking it up at the moment]) poured out of him. From a lower position, stabbing up, it is quite possible that Jesus' bladder was hit and that no vital
organs were damaged with that thrust. The opening of the bladder is what caused the water to come out -- easily explained and nothing supernatural in its occurance. The eery weather or a freak earthquake happening just before or at the same time could have made it feel quite freaky to be sprayed with urine that maybe had trace elements of poison i it from the myrth that was given to Jesus while he was on the cross.

Although, definitely not a certainty, I think that if Jesus were a real person and the account of his death is somewhat true, there is enough suspicion to ponder that there was a conspiracy to wisk a still living Jesus out of the area until he recovered. Even his diciples didn`t know about this conspiracy.

Later (not immediately after his resurrection) he begins to appear to his diciples. Conceivably, his wounds could have healed enough by then to allow him to walk. But, appearing to his diciples after they believed him to be dead would have made them think he actually did resurrect and that He actually did defeat death and therefore that is what convinced them enough to begin bravely preaching the Good News. They had been duped and won over in the process of this great deception at the cross and in bringing Jesus down from the cross.

The question is, why not appear to the diciples much sooner after his death? Why the delay in time? Had Jesus appeared earlier, the diciples could have gotten into the preaching business much sooner and thus save more lives and get the Good News spread even earlier.

I think he couldn`t appear sooner. He needed mortal time to heal his mortal wounds enough in order to travel and fool those who he would meet. It would be strange if they met him and he were limping or grimacing with signs of pain on his face that he would not be able to control due to the freshness of the wounds.
 
I never knew that it was customary to break the bones before burial. Why did they do that? Anyhow, one possible explanation for them not breaking his bones could've been a lack of time. People didn't work on the Sabbath, and Sabbath ran from sundown to sundown.
 
It wasn't customary to break the bones of the dead. It was, however, to break the legs of a crucified perosn if he had been up on the cross for a while. It helped speed up the process of death and was seen as merciful. It never happened to Jesus because he appeared to be dead before that became neccessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top