Jesus Christ

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I think it would be a better translation to say that Christmas is a spin-off of what was a pagan holiday. Christmas is exactly what it is; a celebration of the birth of Jesus.

    Definitely interesting stuff, though. I just read up on the history of Christmas.
    Definitely. If you're up for some further reading, research the Ecumenical Councils, which decided the NT's canons, church hierarchy, as well as some universally taken for granted christian facts.

    Among other major Christian tenets, these councils determined the legitimacy of jesus's divinity, the existence of an incorporeal god-head (as opposed to the father, son, and holy spirit being of different form and matter [which is still argued by some denominations, see: Jehovah's Witnesses, as they deny all Ecumenical Councils]). Among the research therein, it is definitely quite interesting to see the arrival of certain theological elements in the NT, as well as the genesis of certain festivals, rituals, etc., that are often taken for granted as 'always have beens'.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by BLADE74 View Post
    None started, the whole bible is a love story BUT the old testament was mainly law, the new testament was when the second Adam (Jesus) came down to show us how to worship and pray. Both are loving no doubt but now the Laws are embedded in our hearts and we no longer need the Old unless we want to reverty back to some things we have questions about. Sorry If my post came off like there was no love in old testament.
    Just having a little fun, the OT in general is a fairly angry book when read in its entirety, IMO
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I think it would be a better translation to say that Christmas is a spin-off of what was a pagan holiday. Christmas is exactly what it is; a celebration of the birth of Jesus.

    Definitely interesting stuff, though. I just read up on the history of Christmas.

    the only small issue with that is that according to the scenery as described in the bible, Jesus was not born in December. It is based primarily on Sol Invictus, with other references on Mithrasism.

    It is totally understandable for cultures to intermingle traditions in this way. I mean the greeks and romans shared the same gods with different names, it makes sense for it to be in this fashion

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Just having a little fun, the OT in general is a fairly angry book when read in its entirety, IMO
    I agree with that totally. The Torrah and New Testament were never meant to be combined, and that was actually a conscious decision of the councils mentioned above to amalgamate them. If it seems there is a disjunction between the two, there is. The Torrah was written with no intention to be combined with, or form the basis of, another religion.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by BLADE74 View Post
    Moses didn't part the sea, God did. It's ok that you feel the way you feel. If anything, you can read a great love story called the bible about a God who loved his people soo much he'd move the waters, mountains, for them. But if you are coming on this thread to cause strife, please don't. Non-believers need not apply. I pray in the name of Jesus that he bring you salvation and show you his face. I've got many personal experiences with the Holy Spirit. I've spoken in Holy tongues, I've been filled with the visions of the holy ghost, I know He is real. Someday you will to my friend. Some eyes have been shielded from Jesus for good reasons but in the end we all find out the truth.
    I'm definitely not trying to cause strife just voicing my opinion. I was actually raised catholic and have made my conformation. It wasn't until i lived in korea for a year that i realized i"m not a believer. I honestly think the bible was made up by certain people to keep things from becoming total chaos. I do think it is a great thing that people believe in something, it gives you hope that when you die there is an afterlife. i believe there is an afterlife but not heaven or hell. i believe our energy goes somewhere else and we are reborn again. That may sound stupid to some but hey that what keeps me in check. if ur negative and a bad person you are bad energy, and you will not be happy with where your energy goes. it's interesting when you get to view first hand what other cultures believe and how it can change what you were FORCED to believe.
    •   
       


  6. I don't know about the birth of Christ since he wasn't born in December... Don't get me wrong, since i'm a believer in Christ i just think that man corrupts and bends everything to suit his needs that we have to look much deeper to find the truth as it was meant to be and not as it is shown to us on the surface. Christmas today is rarely if ever celebrated in anyone's name, other than the almighty dollar.

    Just an old, angry man's observation.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    I don't know about the birth of Christ since he wasn't born in December... Don't get me wrong, since i'm a believer in Christ i just think that man corrupts and bends everything to suit his needs that we have to look much deeper to find the truth as it was meant to be and not as it is shown to us on the surface. Christmas today is rarely if ever celebrated in anyone's name, other than the almighty dollar.

