|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2016 23:38:50 GMT -5
Okay, now that the Aramaic can of worms has been opened, in that Language John 8:12 records Yahu'shuah stated outright "I am the living God." What does Aramaic say in v 25-26? That scripture was never written in Aramaic. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2016 23:46:41 GMT -5
What does Aramaic say in v 25-26?
People who believe the Bible was first recorded in KJV Engish, or even entirely in Greek simply err. Of course those who believe the Bible was originally written in English are ... simply ignorant of the fact. Those who believe the NT was NOT originally written in Greek have no sound compelling reason to believe that, other than it also had to have been written by the hand of God. I know of no one who believes that any of the Bible was ever written originally in Aramaic. An Aramaic Bible would undoubtedly be a translation of the Greek original, and certainly not before the Roman church tentatively compiled the New Testament. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 2:10:53 GMT -5
is not The oldest dated Bible the Pentateuch of 464? Bob, you, like another who posts to this forum make statements as if they were undisputed fact. There is a long standing debate about who, what was "first." In my studies I have found many reasons to believe the eastern Pish-ta (Aramaic for Straight) can be thought to precede Greek, Aramaic, largely influenced by Syriac.
However, like your assertions I have no more proof than you of fact, rather many people's beliefs down through the ages. I prefer them to recent changes which also remain unproven and thus equally uncertain.
But then, each of us have our own reasons to believe what we do, and I can readily accept you have yours. I respectfully disagree, for a myriad of reasons, and have no intention of attempting to convince you or anyone else by listing them here. We just disagree as happens so often in life. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 19, 2016 3:43:26 GMT -5
is not The oldest dated Bible the Pentateuch of 464?
It is the oldest part of the Old Testament. It is the Jewish Torah, and consists of only the first 5 books of the OT. It was written in Hebrew -- nothing in any other language was acceptable. FWIW, I have no interest in convincing any religious person of anything. My interest doesn't extend further than who wrote what, when it was written, and what their writing meant to them. And to know that information, I have spent a few years studying the findings of specialists in those fields. If what I say offends anyone's understanding of the scriptures, I assure you it was no less offensive to my own understanding of the scriptures until I found much of what I believed could not possibly be substantiated by the scriptures we read. I'm sure you have. Fundamentalist Christians have spent many millions of dollars attempting to refute every scrap of solid scientific findings concerning the history of the Bible. As academics, they're mediocre, and as wise men they are frauds. Then we're not on the same page. I'm not interested in people's beliefs through the ages. I am only interested in who wrote what, and what it meant to them. That doesn't take faith, that takes skills an extremely small number of people have -- certainly no one in this forum has that ability, and I dare say most people in this forum don't even have a clue where to go ant learn from those people. The last place to start is with a clergyman, especially an evangelical clergyman because they are salesman for a brand, and what doesn't support their message they just leave out. I tend to be interested in what they leave out, just in case they're misleading me -- like a used car salesman. Christians don't have a patent on certainty -- they have a patent on believing by faith what defies the laws of nature. For Christians there is no virtue in believing the demonstrable -- the greatest virtue is believing what is absurd and infinitely impossible. The most reliable researchers are the ones who will readily tell you what they do not know, but the run of the mill citizen is normally too quick to draw far more conclusions from the research than the researcher himself. They're the ones who are certain of what they don't know. The ones who aren't so certain of that are quite likely frauds. I doubt you could mention anything in your list that I don't already know about. I've been there. It's respectful to disagree, but I would feel more comfortable if you recognized that I'm not just some eccentric formulating wild and unfounded ideas. [/b][/font][/font][/font] [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 19, 2016 14:18:36 GMT -5
Strong language Bob!
There's no limit to the amount of atheists who set themselves up as experts on why Jesus didn't exist and even put words in the mouths of the "professional editors and long standing contributors" of the esteemed Oxford Classical Dictionary.
They are absolutely certain that they are right but it's easy to expose their conclusions as fraudulent. 
www.johndickson.org/blog/
Just like the increasing numbers of atheists who are bastions of free speech and human rights and champions of tolerance.
