|
Post by glorifythyname on Jul 11, 2020 11:34:16 GMT -5
Tbe word perfect is translated as Complete. The sins of all the world were laid on him. A pure and spotless lamb would be SOILED by the sins of the world. A total contradiction of what he is. Consider that. If you were pure and spotless would you drag yourself through the sins of the world? I wouldn't, but what if it was the will of God? Jesus was the perfect lamb of God. God provided his lamb so that we may have our sins atoned for and be acceptable to him. John 3.16 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' It's not what we think that counts. It's what God wants or decrees. If it's part of God's purpose and plan who are we to think otherwise? Complete or perfect...same thing really. To become either Jesus had to learn such through 'suffering!' Suffer means to allow. Jesus always did what the Father asked. They were working with a divine plan. No question at all that it would be done. It is finished.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 11, 2020 13:49:35 GMT -5
No where in the Bible does it ever state that Jesus was battling his own human nature.
He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, but also born of woman, so its probably safe to assume that he battled the flesh as he was fully human while divine. He got hungry, he got tired, he had hormones, got angry, etc. But the wilderness was all about bringing his flesh under complete subjection to the spirit, the strength gathered from that empowered him to endure what was to come.
In the wilderness, he battled hunger and successfully denied the yearnings of the flesh, even to the verge of death. He later battled persecution by denying the flesh. They say the reason a dog seldom catches a rabbit is because the dog is running for its lunch while the rabbit is running for its life. As Jesus told Peter, "The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak" (Mark 14:38). And Paul wrote, "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Galatians 5:24)
Unless God himself presents himself to a individual they have zero understanding. All this confusion on this board is a bunch of unnecessary noise. I would encourage anyone who is seeking to know God and follow him to seek his face alone. There is much confusion in this world and on this board.
There's no confusion on the basic tenets of Christianity per se, just different perspectives of what means what. Did Jesus waiver in the last moments of his life by asking the Father to find a different way? Was he just demonstrating that it was a struggle and not automatic? Or was the cup he sought to avoid, something other than the crucifixion before him?
Obviously, being fully divine did not exempt Jesus from experiencing the agony of death. But since it was the purpose of him coming into this world, did he all of the sudden get weak and want to avoid being the only acceptable path to salvation? Once crucified, the next vial he would pour out would be the cup of wrath when coming in judgement. It would all be finished on the Cross, no more; "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2020 18:42:44 GMT -5
Thanks Dan, enjoyed reading your posts. Haven't had a chance to read much others, but it appears there was some good discussion on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by glorifythyname on Jul 11, 2020 19:00:30 GMT -5
No where in the Bible does it ever state that Jesus was battling his own human nature.
He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, but also born of woman, so its probably safe to assume that he battled the flesh as he was fully human while divine. He got hungry, he got tired, he had hormones, got angry, etc. But the wilderness was all about bringing his flesh under complete subjection to the spirit, the strength gathered from that empowered him to endure what was to come.
In the wilderness, he battled hunger and successfully denied the yearnings of the flesh, even to the verge of death. He later battled persecution by denying the flesh. They say the reason a dog seldom catches a rabbit is because the dog is running for its lunch while the rabbit is running for its life. As Jesus told Peter, "The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak" (Mark 14:38). And Paul wrote, "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Galatians 5:24)
Unless God himself presents himself to a individual they have zero understanding. All this confusion on this board is a bunch of unnecessary noise. I would encourage anyone who is seeking to know God and follow him to seek his face alone. There is much confusion in this world and on this board.
There's no confusion on the basic tenets of Christianity per se, just different perspectives of what means what. Did Jesus waiver in the last moments of his life by asking the Father to find a different way? Was he just demonstrating that it was a struggle and not automatic? Or was the cup he sought to avoid, something other than the crucifixion before him?