    Just an old, angry man's observation.
    Ya, I didn't necessarily mean it's Jesus' exact birthday, just a celebration of it, or the celebration of such an amazing savior. I fully agree with you that Christmas is more commercial than anything these days. Linus had it right the first time...


  8. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I agree with that totally. The Torrah and New Testament were never meant to be combined, and that was actually a conscious decision of the councils mentioned above to amalgamate them. If it seems there is a disjunction between the two, there is. The Torrah was written with no intention to be combined with, or form the basis of, another religion.
    If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which I do, you might see things a little different. An omnipotent being would indeed have inspired the writings knowing full well they
    would be combined as the New is the fulfillment of the old. Christ said: "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."

    The old testament is full of prophetic references to the messiah, whom Christians believe is Jesus and those who remain in Judaism are still waiting for Him.

    In Matthew 27:46
    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    This is a direct reference to Psalm 22. Psalm 22 is especially amazing since it predicted 11 separate things about Jesus’ crucifixion about a thousand years before they happened.

    The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15- Galatians 4:4

    The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed. Genesis 12:3; 18:18 - Acts 3:25,26

    The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah. Genesis 49:10 - Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33

    The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses . Deuteronomy 18:15-19 Acts 3:22,23

    The Messiah will be the Son of God. Psalm 2:7 - Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22

    The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected). Psalm 16:10,11 Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32

    The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies) Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30

    The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked. Psalm 22:7 - Luke 23:11,35-39

    The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet. Psalm 22:16 Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;
    John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27

    The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death). Psalm 22:17 and 34:20 - John 19:31-33,36

    Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing. Psalm 22:18 - Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24

    The Messiah will accused by false witnesses. Psalm 35:11 - Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57

    The Messiah will be a born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14 - Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35

    The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee. Isaiah 9:1-7 - Matthew 4:12-16

    The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc. Isaiah 35:5-6 Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47

    The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon. Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31

    The “Gospel according to Isaiah” Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

    People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah). Isaiah 53:1 John 12:37,38

    The Messiah will be killed. Isaiah 53:5-9 Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30

    The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14

    The Messiah will be buried with the rich. Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42

    The Messiah will be crucified with criminals. Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33

    The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf). Isaiah 59:16 Hebrews 9:15

    The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7

    The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey. Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 21:1-11

    The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver. Zechariah 11:12,13 Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10

    The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples. Zechariah 13:7 Matthew 26:31,56

    Just to name a few. And a council decided these should be joined together? I would say they made a good call.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  9. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which I do, you might see things a little different. An omnipotent being would indeed have inspired the writings knowing full well they
    would be combined as the New is the fulfillment of the old. Christ said: "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."

    The old testament is full of prophetic references to the messiah, whom Christians believe is Jesus and those who remain in Judaism are still waiting for Him.

    In Matthew 27:46
    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    This is a direct reference to Psalm 22. Psalm 22 is especially amazing since it predicted 11 separate things about Jesus’ crucifixion about a thousand years before they happened.

    The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15- Galatians 4:4

    The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed. Genesis 12:3; 18:18 - Acts 3:25,26

    The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah. Genesis 49:10 - Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33

    The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses . Deuteronomy 18:15-19 Acts 3:22,23

    The Messiah will be the Son of God. Psalm 2:7 - Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22

    The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected). Psalm 16:10,11 Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32

    The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies) Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30

    The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked. Psalm 22:7 - Luke 23:11,35-39

    The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet. Psalm 22:16 Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;
    John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27

    The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death). Psalm 22:17 and 34:20 - John 19:31-33,36

    Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing. Psalm 22:18 - Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24

    The Messiah will accused by false witnesses. Psalm 35:11 - Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57

    The Messiah will be a born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14 - Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35

    The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee. Isaiah 9:1-7 - Matthew 4:12-16

    The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc. Isaiah 35:5-6 Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47

    The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon. Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31

    The “Gospel according to Isaiah” Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

    People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah). Isaiah 53:1 John 12:37,38

    The Messiah will be killed. Isaiah 53:5-9 Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30

    The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14

    The Messiah will be buried with the rich. Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42

    The Messiah will be crucified with criminals. Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33

    The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf). Isaiah 59:16 Hebrews 9:15

    The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7

    The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey. Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 21:1-11

    The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver. Zechariah 11:12,13 Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10

    The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples. Zechariah 13:7 Matthew 26:31,56

    Just to name a few. And a council decided these should be joined together? I would say they made a good call.
    Well, there is obvious fallacy there, insofar as the claim to universality of god's inspired word. If such was true, denominational segregation would not exist, as all canon would have essentially the same interpretation. But, I digress.