That's until they come up against Christians who proclaim Jesus is Lord and react strongly to the social engineering they espouse.
For some reason when this occurs, tolerance and free speech are thrown out the window very quickly....it's amusing to watch.
You have thrown down a gauntlet.
So back it up.
Who are the atheists who "set themselves up as experts on why Jesus didn't exist?"
Who are the atheists who are "absolutely certain that they are right" and if anyone does believe they are right, show us just how easy it is "to expose their conclusions as fraudulent." |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 19, 2016 18:39:56 GMT -5
Strong language Bob!
There's no limit to the amount of atheists who set themselves up as experts on why Jesus didn't exist and even put words in the mouths of the "professional editors and long standing contributors" of the esteemed Oxford Classical Dictionary.
They are absolutely certain that they are right but it's easy to expose their conclusions as fraudulent.
www.johndickson.org/blog/
Just like the increasing numbers of atheists who are bastions of free speech and human rights and champions of tolerance.
That's until they come up against Christians who proclaim Jesus is Lord and react strongly to the social engineering they espouse.
For some reason when this occurs, tolerance and free speech are thrown out the window very quickly....it's amusing to watch.
You don't have to take it personally, but in case you do, you will know how I feel about your "certainty" and its origins. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 19, 2016 21:39:20 GMT -5
Rather "strong language" yourself, Ross!
You have thrown down a gauntlet.
So back it up.
Who are the atheists who "set themselves up as experts on why Jesus didn't exist?"
Who are the atheists who are "absolutely certain that they are right" and if anyone does believe they are right, show us just how easy it is "to expose their conclusions as fraudulent" - John Dickson has shone light on the issue and exposed faulty conclusions far more thoroughly and eloquently than I ever could.
What "example?"
You gave the "examples" as statements about atheists
I just ask you to give proof of who the atheists were which you made those statements about.
Since it was you who took the time & energy to make such statements, surely you give some time & energy to back up our statements without just sloughing it off by asking us to look at John Dickson or anyone else's work.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 19, 2016 23:52:13 GMT -5
You don't have to take it personally, but in case you do, you will know how I feel about your "certainty" and its origins. Bob - nothing personal We simply have different worldviews. My certainty is reinforced every year when I see people put their trust in Jesus and the change it brings about in their lives. Then why did you respond with this statement? There's no limit to the amount of atheists who set themselves up as experts on why Jesus didn't exist and even put words in the mouths of the "professional editors and long standing contributors" of the esteemed Oxford Classical Dictionary.I get really impatient with people who react as though I were promoting anything resembling theology or religious/antireligious doctrine. What makes you think I was talking about atheists? And so what if I were – atheists are as capable of understanding ancient Hebrew as anyone else. What do you know about ancient Hebrew that some specialist in ancient Hebrew knows? What made you think I was trying to correct anyone’s theology? All I can do is repeat what I know about someone else’s theology, or point out the flaws in someone’s logic. I don’t have a theology to compare anyone’s to. For what it’s worth, I didn’t learn any of what I wrote from atheists. I’ve never had an atheist professor. In fact, absolutely everything I said I have learned from a prestigious Anglican scholar and priest, so you can safely take it to your congregation for discussion. What does the Oxford Dictionary have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2016 1:51:20 GMT -5
You stated "For Christians there is no virtue in believing the demonstrable -- the greatest virtue is believing what is absurd and infinitely impossible". Am I expected to take this seriously? Of course I expect you to believe that. Or do you not believe in the virgin birth, or the talking snake, or the earth once stopped rotating? (in Oxford English vocabulary) |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2016 3:26:38 GMT -5
[ And I thought that ancient history lent support to the Biblical record in Joshua 10? An indication that you also believe the sun rotates around the earth. Read it carefully. The quasi-scientific thought you had may need to be further explained. It wasn’t a scientist that raised that explanation for Joshua 10. Problem – if you were proficient in the ancient Hebrew language you would (1) realize that the “virgin” term was a mistranslation, and (2) in context the “child” did not refer to “A child”, but to the children of Israel. I say this on the authority of Christian clergy, Jewish clergy, Hebrew language experts, and my Levite Jewish brother-in-law who read it from his Hebrew Bible for me. But yes, “christ’s” birth was predicted, many times, but never by Jews who expected a messiah, not a christ. Do you know the difference between a messiah and a christ? The people who wrote the New Testament didn’t. Of course. Most Christians believe that. There’s only one problem – the Jews NEVER did and STILL DON’T believe there would be a christ. Maybe you missed that part. From my point of view it didn’t need a lot of air time to take root. Of course, I didn’t need things like that hammered into me in order to believe it. I got it the first time I heard it. Oh, I know the routine. There are two Christian-accepted versions, but I haven’t heard of a witness to either one of them. I do know that the Jewish understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis is vastly different from the Christian-scientific explanation. The Jewish version actually matches both versions of creation, but you have to understand Hebrew to understand what we don’t have words for in English. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 20, 2016 19:28:01 GMT -5
What do you mean by "In this example there is little need for me to add more?"