Obviously, being fully divine did not exempt Jesus from experiencing the agony of death. But since it was the purpose of him coming into this world, did he all of the sudden get weak and want to avoid being the only acceptable path to salvation? Once crucified, the next vial he would pour out would be the cup of wrath when coming in judgement. It would all be finished on the Cross, no more; "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37).
Did ere such love and sorrow meet- or thrones compose such great a crown.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jul 12, 2020 2:59:41 GMT -5
I wouldn't, but what if it was the will of God? Jesus was the perfect lamb of God. God provided his lamb so that we may have our sins atoned for and be acceptable to him. John 3.16 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' It's not what we think that counts. It's what God wants or decrees. If it's part of God's purpose and plan who are we to think otherwise? Complete or perfect...same thing really. To become either Jesus had to learn such through 'suffering!' Suffer means to allow. Jesus always did what the Father asked. They were working with a divine plan. No question at all that it would be done. It is finished. Jesus taught us how to pray. What was good for Jesus the same applies to us whatever way you try to cut it and make what Jesus did different from what we are to do. Now that we have had alternative explanation for obedience and suffering, can we now have one for 'Follow me?' When Jesus prayed to the Father he did not begin with 'My Father' but with 'Our Father.' When he prayed 'Thy will be done,' this was for everyone, not just himself.
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Jul 12, 2020 7:08:25 GMT -5
Thanks - out of interest what is your Scriptural reference to support your statement that "God poured out his spirit 'without measure' into his only begotten son from birth". When we are born again by the Spirit, we continue to sin - sin remains in us. We will continue to have wrong thoughts and do wrong things and to give into temptation - even with the complete power of the HS that is in us and on our side. Jesus didn't just have the Spirit of God in Him and on His side - he knew no sin from birth and sin never entered in. He was completely divine in every way - there were no wrong thoughts and no wrong actions. He was no ordinary human being - he was and is the giver of life (1 Cor 15). Yet, he knew temptation and was able to dismiss it completely. Faced with the prospect of having to drink the cup of the judgement of God, he was perfectly faithful and obedient and fulfilled his Father's plan completely. The Holy Spirit is not Jesus' Father. The Holy Spirit is clearly a separate person in the Godhead from the Father and the Son. Interestingly, the Holy Spirit is referred to by many names including God, Lord, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord God, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Jesus etc. Q1 John 3.34 Jesus was born of the Spirit of God. God was looking after his only begotten Son from birth. Had Jesus not been filled with the spirit of God at any time during his life, then he either had not the spirit of God at such a time or it was given to him by measure. You say that Jesus from his birth knew no sin and sin never entered into him and was completely divine in every way. If you understand the true meaning of the term 'divine' you must agree that God gave his spirit to Jesus without measure from birth to guide and control him? Divine simply means possessing the Godly nature. If you were given God's spirit without measure, you too would not sin and resist temptation. Jesus was the exception in this, that he was given the spirit of God without measure. That's why John made a point of stating the matter. Jesus was an ordinary human being whom God made extraordinary through his spirit. Without the spirit of God Jesus would have been just another human being. Title - Son of Man Jesus used the title ‘Son of Man’ to describe himself 14 times in Mark’s Gospel. He did this because of the dual meaning: The title was used by the prophet Ezekiel to describe himself. He wanted to show that he was an ordinary person. Likewise, Jesus called himself Son of Man to remind his disciples that he was a person like them. It is used in the prophesy of Daniel to describe a figure with authority from God. Many people connected this prophesy with the idea of the coming Messiah. I disagree with your understanding about the Holy Spirit. Scripture quite clearly tells us that he was born of the Holy Ghost (Spirit). In your understanding God is a trinitarian God comprising three separate persons, i.e. The Father, The Holy Ghost and Jesus. Scripture is absolutely clear that God is the Father and the Father is God. Throughout scripture without exception, the two terms are synonymous. Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It is God's spirit. It is not a separate person from the Father. The Holy Spirit is God by virtue of the fact that it is the Father's spirit, just like your spirit is you! The term Godhead simply means Godly, Godly nature, or of God. It does not mean a trinitarian composition of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you are a true servant of God and possessing and expressing things of his Spirit then you too will have the Godhead or Godliness, Godly nature dwelling in you bodily. I was interested in your "from birth" statement and Scriptural reference. John 3:34 are the words of Jesus after he was baptised so I don't think it supports your premise that Jesus had the Spirit of God without limit from birth. Obviously, I believe that Jesus was in very nature God from birth - he was the eternal Son who had shared glory with the Father before the world existed (Christ's words in John 17:5). Yes, Jesus used the title of Son of Man (referencing Daniel 7) because that's exactly who he was on earth. He was also the Son of God and he also called himself this. He also referred to himself as "I AM" and accepted the title of "Lord and God". Scripture is absolutely clear that the Father is God but it is also crystal clear that the Lord God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is also absolutely clear the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son. You haven't commented on the different names for the Holy Spirit which reference both the Father and Son.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 21:16:31 GMT -5
Not that this is likely to make a lot of difference on this board to its atheists who fail the very first prerequisit of believing that God exists in spite of all the visible evidence that He exists – I have tried articulating the Trinity in very simple and logical English before on here, but perhaps to some posters the following link to one born and raised Muslim will do much better than I did? He uses simple and logical English too. www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0JpwOSKRC0
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 10, 2020 0:04:45 GMT -5
In my view the God of the Old Testament was evil, corrupt and a murderer. He slew innocent children. He caused the deaths of an unknown but huge number of humans The Christ of the New Testament was the opposite. He gave life. He did not take it. When we talk of giving forgiveness to those who have fallen to earthly traits, and the inability of some to forgive, how can you forgive God for his deeds in the Old Testament,. He didn't do any such thing unless you think God is a actual existent being. What God didn't do, he ordered others to do for him. You need to reread the OT.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 10, 2020 2:23:38 GMT -5
He didn't do any such thing unless you think God is a actual existent being. What God didn't do, he ordered others to do for him. You need to reread the OT. Ahhhh I'm liking the tone in your language today Bob. Why don't you just say what you really want to say without all the fluffy words. I can take it. For what it's worth God doesn't give orders like you suggest. The OT does not serve as a record of literal history. Why would you take it so?.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2020 14:50:00 GMT -5
What God didn't do, he ordered others to do for him. You need to reread the OT. Ahhhh I'm liking the tone in your language today Bob. Why don't you just say what you really want to say without all the fluffy words. I can take it. For what it's worth God doesn't give orders like you suggest. The OT does not serve as a record of literal history. Why would you take it so?. If "The OT does not serve as a record of literal history," why should it mean anything more to us than the history of other individual groups of people & their cultures?
Why is the OT special?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 10, 2020 18:19:41 GMT -5
What God didn't do, he ordered others to do for him. You need to reread the OT. Ahhhh I'm liking the tone in your language today Bob. Why don't you just say what you really want to say without all the fluffy words. I can take it. For what it's worth God doesn't give orders like you suggest. The OT does not serve as a record of literal history. Why would you take it so?. Of course the OT does not serve as a record of literal history. You're the 2x2 here, not me. I'd like to know why you think all the slaughter of humans described in the OT happened. My opinion is that it was all tribal bragging.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Aug 10, 2020 20:19:44 GMT -5
In the scheme of what is real and what is not, it makes not one iota of difference whether the person of faith believes in the 'Holy Trinity' or whether they believe Jesus and god were two separate entities.
Both of these beliefs depend entirely on being credulous in the face of unevidenced and extraordinary supernatural claims.
And you can be pretty certain that the reason for supporting one belief compared to the other is associated with group-thinking.
Religion is a social construct and this results in people affiliating themselves with groups that satiate their desire for human connectivity or possibly to be noticed and known and even to have control over others if they desire a prominent role.
Being and remaining a part of a group relies on compliance.