    I believe it was not until 350 AD when the Torah and NT were combined, so, yes, a council did decide they should be amalgamated though I am not sure the specific name.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by BLADE74 View Post
    None started, the whole bible is a love story BUT the old testament was mainly law, the new testament was when the second Adam (Jesus) came down to show us how to worship and pray. Both are loving no doubt but now the Laws are embedded in our hearts and we no longer need the Old unless we want to reverty back to some things we have questions about. Sorry If my post came off like there was no love in old testament.


    Interestingly, I'm a Christian, buy Proverbs is probably my favorite book.

    Any person can apply the wisdom from that book into their lives, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof), and reap massive benefits.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by brogers View Post


    Interestingly, I'm a Christian, buy Proverbs is probably my favorite book.

    Any person can apply the wisdom from that book into their lives, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof), and reap massive benefits.
    That's why I had mentioned if anything it is a great love story and has many great moral principals. One can be non religious to say the least and still lead a good, moral, life. What people failt to recognize is that many are false religions and all are man-made. Whether one believes in a higher power or GOD or sun God or whatver they are good people when they don't follow sexual immorality, steal, hurt, murder, etc. Proverbs is an awesome book that some can say gave thr fortune cookies the saying they have or ancient chinese wisdom. lol

  12. I like the book of Job. It relates to our own suffering today.

  13. I most definitely believe that the Old Testament and New Testament were meant to be brought together. The New Testament fullfills so much prophecy found in the Torrah.

    I think what a lot of people fail to do when they read the Bible is truly study the words. They read it line by line, and to truly understand the Bible, you must really dig into it. Ask the questions, "Who? What? When? Where? Why?" - There are lots of parts in the Bible (Old and New Testament) that speak only to a specific group of people for a specific reason.

    I often hear people bringing up parts of the Old Testament, such as the slaughter of children and women, as in the city of Jericho. They ask, "If God loves everyone, why would he let that happen to people?" - You MUST take out the bad before you can begin the good. I have no problem believing that some people (even children in certain cases) are so beyond twisted that they can no longer be transformed into a respectable person. Not to mention, some parts of the Bible where murderous acts have taken place, God never wanted to happen; much of it is to show how terrible one truly is, and how God's love can transform an evil heart.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by ReaperX View Post
    I like the book of Job. It relates to our own suffering today.
    Job was an AMAZING man. I have him on my myspace under the people I'd like to meet.

  15. "Thou he slay me I will maintain mine own ways" Is one of my favorites of Job. And yes Cannon, God did allow people be killed and also killed some himself in order to make known to the people he soo loved, WHO he was. Lots of people struggle with things when theyare bad ans say "If there's God then why did he allow this top happen" and the answer: Because he boils us like raw Gold and rids us of our impurities and then blows the top of it where all the soot formed to make us pure gold and ready to live our eternal life with Him. Another thing is that many people take their past as scars and never truly release them and I must say this to those who can't let it go.

    There is nothing you can do NOW that will change your past, but EVERYTHING you do now will change your future!

    Find the positive in every negative you have faced, and take life's chapters as lessons of growth for your future. Things DO happen for reasons and that's just so you can be a HOLY testimony for your God and help others remove the shield from their eyes and also see with Faith eyes not human.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Well, there is obvious fallacy there, insofar as the claim to universality of god's inspired word. If such was true, denominational segregation would not exist, as all canon would have essentially the same interpretation. But, I digress.

    I believe it was not until 350 AD when the Torah and NT were combined, so, yes, a council did decide they should be amalgamated though I am not sure the specific name.
    it was the 4th century with Hippo and Nicea I believe where this was decided.
    Also in terms of the OT prophecy, keep in mind that it is believed that with Jesus (yeshua) being a Nazarene, he would be an OT scholar. Therefore knowing what prophecy would need to be fufilled and when. That gave him foreknowledge of what actions need to be taken. Not saying that it is or isnt true, but just pointing out the facts.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    it was the 4th century with Hippo and Nicea I believe where this was decided.
    Also in terms of the OT prophecy, keep in mind that it is believed that with Jesus (yeshua) being a Nazarene, he would be an OT scholar. Therefore knowing what prophecy would need to be fufilled and when. That gave him foreknowledge of what actions need to be taken. Not saying that it is or isnt true, but just pointing out the facts.
    So he decided where he would be born and whom he would be a descendant of? Do you realize how many prophesies there were regarding his ancestry, birth, ministry, death burial and resurrection? If you did, I don't think you would really pose that argument.

