Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 18:33:00 GMT -5
Again - there is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. That's urban myth. How to tell? LIST all the characteristics of God in the OT and all the characteristics of Jesus (plus what befell the Jews when they "knew not the time of their visitation) and compare the lists. If anything, what God did in fulfilling His promise to the Jews after Jesus was far harsher than anything which happened in the OT - and it continued so for 2,000 years.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 20:20:20 GMT -5
Again - there is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. That's urban myth. How to tell? LIST all the characteristics of God in the OT and all the characteristics of Jesus (plus what befell the Jews when they "knew not the time of their visitation) and compare the lists. If anything, what God did in fulfilling His promise to the Jews after Jesus was far harsher than anything which happened in the OT - and it continued so for 2,000 years. Bert, What do you consider the term "urban myth" to mean?
The term "urban legend," is a recent phrase.
Jan Harold Brunvand, professor of English at the University of Utah, introduced the term to the general public in a series of popular books published beginning in 1981
What do you mean by this statement, "what God did in fulfilling His promise to the Jews after Jesus was far harsher than anything which happened in the OT and it continued so for 2,000 years?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 20:32:35 GMT -5
If you recall the punishment God metered out to the Jews in the Old Testament included bringing them into slavery to their Canaanite enemies, or sending some of them into captivity in Babylon. Perhaps the harshest was the expulsion of the ten tribes from Israel, permanently.
But we live under the New Testament. Various OT people like Ezekiel, Daniel and Jacob spoke of the utter destruction of the Jewish nation after the Messiah. This included selling ALL the remaining Israeli Jews into captivity, or killing them. This included pogroms, genocides, crusades, expulsions, persecution in every country and even the holocaust. "Until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled" said Jesus. Meaning its OUR turn next.
Is not this the New Testament God?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 30, 2015 20:37:00 GMT -5
... If they weren't authentic, they would never have been safe-guarded by the church for so long.... Oh lord, that's like saying if it's been preserved on the internets, it's bound to be true.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 20:49:46 GMT -5
If you recall the punishment God metered out to the Jews in the Old Testament included bringing them into slavery to their Canaanite enemies, or sending some of them into captivity in Babylon. Perhaps the harshest was the expulsion of the ten tribes from Israel, permanently. But we live under the New Testament. Various OT people like Ezekiel, Daniel and Jacob spoke of the utter destruction ofthe Jewish nation after the Messiah. This included selling ALL the remaining Israeli Jews into captivity, or killing them. This included pogroms, genocides, crusades, expulsions, persecution in every country and even the holocaust.
"Until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled" said Jesus. Meaning its OUR turn next. Is not this the New Testament God? Is it any wonder I have rejected Christianity when this is what you believe is "Love is the Kingdom's Banner," the topic of this thread!
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 30, 2015 20:58:18 GMT -5
If you really do believe that love is the Kingdoms banner, then why judge that Baptist couple who love taking care of orphans? Why does your love qualify you for the Kingdom but their love is worthless? If I had to pick a one banner message for the bible I would go with; FEAR & OBEYEcclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 21:24:41 GMT -5
Some problems with your logic Dmmichgood - 1 - you are saying you don't believe because of this horrible stuff. But it h.a.p.p.e.n.e.d. like the bible said it would. You can say "I don't think this is good" but it's a lot harder to say "I don't believe the bible" 2 - if it happened to the Jews, it can happen to the Gentiles, like Jesus said. 3 - Jesus said to "fear God" and what God can do to people in this life is nothing compared to what God will do in the afterlife.
Dmmichgood, you are old enough to remember that 1970 Ray Stevens song "Everything is beautiful"? Perhaps you were professing at the time and are not familiar with the song. "Jesus loves the little children... precious in his sight..." Popular in churches. Jesus DID love the children. But He also said the enemy would lay Israel to the ground, and her children as well.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 30, 2015 22:40:57 GMT -5
... If they weren't authentic, they would never have been safe-guarded by the church for so long.... Oh lord, that's like saying if it's been preserved on the internets, it's bound to be true. And we know all the other gospels that never made the bible are wrong because the church went out of their way to destroy them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 22:44:33 GMT -5
Snow, which Gospels? The "church" incorporated The Four because they were widely seen as being the authentic ones. Try reading the Infancy Narrative of Thomas, or what ever it is called. You will understand why, for centuries before "the church" we know came into being, they were rejected.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 30, 2015 23:13:09 GMT -5
Snow, which Gospels? The "church" incorporated The Four because they were widely seen as being the authentic ones. Try reading the Infancy Narrative of Thomas, or what ever it is called. You will understand why, for centuries before "the church" we know came into being, they were rejected. There are lots of gospels. I have read all of the Nag Hammadi Library. Many of them are just as credible as any of the 4 selected.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 23:16:05 GMT -5
Snow, which Gospels? The "church" incorporated The Four because they were widely seen as being the authentic ones. Try reading the Infancy Narrative of Thomas, or what ever it is called. You will understand why, for centuries before "the church" we know came into being, they were rejected. Bert, are you that clueless as to how the the books of the NT were selected?