So if your particular religious comfort-zone espouses 'the Holy Trinity' concept, then it is convenient to maintain this belief.
It would be sort of interesting to know if a belief in the Holy Trinity is a salient reason for people to leave a Christian sect that refutes this concept and to join another that supports it.
It seems that a belief in the 'Holy Trinity' is not the criteria for Christians selecting their preferred church?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2020 21:13:22 GMT -5
Of course the OT does not serve as a record of literal history. You're the 2x2 here, not me. I'd like to know why you think all the slaughter of humans described in the OT happened. My opinion is that it was all tribal bragging. My opinion is the ancients were messed up and God presented himself to average people by kicking ass because humans are all average, or were destined to be. His romantic side would show later.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 10, 2020 22:01:31 GMT -5
My opinion is that it was all tribal bragging. My opinion is the ancients were messed up and God presented himself to average people by kicking ass because humans are all average, or were destined to be. His romantic side would show later. Should we let everyone vote on our opinions? Nathan says we all get to decide for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 11, 2020 0:27:40 GMT -5
Ahhhh I'm liking the tone in your language today Bob. Why don't you just say what you really want to say without all the fluffy words. I can take it. For what it's worth God doesn't give orders like you suggest. The OT does not serve as a record of literal history. Why would you take it so?. If "The OT does not serve as a record of literal history," why should it mean anything more to us than the history of other individual groups of people & their cultures?
Why is the OT special?The values that resignate with humans were first embedded clearly and concisley in the OT (10 commandments), and they applied individually, not to groups, they are eternal. I am not going to say it is any more important than other groups or cultures because these idea's and stories are not specific to the Hebrew people but their thinking is different. Basically the scriptures end by saying you can do it (live life)Caeser's way, or the way of Christ, and the OT is the beginning of that Narrative. If you find that narrative in other literature, cultures or groups that's awsome.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2020 2:45:43 GMT -5
If "The OT does not serve as a record of literal history," why should it mean anything more to us than the history of other individual groups of people & their cultures?
Why is the OT special? The values that resignate with humans were first embedded clearly and concisley in the OT (10 commandments), and they applied individually, not to groups, they are eternal. I am not going to say it is any more important than other groups or cultures because these idea's and stories are not specific to the Hebrew people but their thinking is different. Basically the scriptures end by saying you can do it (live life)Caeser's way, or the way of Christ, and the OT is the beginning of that Narrative. If you find that narrative in other literature, cultures or groups that's awsome The 10 commandments in the Old Testament was not the first time or first place where people were given values of how to act in a responsible manner to toward their neighbors.
In the Bible, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and were written on stone tablets, allegedly by the hand of God himself. This was thought to take place around 1490 B.C.
However, when one examines chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead (around 2600 B.C.), it seems he may have had a little help. The Egyptian Book of the Dead reads like the Ten Commandments written in the Negative Confession.
Some examples are:
Book of the Dead: “I have not blasphemed.”
Exodus 20:7: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.”
Book of the Dead: “I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.”
Exodus 20:14: “Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Book of the Dead: “I have not stolen.”
Exodus 20:15 “Thou shalt not steal.”
There is also some similarity between the story of the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurapi, dated around 1772 B.C.
The Hammurabi code of laws, a collection of 282 rules, established standards for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice.