    Besides, what would one have to gain even if this ruse was possible? No wealth, no women, torture and finally crucification.

    And what of His followers who Proclaimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ? What did they have to gain for lying? Every one of his disciples were martyred. A man might die for something he believes to be true but certainly not for something he knows to be a lie.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I think it would be a better translation to say that Christmas is a spin-off of what was a pagan holiday. Christmas is exactly what it is; a celebration of the birth of Jesus.

    Definitely interesting stuff, though. I just read up on the history of Christmas.
    to be more precise, "Christmas" is a Christian observance grafted on to the pre-existing celebrations of the Winter Solstice (the olde 'Yuletide') in an effort to hijack a season that had held religious, spiritual and communal significance for many cultures for thousands of years before the coming of Christ.

    Over the course of a thousand years, the original significance of the "rebirth of the Sun" was replaced by the "birth of the Son", and the original meaning of the season was driven out, even though many ancient folk customs remain as part of the culture of the season.

    While I completely agree that there is no Christmas without Christ, I must say: Jesus IS NOT the "reason for the Season"...and never has been.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    to be more precise, "Christmas" is a Christian observance grafted on to the pre-existing celebrations of the Winter Solstice (the olde 'Yuletide') in an effort to hijack a season that had held religious, spiritual and communal significance for many cultures for thousands of years before the coming of Christ.

    Over the course of a thousand years, the original significance of the "rebirth of the Sun" was replaced by the "birth of the Son", and the original meaning of the season was driven out, even though many ancient folk customs remain as part of the culture of the season.

    While I completely agree that there is no Christmas without Christ, I must say: Jesus IS NOT the "reason for the Season"...and never has been.

    They're two seperate celebrations. Let those who worship the sun celebrate it how they so choose. I'll celebrate the birth of my savior and call it Christmas.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I most definitely believe that the Old Testament and New Testament were meant to be brought together. The New Testament fullfills so much prophecy found in the Torrah.

    I think what a lot of people fail to do when they read the Bible is truly study the words. They read it line by line, and to truly understand the Bible, you must really dig into it. Ask the questions, "Who? What? When? Where? Why?" - There are lots of parts in the Bible (Old and New Testament) that speak only to a specific group of people for a specific reason.

    I often hear people bringing up parts of the Old Testament, such as the slaughter of children and women, as in the city of Jericho. They ask, "If God loves everyone, why would he let that happen to people?" - You MUST take out the bad before you can begin the good. I have no problem believing that some people (even children in certain cases) are so beyond twisted that they can no longer be transformed into a respectable person. Not to mention, some parts of the Bible where murderous acts have taken place, God never wanted to happen; much of it is to show how terrible one truly is, and how God's love can transform an evil heart.
    Context is needed, most definitely, in regards to theological study; but that is an assertion, I feel, goes both ways. Often times agnostics and atheists approach the bible as literally, in a historical context, as fundamentalists which is not an adequate approach in receiving its intrinsic moral worth. Believers, on the other hand, mistakingly take the bible for a pretext which is without historicity, which is simply not the case. Proper study of the bible necessitates nuanced approaches, as a universal approach is misguided at best, and naive at worst (this is not directed at you, but in general).