They were selected by the Catholic church!
All others of many accounts of Jesus were done away with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 23:22:08 GMT -5
1 - Where's the evidence? 2 - When was the Catholic Church as we know it today formally created? 3 - Is there anything in the bible which offends the Catholic Church?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 23:42:04 GMT -5
you are saying you don't believe because of this horrible stuff. Actually, that isn't the reason that I don't believe.
I don't believe because I don't believe in a paranormal, supernatural entity called GOD. But you do think that the Holocaust of the Jews under the Nazis was god's plans?
Do you also believe that Hitler was acting under god's orders? ( You know Hitler did say that he was)
You believe that was according to god's plans?
Well, according to the bible in which you relieve, the god of the OT ordered children killed, -so I wouldn't expect the god of the NT to be any different.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 23:47:51 GMT -5
1 - Where's the evidence? 2 - When was the Catholic Church as we know it today formally created? 3 - Is there anything in the bible which offends the Catholic Church? Bert, just read some history of the early church!
I'm not going to do that research for you!
I did it for myself years ago, way before the internet which makes it so much easier now!
Do your own research.
I'm tired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 23:50:53 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, the problem with "research" is that you fall into the trap of "researching" your own prior views. You can "research" how the Catholic Church was an outright corruption of everything in the NT, or you can "research" how theologians, saints and scholars formed the oldest institution in the world.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 23:55:16 GMT -5
Oh... the internet!!!! That explains your views! Like I said , Bert I did my research and my "views" -conclusions- came a long time before the internet existed!
You have it much easier today if you really want to know the answers to your questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 23:58:04 GMT -5
Sorry Dmmichgood, I amended my own entry too late!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 0:15:47 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, the problem with "research" is that you fall into the trap of "researching" your own prior views. You can "research" how the Catholic Church was an outright corruption of everything in the NT, or you can "research" how theologians, saints and scholars formed the oldest institution in the world. NO, Bert, if you are honestly trying to know history you don't just research your own "prior views."
What good would that do? A waste of time.
How do you think I went from a sincere member of the **TRUTH** to an atheist? It was a long honest search.
If you go into your search just to confirm your own beliefs to start with, -you will have to ignore a lot of facts along the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 0:33:09 GMT -5
I find generally that if I am challenged by a believer or disbeliever, in any subject, that person often has never encountered the views I put forward. And that's a bother.
I was asked a few years ago to give my views on "wind power" to an environmental group. I put forward ideas about how much energy there is in wind compared to how much the world needs; the propensity of wind farms to shear laminated air flow and dry out ground; the number birds and bats killed; the amount of cables, roads and general infrastructure you need to siphon this energy off; the number of coal powered stations you must run on 60% idle at all times to allow for fluctuations in supply and so on, so forth. I don't mind if someone counters those views (we are all here to learn) but I was troubled by the fact that nearly all these views were novel to them. And equally troubled that the same people still flog wind power as if they had not heard a word I said.
Dmmichgood - I remain skeptical of people who "research" points of view. I have given so many examples of even scientists I know who "research" what they largely already believe.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 2:04:26 GMT -5
I find generally that if I am challenged by a believer or disbeliever, in any subject, that person often has never encountered the views I put forward. Dmmichgood - I remain skeptical of people who "research" points of view. I have given so many examples of even scientists I know who "research" what they largely already believe. That is just it, Bert. One doesn't research "points of view."
One researches all the information that you can find on the subject.
Give me one example of a scientist that you know who has "researched" what he/she already believes?
Not an example of research that builds on information already available because that is the way scientific research advances.
Every step along the way has to be peer reviewed by other scientists.
If the views that you put forward weren't accepted, perhaps it is because they were peer reviewed and found wanting for verifiability . Perhaps that is the reason you can't get them accepted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 2:38:14 GMT -5
Snow, which Gospels? The "church" incorporated The Four because they were widely seen as being the authentic ones. Try reading the Infancy Narrative of Thomas, or what ever it is called. You will understand why, for centuries before "the church" we know came into being, they were rejected. Bert, are you that clueless as to how the the books of the NT were selected?