listverse.com/2013/06/30/ten-influences-on-the-bible/
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 11, 2020 3:21:30 GMT -5
Ahhhh I'm liking the tone in your language today Bob. Why don't you just say what you really want to say without all the fluffy words. I can take it. For what it's worth God doesn't give orders like you suggest. The OT does not serve as a record of literal history. Why would you take it so?. Of course the OT does not serve as a record of literal history. You're the 2x2 here, not me. I'd like to know why you think all the slaughter of humans described in the OT happened. My opinion is that it was all tribal bragging. Im unsure what me being a 2x2 has to do with anything. It's like saying because im a Aussie the sky is pink, but because your whatever the sky is blue. Just because Im a 2x2 does not mean I bow to 2x2ism. Identity politics is what you are playing there Bob. I don't know if all the slaughters happened. What I do know is There is a reason why they are recorded. If they weren’t there it would be pretty safe to say the scriptures are total manipulation. Considering this was normal for the day, normal for gods to order wars, normal for people to use gods for a justification for war, exaggeration in literature for effect and that Christ said he came to fulfill the law and murder begins at the heart, the narrative of scripture not supporting the image of god your portaying, on top of all that man was just as fallible then as he is today, it's pretty safe to say you saying God gave the orders is pretty ignorant. So im a bit confused by your line of thinking in you say you know it's not literal history but want me to reread the OT and take things literally... please explain?. Bragging maybe, maybe hatred as well, rage, karma, greed.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 11, 2020 3:45:31 GMT -5
The values that resignate with humans were first embedded clearly and concisley in the OT (10 commandments), and they applied individually, not to groups, they are eternal. I am not going to say it is any more important than other groups or cultures because these idea's and stories are not specific to the Hebrew people but their thinking is different. Basically the scriptures end by saying you can do it (live life)Caeser's way, or the way of Christ, and the OT is the beginning of that Narrative. If you find that narrative in other literature, cultures or groups that's awsome The 10 commandments in the Old Testament was not the first time or first place where people were given values of how to act in a responsible manner to toward their neighbors.
In the Bible, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and were written on stone tablets, allegedly by the hand of God himself. This was thought to take place around 1490 B.C.
However, when one examines chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead (around 2600 B.C.), it seems he may have had a little help. The Egyptian Book of the Dead reads like the Ten Commandments written in the Negative Confession.
Some examples are:
Book of the Dead: “I have not blasphemed.”
Exodus 20:7: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.”
Book of the Dead: “I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.”
Exodus 20:14: “Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Book of the Dead: “I have not stolen.”
Exodus 20:15 “Thou shalt not steal.”
There is also some similarity between the story of the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurapi, dated around 1772 B.C.
The Hammurabi code of laws, a collection of 282 rules, established standards for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice.
listverse.com/2013/06/30/ten-influences-on-the-bible/
First embedded "clearly" and "concisley", not first ever. And the OT is full of literature surrounding those values and the historical arc of those values becoming more embedded in man. Most people I know act out a Judeo Christian ethic not the book of the dead for instance. This however does not make the book of the dead any less relevant if its morals, values and ethics are true.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 11, 2020 14:55:45 GMT -5
I hope this isn't another one of your endlessly wandering rabbit hole discussions. Of course the OT does not serve as a record of literal history. You're the 2x2 here, not me. I'd like to know why you think all the slaughter of humans described in the OT happened. My opinion is that it was all tribal bragging. Im unsure what me being a 2x2 has to do with anything. It's like saying because im a Aussie the sky is pink, but because your whatever the sky is blue. Just because Im a 2x2 does not mean I bow to 2x2ism. Identity politics is what you are playing there Bob. All I meant was that you, a 2x2, are more likely to take the Bible literally; than I am ... if you've read anything I've published on this matter. That's what I meant by "tribal bragging". No wonder you're confused. It sounds like you think I even HAVE an image of God to portray -- which I categorically DON'T. If you're commenting on my suspicions, you've exaggerated a bit.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2020 16:16:05 GMT -5
The 10 commandments in the Old Testament was not the first time or first place where people were given values of how to act in a responsible manner to toward their neighbors.
In the Bible, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and were written on stone tablets, allegedly by the hand of God himself. This was thought to take place around 1490 B.C.
However, when one examines chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead (around 2600 B.C.), it seems he may have had a little help. The Egyptian Book of the Dead reads like the Ten Commandments written in the Negative Confession.
Some examples are:
Book of the Dead: “I have not blasphemed.”