    I personally have on ulterior motives against christianity, but just a general aptitude toward investigation. I take nothing on face value, which, I feel, is a fundamental tenet of faith. A few things, though, I feel can be asserted in this regard. Firstly, the bible has contradictions, both intra- and inter-'canonly'. Whether they are of any significance is a personal distinction I am not qualified to make for anybody, but they are there. Secondly, the bible, despite its religious importance, is a historical text. This means that this book was written by real people, at a concrete place and time, with its own political, social, and economic agenda, which not more than likely, but most definitely, affected which canons became apocrypha. Whether any individual of faith chooses to accept this is of little concern to me, I will support your right to hold both your faith and that opinion in regards to it irrespective of your acceptance. Thirdly, the Judaic intention of the Torah, was not to create a book which would be later used in conjunction with any religious text, let alone form the basis of a new religion. This is an accepted historic 'fact' (fact in quotations, because any aspect of knowledge which presents itself as 'fact' as it pertains to the operations of individuals is a load of bull****) by historians and theologians alike. Once again, whether an individual of faith chooses to accept this or not is of little importance to me.

    In my opinion, one of the main hindrances of in-faithed individuals is their detrimental view of these types of facts. In my eyes, accepting the fact the bible is a historical document affected by historical factors does not diminish the veracity of your faith. In fact, I feel it would do quite the opposite. If the bible is the inspired word of an incorporeal god-head, than separating the constituents of the bible which are inspired from such a god-head, from those which were corrupted, is seeking out and not damaging your faith.

    I feel ignorance and openness are both non-denominational. It takes a certain acceptance of both sides in order to agree on any degree of inter-subjectivity. On one hand, believers must accept the historicity of the bible, and, on the other, non-believers must accept the intrinsic moral value the bible holds. A complete denial by either side, of either side, is merely ignorance. A philosopher once said, "the only facts which are universally untrue, are those which claim to be universally true".

  21. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    So he decided where he would be born and whom he would be a descendant of? Do you realize how many prophesies there were regarding his ancestry, birth, ministry, death burial and resurrection? If you did, I don't think you would really pose that argument.

    Besides, what would one have to gain even if this ruse was possible? No wealth, no women, torture and finally crucification.

    And what of His followers who Proclaimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ? What did they have to gain for lying? Every one of his disciples were martyred. A man might die for something he believes to be true but certainly not for something he knows to be a lie.
    firstly I think you need to understand that there is a lot to gain. Look at his legacy after death and those of his direct followers. I mean lets be serious

    Also, you need to understand the importance of pagan beliefs here. There are many ties from the origins of christianity (son of god and virgin birth) in other beliefs. It just makes you wonder

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Believers, on the other hand, mistakingly take the bible for a pretext which is without historicity, which is simply not the case.
    There are plenty of believers that fall outside of this generalization.

    Firstly, the bible has contradictions, both intra- and inter-'canonly'. Whether they are of any significance is a personal distinction I am not qualified to make for anybody, but they are there.
    Bahhh. These "contradictions" are mostly perspective and interpretation. I think it would be more appropriate to say "the Bible appears to have contradictions..."

    Secondly, the bible, despite its religious importance, is a historical text. This means that this book was written by real people, at a concrete place and time, with its own political, social, and economic agenda, which not more than likely, but most definitely, affected which canons became apocrypha.
    Well said.

    Thirdly, the Judaic intention of the Torah, was not to create a book which would be later used in conjunction with any religious text, let alone form the basis of a new religion. This is an accepted historic 'fact' (fact in quotations, because any aspect of knowledge which presents itself as 'fact' as it pertains to the operations of individuals is a load of bull****) by historians and theologians alike. Once again, whether an individual of faith chooses to accept this or not is of little importance to me.
    Generally and as I am sure you know, Believers accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a Believer, the Judaic intention of the Torah, though a ‘fact’ you say, is irrelevant compared to God’s intention.

    In my eyes, accepting the fact the bible is a historical document affected by historical factors does not diminish the veracity of your faith.
    Could not agree more…

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    There are plenty of believers that fall outside of this generalization.
    True, however, I think it not a stretch to subsume most under that authority. When the predominant vestige of Christianity falls under the moniker of 'papal authority', I do not feel it was an overstatement. I am not generalizing all Christian action upon Catholic lines, but, in my experience, the majority of believers believe in the universality of the bible


    Bahhh. These "contradictions" are mostly perspective and interpretation. I think it would be more appropriate to say "the Bible appears to have contradictions..."
    I take it you have some theological interest, and as such I do not feel I have to spell out the more real than perceived contradictions of the bible. A tangible disjunction, in my opinion, exists inter- and intra-canonly, in both New and Old Testament apocrypha. The contradictions are there, in plain English (ironic, as they would have been in plain Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc., ).