What "example?"
You gave the "examples" as statements about atheists
I just ask you to give proof of who the atheists were which you made those statements about.
Since it was you who took the time & energy to make such statements, surely you give some time & energy to back up our statements without just sloughing it off by asking us to look at John Dickson or anyone else's work.
Ah - there are plenty of atheists who have made strong statements about the non-existence of Jesus. You can look them up as well as I can I stated that Harry McCall and John Loftus are "absolutely certain that they are right (in their article) but it's easy to expose their conclusions as fraudulent". As I said I don't need to add more to that statement because John Dickson has answered it comprehensively.
If there, as you say, -"PLENTY of atheists who have made strong statements about the non-existence of Jesus," -it is you who made the statements, -it is you who should post the answers, -not me.
IF - as you say , "John Dickson has answered it comprehensively," -then you should be able to give proof of your statements by giving us some of his quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2016 20:06:39 GMT -5
An indication that you also believe the sun rotates around the earth. Read it carefully. The quasi-scientific thought you had may need to be further explained. It wasn’t a scientist that raised that explanation for Joshua 10. Problem – if you were proficient in the ancient Hebrew language you would (1) realize that the “virgin” term was a mistranslation, and (2) in context the “child” did not refer to “A child”, but to the children of Israel. I say this on the authority of Christian clergy, Jewish clergy, Hebrew language experts, and my Levite Jewish brother-in-law who read it from his Hebrew Bible for me. But yes, “christ’s” birth was predicted, many times, but never by Jews who expected a messiah, not a christ. Do you know the difference between a messiah and a christ? The people who wrote the New Testament didn’t. Of course. Most Christians believe that. There’s only one problem – the Jews NEVER did and STILL DON’T believe there would be a christ. Maybe you missed that part. From my point of view it didn’t need a lot of air time to take root. Of course, I didn’t need things like that hammered into me in order to believe it. I got it the first time I heard it. Oh, I know the routine. There are two Christian-accepted versions, but I haven’t heard of a witness to either one of them. I do know that the Jewish understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis is vastly different from the Christian-scientific explanation. The Jewish version actually matches both versions of creation, but you have to understand Hebrew to understand what we don’t have words for in English. Thanks - yes, I've read widely on the virgin birth and the competing views. Likewise, on the Jewish Messiah that they expected and the Jewish version of the early chapters of Genesis. I understand re Joshua 10 - I was kidding in my comment hence the emoticon. Have to rush to a function...talk soon Then you should probably read: When Jesus Became God, by Richard E. Rubenstein. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 21:48:44 GMT -5
There is a mosaic floor in a prison being excavated for modernization. It reportedly dates to before the time of the Nicean Counsel. It also reportedly contains "Christian" symbols (fish) and words dedicating a table (not an alter) to the God "Jesus Christ." I found it interesting, as I do "the shroud." Time might reveal/explain more, though I don't expect to be around for what it reveals/explains. Like Peter is recorded as expressing, "as long as I am in this tabernacle,..." smile. DJ
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2016 23:22:22 GMT -5
There is a mosaic floor in a prison being excavated for modernization. It reportedly dates to before the time of the Nicean Counsel. It also reportedly contains "Christian" symbols (fish) and words dedicating a table (not an alter) to the God "Jesus Christ." I found it interesting, as I do "the shroud." Time might reveal/explain more, though I don't expect to be around for what it reveals/explains. Like Peter is recorded as expressing, "as long as I am in this tabernacle,..." smile. DJ This is interesting. Do you know where this excavation is being done. It sounds very Greek, and would not at all be surprising to find. The fish symbol was reportedly used by Christians to mark their territory, especially in areas where they had to be "invisible", and where only fellow Christians would recognize the symbol. There is a claim that the reason they used the fish symbol because in the Greek language the four words in the expression "Jesus Christ Son of God" (or something similar) could be made into an Acronym that spelled the word for "Fish" in Greek. That undoubtedly was not the original use of the fish symbol. It was used by earlier Pagans to represent something else.  |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2016 2:13:56 GMT -5