Exodus 20:7: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.”
Book of the Dead: “I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.”
Exodus 20:14: “Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Book of the Dead: “I have not stolen.”
Exodus 20:15 “Thou shalt not steal.”
There is also some similarity between the story of the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurapi, dated around 1772 B.C.
The Hammurabi code of laws, a collection of 282 rules, established standards for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice.
listverse.com/2013/06/30/ten-influences-on-the-bible/
First embedded "clearly" and "concisley", not first ever. And the OT is full of literature surrounding those values and the historical arc of those values becoming more embedded in man. Most people I know act out a Judeo Christian ethic not the book of the dead for instance. This however does not make the book of the dead any less relevant if its morals, values and ethics are true. Ethics is any system or theory of moral values or principles, -of what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
What you seem to be pushing is that the bible with it's "Judeo Christian ethic" was the first place ethics crystalized & became superior to ethics that developed in other cultures.
Basically, -ethics consists of how people should act as to how they treat one another and it seems reasonable that people would understand that you treat others as you would want to be treated!
That principle really came out of necessity. Because if people are going to live together in any kind of peace and be able to prosper, they must be able to trust one another.
Since that need for trust was among all cultures, those ethics developed in other areas of the world for the same reason as it did in the bible! It certainly did not just all come together in one area of the world!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 11, 2020 18:57:51 GMT -5
First embedded "clearly" and "concisley", not first ever. And the OT is full of literature surrounding those values and the historical arc of those values becoming more embedded in man. Most people I know act out a Judeo Christian ethic not the book of the dead for instance. This however does not make the book of the dead any less relevant if its morals, values and ethics are true. Ethics is any system or theory of moral values or principles, -of what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
What you seem to be pushing is that the bible with it's "Judeo Christian ethic" was the first place ethics crystalized & became superior to ethics that developed in other cultures.
Basically, -ethics consists of how people should act as to how they treat one another and it seems reasonable that people would understand that you treat others as you would want to be treated!
That principle really came out of necessity. Because if people are going to live together in any kind of peace and be able to prosper, they must be able to trust one another.
Since that need for trust was among all cultures, those ethics developed in other areas of the world for the same reason as it did in the bible! It certainly did not just all come together in one area of the world! You're quite right. Ethics, morals, or whatever one want to refer to them as, have ALWAYS been in place in any society where people live together. I thought to say this earlier, but didn't want to be too much of a kick-butt. But the Jews, in fact, weren't the first to understand or develop understandings necessary to allow their society to survive and prosper -- they had their own historic ancestral exposure to such ethic wisdom. People forget that social societies existed long before the Hebrew refugees intruded on their promised land.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 12, 2020 21:24:05 GMT -5
Alternatively, emissaries of other worlds were sent to break up the works of the devil. That’s what John said.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 12, 2020 23:00:10 GMT -5
My opinion is the ancients were messed up and God presented himself to average people by kicking ass because humans are all average, or were destined to be. His romantic side would show later. Should we let everyone vote on our opinions? Nathan says we all get to decide for ourselves. As literature goes, the Bible presents as fact. Thus, we’re not at liberty to interpret it as art, whereas we would interpret it variously. We must accept the account generally, or flatly reject it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 13, 2020 0:21:09 GMT -5
Should we let everyone vote on our opinions? Nathan says we all get to decide for ourselves. As literature goes, the Bible presents as fact. Thus, we’re not at liberty to interpret it as art, whereas we would interpret it variously. We must accept the account generally, or flatly reject it. Interesting. Ironically, all fiction presents as fact too. In the case of the Bible, some of it has to be alternate facts, because there are some contradictions recorded.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 13, 2020 20:02:32 GMT -5
First embedded "clearly" and "concisley", not first ever. And the OT is full of literature surrounding those values and the historical arc of those values becoming more embedded in man. Most people I know act out a Judeo Christian ethic not the book of the dead for instance. This however does not make the book of the dead any less relevant if its morals, values and ethics are true. Ethics is any system or theory of moral values or principles, -of what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
What you seem to be pushing is that the bible with it's "Judeo Christian ethic" was the first place ethics crystalized & became superior to ethics that developed in other cultures.