    Generally and as I am sure you know, Believers accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a Believer, the Judaic intention of the Torah, though a ‘fact’ you say, is irrelevant compared to God’s intention.
    I made a point to expose its illegitimacy as a true 'fact' as most would interpret it, and rather categorize it as an elucidation, for the time being. With that being said, your 'gods' intention is irrelevant to the fact real, living human beings transcribed, altered, and shared the bible of their own free-will. Whether or not you choose to accept such a fact is irrelevant as well.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    True, however, I think it not a stretch to subsume most under that authority. When the predominant vestige of Christianity falls under the moniker of 'papal authority', I do not feel it was an overstatement. I am not generalizing all Christian action upon Catholic lines, but, in my experience, the majority of believers believe in the universality of the bible
    Fair enough.

    I take it you have some theological interest, and as such I do not feel I have to spell out the more real than perceived contradictions of the bible. A tangible disjunction, in my opinion, exists inter- and intra-canonly, in both New and Old Testament apocrypha. The contradictions are there, in plain English (ironic, as they would have been in plain Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc., ).
    Hmmm. Well, just for fun, maybe you could direct me to your most juicy ‘more real than perceived’ contradiction. I know we could go round and round about this until the rapture (or lack of), but I can’t resist.



    I made a point to expose its illegitimacy as a true 'fact' as most would interpret it, and rather categorize it as an elucidation, for the time being.
    In my original quote, I kept ‘fact’ quoted to acknowledge your explanation of the use of the word fact. All I was saying is that even if Believers accept that Moses did not intend for the Torah to be the beginning of the Bible, it does not mean a Believer must accept that the NT and OT were not meant to be together (as Irish Cannon said).

    With that being said, your 'gods' intention is irrelevant to the fact real, living human beings transcribed, altered, and shared the bible of their own free-will. Whether or not you choose to accept such a fact is irrelevant as well.
    I think this brings us to our key difference in opinion. I think the Bible we have today is the Bible exactly how God wanted us to have it. Differences of interpretation are man’s doing, not God’s. Also, I think most Believers feel that how God used 'real, living human beings' to bring us from the Torah to the Bible of today is….. oh, yes one more time….. irrelevant!

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    Hmmm. Well, just for fun, maybe you could direct me to your most juicy ‘more real than perceived’ contradiction. I know we could go round and round about this until the rapture (or lack of), but I can’t resist.
    Genesis I and II disagree on the creation order.

    All the Apostles disagree on specific aspects of Jesus' live, including, though not limited to: his last moments and resurrection, and the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (or is it Bethlahem? nevertheless, the point remains).

    Gospels disagree on the hierarchal order of Kings Jesus himself descended from.

    As well as many other discrepancies which invariably lead to a downward spiral of solipsism and circular logic between you and I. I.e., I claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have necessitated the 'fixing' of certain elements in the Genesis story (such as 'forgetting Adam needed a woman, and not having the Sun or Moon on the first few days), to which you counter that these were 'tests', and around we go. These types of disjunctions continue right down to Jesus' last words and where he died (cross, stake, or tree). Now, admittedly so, these have equally plausible 'explanations' to validate these discrepancies as they do to invalidate then; regardless, I am afraid, of one's stance on them, they exist.



    In my original quote, I kept ‘fact’ quoted to acknowledge your explanation of the use of the word fact. All I was saying is that even if Believers accept that Moses did not intend for the Torah to be the beginning of the Bible, it does not mean a Believer must accept that the NT and OT were not meant to be together (as Irish Cannon said).
    Truth, and I am not about to incite a millennium old religious debate on the convergence (unwanted, albeit, on one side) of Judaism and Christianity. Suffice to say I see the historicity of such an event, and you view the divinity.

    I think this brings us to our key difference in opinion. I think the Bible we have today is the Bible exactly how God wanted us to have it. Differences of interpretation are man’s doing, not God’s. Also, I think most Believers feel that how God used 'real, living human beings' to bring us from the Torah to the Bible of today is….. oh, yes one more time….. irrelevant!
    Exactly, and your faith in god is once again irrespective of the manner in which his word was transcribed, shared, and altered. Whether intended or not, for better or for worse, the inspired word of god and his disciples was altered by real men and women (though, admittedly, predominantly men [sign of the times and what have you]). So, I suppose that arrives us at an equal point of irrelevancy. I do not take into account the legitimacy of your opinion, nor do you mine.