Then you should probably read: When Jesus Became God, by Richard E. Rubenstein. I have read it - it's a few years ago now. I spent years attesting that Jesus was not God so have worked through it thoroughly. I'll probably dig it out and read it again but the Bible reinforces my trust in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit every day. I've worked it through intellectually as much as you can and ultimately you have to have faith in His power and promises. Its a deeply personal thing - if it's not it is pointless. The journey to know God personally took me out of the 2x2 church and I have total trust in Him, not just because of the amazing things He has done corporately but personally. Then I understand that you can't/don't separate your convictions from frank intellectual discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 3:25:46 GMT -5
Strange you have not heard of it before, and do not know where it is found, and more of the details.
Of course I know where it is and the full details regarding it. I'm sure if you are as open minded as you claim to be you won't have any problem in finding them out for yourself.
Yes, quite clever of those early believers to chose a symbol so contrary to the beliefs as a way to hide their identification, huh?
Some believe they would simply draw a curve on the ground, and if another made another curve to complete a fish symbol, they would be able to identify themselves to each other without words. Not bad for a bunch of ignorant superstitious persecuted people, IMO.
DJ
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 21, 2016 4:02:40 GMT -5
Then I understand that you can't/don't separate your convictions from frank intellectual discussion. Very comfortable with frank intellectual discussion. Having been on both sides of the argument re who Jesus is I've had to do a fair amount of research on the issue. I genuinely approached it with a view to disprove that He was God but I was genuinely surprised when it didn't work out that way!
"I've worked it through intellectually as much as you can and ultimately you have to have faith in His power and promises."
"Working through" the problem while still believing in the concept of "HIS promises," doesn't quite cut the mustard does it?
That is why one might question whether you "genuinely approached" it with a view to disprove that He was God.
As long as one believes in "His power and promises," they aren't going to be able to genuinely approach the subject of whether there is or isn't that entity know as "god"
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2016 6:01:32 GMT -5
Then I understand that you can't/don't separate your convictions from frank intellectual discussion. Very comfortable with frank intellectual discussion. Having been on both sides of the argument re who Jesus is I've had to do a fair amount of research on the issue. I genuinely approached it with a view to disprove that He was God but I was genuinely surprised when it didn't work out that way! Well, that sounds more like your personal testimony than an academic style discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by observing on Apr 21, 2016 14:16:24 GMT -5
More regarding the aforementioned mosaic. It is dated decades before Constantine. It DOES have Greek lettering, and was found in a prison being reconstructed. Yes, very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2016 19:19:48 GMT -5
More regarding the aforementioned mosaic. It is dated decades before Constantine. It DOES have Greek lettering, and was found in a prison being reconstructed. Yes, very interesting. This finding is really not unusual. Such findings really abound in eastern Mediterranean countries. |
|
|
|
Post by observing on Apr 22, 2016 18:20:16 GMT -5
Not unusual, eh? Professional opinion seems to run contrary declaring it highly unusual by what can be found out about that online. Think I will go with professional opinion about it rather than TMB personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 22, 2016 20:57:19 GMT -5
More regarding the aforementioned mosaic. It is dated decades before Constantine. It DOES have Greek lettering, and was found in a prison being reconstructed. Yes, very interesting.