Basically, -ethics consists of how people should act as to how they treat one another and it seems reasonable that people would understand that you treat others as you would want to be treated!
That principle really came out of necessity. Because if people are going to live together in any kind of peace and be able to prosper, they must be able to trust one another.
Since that need for trust was among all cultures, those ethics developed in other areas of the world for the same reason as it did in the bible! It certainly did not just all come together in one area of the world!
You cant see the Forest for the "God tree". "First embedded clearly and concisley", does not mean First ever, does not mean it is superior to any other true Values, Morals, Ethics. You as misrepresenting what Im saying. And because of the clear and concise OT record this is why most people I know regardless of what ever category you want to put them in (identify politics) act out of a Judeo Christian ethic.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 13, 2020 20:17:26 GMT -5
Ethics is any system or theory of moral values or principles, -of what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
What you seem to be pushing is that the bible with it's "Judeo Christian ethic" was the first place ethics crystalized & became superior to ethics that developed in other cultures.
Basically, -ethics consists of how people should act as to how they treat one another and it seems reasonable that people would understand that you treat others as you would want to be treated!
That principle really came out of necessity. Because if people are going to live together in any kind of peace and be able to prosper, they must be able to trust one another.
Since that need for trust was among all cultures, those ethics developed in other areas of the world for the same reason as it did in the bible! It certainly did not just all come together in one area of the world! You're quite right. Ethics, morals, or whatever one want to refer to them as, have ALWAYS been in place in any society where people live together. I thought to say this earlier, but didn't want to be too much of a kick-butt. But the Jews, in fact, weren't the first to understand or develop understandings necessary to allow their society to survive and prosper -- they had their own historic ancestral exposure to such ethic wisdom. People forget that social societies existed long before the Hebrew refugees intruded on their promised land. Too much of a kick butt 🤦♂️. Polish your mirror much Bob?. You may have not noticed but everything you are hinting I have missed I never actually said in said in the first place. Either ignorant or deliberate misrepresentation of my comments. What I did say is why most people today (Western Civilization) act out a Judeo Christian eithic from the OT.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 13, 2020 23:38:51 GMT -5
You're quite right. Ethics, morals, or whatever one want to refer to them as, have ALWAYS been in place in any society where people live together. I thought to say this earlier, but didn't want to be too much of a kick-butt. But the Jews, in fact, weren't the first to understand or develop understandings necessary to allow their society to survive and prosper -- they had their own historic ancestral exposure to such ethic wisdom. People forget that social societies existed long before the Hebrew refugees intruded on their promised land. Too much of a kick butt 🤦♂️. Polish your mirror much Bob?. You may have not noticed but everything you are hinting I have missed I never actually said in said in the first place. Either ignorant or deliberate misrepresentation of my comments. What I did say is why most people today (Western Civilization) act out a Judeo Christian eithic from the OT. What makes you think I was addressing your post? I just shared my own understanding. I understand that you're quite sensitive about people commenting on your posts.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 14, 2020 5:33:54 GMT -5
Too much of a kick butt 🤦♂️. Polish your mirror much Bob?. You may have not noticed but everything you are hinting I have missed I never actually said in said in the first place. Either ignorant or deliberate misrepresentation of my comments. What I did say is why most people today (Western Civilization) act out a Judeo Christian eithic from the OT. What makes you think I was addressing your post? I just shared my own understanding. I understand that you're quite sensitive about people commenting on your posts. Oh I don't know Bob, the fact my post was in the background and you agreeing with dmmichgood in her rebuttal to my post wasn't pointed at all. Just like most of your recent posts not pointed at all. You can comment all you want, your tone sucks thought Bob.
|
|