They were selected by the Catholic church!
All others of many accounts of Jesus were done away with.
not very nice to suggest that someone is clueless because they don't follow what you believe
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 31, 2015 11:35:36 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, the problem with "research" is that you fall into the trap of "researching" your own prior views. You can "research" how the Catholic Church was an outright corruption of everything in the NT, or you can "research" how theologians, saints and scholars formed the oldest institution in the world. Well Virgo would tell you to let the 'spirit lead you' and you will know what is true (God's belief) and what is not (man's belief). Personally, I try to just stick with the facts by researching the research. I like to read all the angles then I like to research the credentials of who wrote the angles, and in the end decide on what data is the most plausible based on data that has been presented. I don't just read stuff that confirms what I want to believe is true. That would be pointless.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 13:38:48 GMT -5
Bert, are you that clueless as to how the the books of the NT were selected?
They were selected by the Catholic church!
All others of many accounts of Jesus were done away with.
not very nice to suggest that someone is clueless because they don't follow what you believe I never said that he was clueless because he didn't follow what I believe, Virgo.
Bert seems clueless about how the NT books were selected.
It has nothing to do with what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 14:30:56 GMT -5
Jan 23, 2015 12:39:04 GMT -6 Ed Ballard said: "Would you say that Jesus was at times, a liar? A little bit looney? Or did he just hang out with a group of liars who falsely attributed all sorts of words and actions to him?"
This is limiting the options that a person can believe about a person or situation. I believe that Jesus was none of your options. One has to consider the times he lived in & his understanding of his Jewish beliefs. He could easily have thought that he could be the Messiah that could lead his people out from under the bondage of the Romans. After all, he wasn't the only at the time that thought they were the messiah.
So no, he didn't have to be untruthful, or mentally ill. Neither did his followers have to only be a "group of liars." No doubt they were sincere, honest people who had the same hopes as he did. So you don't believe what Jesus said, but he's not a liar or looney. You don't believe what Jesus did, but the people who witnessed it firsthand and recorded it aren't liars either. So you believe the Bible has been corrupted?dmmichgood, when you actually step out side of the belief that the bible is correct in every thing, you step off a cliff. Please understand, instead of "many", as you assert, there are no other historical documents to compare it to. -How many historical books had 40 writers separated by time and space all writing about the same subject?-How many historical books have over 5,000 handwritten manuscripts? FYI - Homer's Iliad had 643. There is more literal evidence for Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar. Speaking of Caesar,
“Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, and Napoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and schools combined; without the eloquence of schools, He spoke words of life such as never were spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of any orator or poet; without writing a single line, He has set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art and sweet songs of praise, than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. Born in a manger, and crucified as a malefactor, He now controls the destinies of the civilized world, and rules a spiritual empire which embraces one-third of the inhabitants of the globe. There never was in this world a life so unpretending, modest, and lowly in its outward form and condition, and yet producing such extraordinary effects upon all ages, nations, and classes of men. The annals of history produce no other example of such complete and astonishing success in spite of the absence of those material, social, literary, and artistic powers and influences which are indispensable to success for a mere man. Christ stands, in this respect also, solitary and alone among all the heroes of history, and presents to us an insolvable prob¬lem, unless we admit him to be more than man, even the eternal Son of God.”-Philip Schaff The bible is not a "historical document" except in places & even then is biased.
Actually, one doesn't step off a cliff when you question the bible. You start a journey of discovery of many "sacred" books just as old as the bible, if not older.
They are also considered "historical documents" by the writers in many cases.
The vedas are just one of those so-called "holy", "sacred" books in the world.
"The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Samhitas date to roughly 1700–1100 BCE, and the "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000-500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age." from wiki
Also actually there IS NOT more literal evidence for Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar.
I have heard that argument from Christian apologists many times.
Christian apologists base their argument on the excerpts from the bible as if they are all separate "proofs."
However, They are all depending on excerpts from the same book .
There isn't a lot of information about Jesus by historians of the era.
Some are from the Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus & the Jewish historian Josephus but only briefly mentioned.
PS: Why should I accept the words of Philip Schaff, a Protestant theologian?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 16:22:21 GMT -5
Dmmichgood quote - "Give me one example of a scientist that you know who has "researched" what he/she already believes?"