    EDIT:

    As a final note, I think the most glaring difference between you and I is even as I type this I am fully prepared to admit all the things I am espousing here may be completely wrong. I am rather sure, you are not. And that in itself reveals the fundamental difference of in-belief as opposed to non-believing individuals. A great quote in that regard is as follows:

    I do not pretend to know where ignorant men are sure. That is all an Agnostic is.

  26. Genesis I and II disagree on the creation order.

    All the Apostles disagree on specific aspects of Jesus' live, including, though not limited to: his last moments and resurrection, and the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (or is it Bethlahem? nevertheless, the point remains).

    Gospels disagree on the hierarchal order of Kings Jesus himself descended from.

    As well as many other discrepancies which invariably lead to a downward spiral of solipsism and circular logic between you and I. I.e., I claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have necessitated the 'fixing' of certain elements in the Genesis story (such as 'forgetting Adam needed a woman, and not having the Sun or Moon on the first few days), to which you counter that these were 'tests', and around we go. These types of disjunctions continue right down to Jesus' last words and where he died (cross, stake, or tree). Now, admittedly so, these have equally plausible 'explanations' to validate these discrepancies as they do to invalidate then; regardless, I am afraid, of one's stance on them, they exist.
    And none of this begins to mention the massive issues of translating symbolic, conceptual languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) into denotative, letter based ones (French [admittedly less baron than English], English, etc.,)

    In Hebrew and/or Greek and/or Aramaic, single symbols can constitute rich poetic descriptions and concepts which get, to use a cliche, 'lost in translation'. Obviously, such is not the case as our symbols are in fact arbitrary letters which merely represent irreduceable sounds.

    However, even moreso what is being lost, is the fact I do not give a ****! I have written way too many essays in the past few days to be arguing about this. Sorry bud. Haha.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    firstly I think you need to understand that there is a lot to gain. Look at his legacy after death and those of his direct followers. I mean lets be serious

    Also, you need to understand the importance of pagan beliefs here. There are many ties from the origins of christianity (son of god and virgin birth) in other beliefs. It just makes you wonder
    So you are saying that it would be totally worth it to live a life of servitude which also consisted of regular beatings ending in a horrible death simply to have your name go down in the History books? Not even knowing for sure if you WOULD even be remembered and all the time knowing that you are lying about the resurrection and this life is all there is? DO you not see the absurdity of that claim?

    The New Testament writers believed what they were saying was true. Christ believed He was God. That is the only reasonable explanation IMO.

    Could I be wrong about all this? Sure, and I freely admit it. If I KNEW it I wouldn't describe it as BELIEVE. I know my brother but I don't say I 'believe' in my brother. (unless of course we are talking about something like character where of course I couldn't be certain and know but believe he may be efficacious or upstanding in that regard)
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  28. Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

    You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

    And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

    You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

    And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.
    I would add: the validity of an account of various witnesses is typically invalidated by exact rendering of the events. It suggest collusion.

    To say that the various books of the Bible are corrupted from translation or even intentional alteration indicates a very limited amount of research on the subject. These books have been thoroughly scrutinized for ages by scholars from both the believing and skeptic point of view. Aramaic and Hebrew texts dating back thousands of years verify that what you read today is as it was then. The differences in the languages themselves can not be discounted but when studying them in the original language and comparing to the English translations they are in essence the same. Yes different strings of words are used to describe what in Hebrew may be just one word but that does not necessitate that they are incompatible to translation.

    This is simplified and I am myself no scholar but I have spent countless hours comparing the various arguments from both sides. If it were really that simple to discount, I would have done so and gone on living a life for myself certain that once I am in the grave, there is nothing more; so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

    I may be wrong ... but I sure hope that I am right!
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  30. NSCA - CSCS
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Jesus Christ...
    By dertynasty in forum Get Diesel Nutrition
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 09:00 PM
  2. "Jesus Says" Avatar
    By Viking22 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 09:44 AM
  3. Dear christ, I wish I didn't own a Truck
    By Spectre32 in forum Politics
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 02:38 PM
Log in
Log in