I am wondering why it is so important about it being found decades before Constantine.
After all, Constantine reign began 306 AD well after Christians were around. So why would that be so unusual to find a mosaic with the symbol of the fish?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 21:27:38 GMT -5
Okay, because you asked so nicely, here are answers for you.
It is easily found by searching online for "oldest Christian floor mosaic." (or Medgiddo discovery)
It was dated previous to the time of the cross becoming a Christian symbol.
It has words on it proclaiming God to be "Jesus Christ" in the Greek language.
The date is significant here, because of being prior to Constantine's influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 22, 2016 22:06:19 GMT -5
Okay, because you asked so nicely, here are answers for you.
It is easily found by searching online for "oldest Christian floor mosaic." (or Medgiddo discovery)
It was dated previous to the time of the cross becoming a Christian symbol.
It has words on it proclaiming God to be "Jesus Christ" in the Greek language.
The date is significant here, because of being prior to Constantine's influence. Thanks , Dennis. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 22, 2016 22:15:57 GMT -5
Not unusual, eh? Professional opinion seems to run contrary declaring it highly unusual by what can be found out about that online. Think I will go with professional opinion about it rather than TMB personal opinion.
Why is this particular mosaic so much more interesting than others?
How is it more important than others that have been found?
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 22, 2016 22:17:29 GMT -5
Not unusual, eh? Professional opinion seems to run contrary declaring it highly unusual by what can be found out about that online. Think I will go with professional opinion about it rather than TMB personal opinion. Maybe it's time for you to go back to school. This has been common knowledge since before archaeology became big. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 22, 2016 22:23:49 GMT -5
Okay, because you asked so nicely, here are answers for you.
It is easily found by searching online for "oldest Christian floor mosaic." (or Medgiddo discovery)
The word "floor" may be the key word here. That's been common knowledge for generations. It was Greeks who first called him "Christ" -- according to the Bible. Jews never did. [/b][/font][/font][/font][/quote] There were Christians long before Constantine became a Christian. Constantine's mother was a Christian. He put off converting until near his death because Christians at the time didn't believe in killing people. |
|
rudyw
Senior Member
Posts: 623
|
Post by rudyw on Jun 2, 2022 9:00:40 GMT -5
I'm just reading the history up to the council of Nicaea and something that stood out for me was this. There were many priests and clergy that gave into the edict to hand over sacred objects and books and worship the pagan gods. Pope Peter of Alexandria fled the area in fear for his life. When he returned there were a fair number of priests that said he shouldn't be allowed back into his former position because he had fled. This became quite a big issue between those who had not succumbed to Roman request and those who did. The Donatists were very much against the priests that they felt were corrupted because of their 'saving their skins'. "These clashes between Christians were traumatic, raising questions that would haunt the Church for generations to come. Did Jesus' life provide a realistic model for human behavior,or was it an ideal reachable only by a handful of saints and martyrs? Could an organized, unified Church embody Christian principles, or were worldly organization and religious zeal incompatible? What standards of belief and behavior ought to be required of the leaders of the Christian community? And, at what point would the acts of traitorous or immoral clergymen cause them to lose their priestly authority? The Church as a whole would soon adopt Bishop Peter's tolerant and realistic position that clergymen need not be saints, and that the office of priest was authoritative regardless of the holder's character. Applying these principles in particular cases, however, would prove more difficult and divisive than anyone expected.I found that interesting. It seems this means that a person can be corrupt but it doesn't take away his power if he is already a priest? That their holding the title of priest would make them authoritative no matter what there character? Isn't that a recipe for disaster if the character of someone in a position of power is not important? Rubenstein is correct in what he quoted. It’s a teaching that says a Priest can be of bad character, but the Priest’s bad character doesn’t affect a congregant. For instance, the Priest, being of bad character can still perform the Mass and still absolve sin. The doctrine was made to protect the ordinary church member; not to protect the Priest. It was created to ensure the Eucharist, etc would continue even if a Priest was fallen in some way. |
|