The one I gave a few weeks ago was a Classic. In New England, NSW, there is a strange Polynesian style carving on a rock on top of a hill. I wrote the anthropologist who did the paper on this carving. She said it was most likely just a "local style" of aboriginal art. Not convincing, really. I then asked about the stone blocks which long ago tumbled down the sides of the hill, covered in strange, weathered swirls. She said she didn't see them, and in any case "Probably of convict origin." She had to climb OVER those blocks, and they were too old to be convict. Why did she lie? Because an alien culture here in Australia was a taboo subject. Some call it "Pan Aboriginal" and it squashes any evidence of other people being in Australia. It's political.
And BTW this was my first contact with pure science.
The example I give here is the domestication of camels. It too is political, or should I say, religious. The date of camel domestication became another tool to bash bible believers - so in a hundred years time students will still, be taught, ie camels appeared in Egypt in Roman times, despite petroglyphs show camels with harnesses three thousand years BEFORE Romans.
That's how it works Dmmichgood. So this is one reason why you won't hear of archaeologists looking for evidence of the Exodus, for example. And it's sad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 16:33:54 GMT -5
Quote Dmmichgood "There isn't a lot of information about Jesus by historians of the era. Some from the Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus & the Jewish historian Josephus. So there actually IS NOT more literal evidence for Jesus Christ as a person than for Julius Caesar as a person."
As my above posting on the politicization of science and history:
Some have made the observation, to paraphrase one - "If it wasn't for the bible, Luke would have been one of the ancient world's greatest historians."
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and the unknown author of Hebrews attested to Jesus. That's what, eight separate accounts.
And for people able to wrap their heads around the concept, there are many more in the Old Testament who wrote of Jesus, too. Like the unchallenged example I gave of Jacob in Genesis 49.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 17:15:28 GMT -5
Dmmichgood quote - "Give me one example of a scientist that you know who has "researched" what he/she already believes?" The one I gave a few weeks ago was a Classic. In New England, NSW, there is a strange Polynesian style carvinon a rock on top of a hill. I wrote the anthropologist who did the paper on this carving. She said it was most likely just a "local style" of aboriginal art. Not convincing, really. I then asked about the stone blocks which long ago tumbled down the sides of the hill, covered in strange, weathered swirls. She said she didn't see them, and in any case "Probably of convict origin." She had to climb OVER those blocks, and they were too old to be convict. Why did she lie? Because an alien culture here in Australia was a taboo subject. Some call it "Pan Aboriginal" and it squashes any evidence of other people being in Australia. It's political. And BTW this was my first contact with pure science.The example I give here is the domestication of camels. It too is political, or should I say, religious. The date of camel domestication became another tool to bash bible believers - so in a hundred yearstime students will still, be taught, ie camels appeared in Egypt in Roman times, despite petroglyphs show camels with harnesses three thousand years BEFORE Romans. That's how it works Dmmichgood. So this is one reason why you won't hear of archaeologists looking for evidence of the Exodus, for example. And it's sad. In a nut shell to begin with, your statement: "this was my first contact with pure science" indicates you have no idea what really is "pure science."*
You have accused the anthropologist of not being truthful giving a false answer because it is a political issue. How do you know that? Have you studied anthropology?
Yes, I knew it must be about the "camels' you were referring to in an earlier post that is why I answered thus:
"If the views that you put forward weren't accepted, perhaps it is because they were peer reviewed and found wanting for verifiability. Bert, you must not studied archaeology very much if you don't know that a lot of work has done the area of the world where the "Exodus" was supposed to have taken place.
*pure science "systematic observation of natural phenomena solely for the discovery of unknown laws relating to facts; the study of science alone, not including its relations to other subjects"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 17:44:28 GMT -5
Quote Dmmichgood "There isn't a lot of information about Jesus by historians of the era. Some from the Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus & the Jewish historian Josephus. So there actually IS NOT more literal evidence for Jesus Christ as a person than for Julius Caesar as a person." As my above posting on the politicization of science and history:
Some have made the observation, to paraphrase one - "If it wasn't for the bible, Luke would have been one of the ancient world's greatest historians."
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and the unknown author of Hebrews attested to Jesus. That's what, eight separate accounts.
And for people able to wrap their heads around the concept, there are many more in the Old Testament who wrote of Jesus, too. Like the unchallenged example I gave of Jacob in Genesis 49.
Yes, but that is a very big "IF"!
Who said it?
What authority does he/she use?
Herodotus is consider the first writer to make a conscious attempt to discover and explain past events. He is rightly known as the 'father of history'.
There is a big difference in writing a narrative like Luke's gospel and an objective history.
Where do you get this idea of the "politicization of science and history?"
That sounds like an excuse to dismiss what you don't want to believe .
|
|