07 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71Well probably not anymore. There is no more mention in the Bible of angels materializing after Jesus accended to heaven and no mention that they would continue to materalize into the future.
Yet the angels (spirit beings as you like to say) can take on appearance and as you said in a different thread the angels that is or how else could they procreate to create a hybrid race of giants? Your statements are contradictory.
Manny
Angels were used for different purposes before Jesus came to earth and it was usually to give warnings and to promote the coming of Jesus. But once Jesus completed his assignment here on earth and Jesus explained all that needed to be explained to us for the future and then with the finale warnings that were written in the Bible that involve our future, there is no longer any need for angels to materialize here on the earth.
The primary duties of angels are messengers from what the Bible describes. So now that the Bible is complete and very available for all earthwide, the need for angels to come to earth in physical form is not needed.
07 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75You know as well as anyone, that when two people read the Bible they see different things. All I have asked for is for you to give us your understanding of it and what signs you claim to have actually seen. You seem very reluctant to do this. Why is that?
Do you not have a Bible of your own that you can read for yourself these things described by Jesus in Matthew the 24th chapters as well as the other scriptures I've posted here?
Any book store will have a nice verity of Bibles you can buy and read this account for yourself...........
07 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk...I'm not being reluctant but as you can't seem to understand what the signs are very clearly describing in any Bible for some reason, I'll take the time to answer them for you and what I've seen as hopefully you have too.
You know as well as anyone, that when two people read the Bible they see different things. All I have asked for is for you to give us your understanding of it and what signs you claim to have actually seen. You seem very reluctant to do this. Why is that?
Matthew 24:4-14 (New Living Translation)
4 Jesus told them, “Don’t let anyone mislead you, 5 for many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah.’ They will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and threats of wars, but don’t panic. Yes, these things must take place, but the end won’t follow immediately. 7 Nation will go to war against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. 8 But all this is only the first of the birth pains, with more to come.
9 “Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers.[a] 10 And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. 11 And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people. 12 Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations[b] will hear it; and then the end will come.
Have there not been many evangalist in the last few decades that have come and gone claiming to be the Messiah and should be to one to follow?
Have there not been more world wars the last hundred years or more then ever in history?
Are we not hearing of earth quakes as never beore in mans history? In fact two major ones happened today.....
Are not more people starving today with result in deaths as never before and with the threat of global warming looming on the horizon, many more will no doubt follow?
Have not hundreds of thousands been killed in the name of Jesus and his message?
Has not sinful ways of life increased as never before? Many life styles that are completely against God's morals and laws are now being accepted into the mainstream as never before.
Do not Jehovah's Witnesses spend over a billion hours in over 250 countries
and year in the door to door teaching work that Jesus told us all to do?
So to answer your questions as to what I've personally seen.......All of these.
And yes most people that read the Bible come up with different opinions. But that does not mean that all or most of those opinions are right. The Bible says what it says and it is up to us to really search out by prayer to God to get the correct understanding of what the Bible is truely telling us even if it goes against mans doctrines or ideas.
07 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by finnegan======================================
[b] Would you show me some new invention in the book of Romans ? I mean something that I could not find in the four gospels.
Remind me of the dates for Paul and for the Gospels before relying on this line of argument for anything much. What you say implies they were written before Paul's teaching and / or independently of this and as such provide a ...[text shortened]... defend. As long as this thread remains on topic however, we are probably in complete agreement.[/b]
Remind me of the dates for Paul and for the Gospels before relying on this line of argument for anything much. What you say implies they were written before Paul's teaching and / or independently of this and as such provide an alternative evidence source. In reality they are part of the same process of what you call Theological Adjustment.
======================================
Any such impression that the four Gospels were written before Paul wrote Romans was not my intent. I know Paul's writings are our earliest NT documents.
I don't have time to study your other comments right now. Hopefully latter.
Though Gospels were written afterwards Paul still followed a tradition which reveals essentials about what the apostles were teaching before him:
See First Cor. 15:3-7.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHold the phone there, pilgrim. The subject of re-writes was introduced by you, not anyone else. I'm merely the guy who challenged you on it.
[b]This is an extraneous debate that FreakyKBH wants to import...
[/b]
Not untrue but it was in a different thread and that is a different debate. You have hijacked this topic here.
...because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
I 'feel' that way only because you've failed to support your assertions otherwise.
Well in fact on 14 March I ended my discussion as follows:
You wrote: As far as the 66 books being compiled over the course of 1500+ years, that's hardly a newsflash.
I replied: Precisely and similarly my comment that the Qu'ran is accepted by all Muslims is simply a matter of fact. I fail to see what you are debating here or why it matters.
Now, you quote me: Yes, once the texts were established and selected for the Christians they stabilised, quite so.
And you reply Gee, that almost sounds like you're trying to infer the intransigence of the texts prior to that time.
intransigent: adj: not willing to compromise; obstinately maintaining an attitude
Maybe you meant something different? I would not wish to put words into your mouth as you might suffocate.
Christians, as is the case with all sub-classes of homosapien, do everything they can to support their various takes on things. Now, replace "Christian" with, say, "finnegan" and either sentence remains true. Christianity, however, is not subject to such vacillation.
I was referring to Christians as you know. For example on this Forum they attack the Qu'ran as violent and say Christianity is not violent by referring exclusively to what Jesus said, neglecting to acknowledge that Christianity embraces the entire Bible, in which case their comparisons are not quite so convincing. For example I gave a quote from Jeremiah in another thread.
To say that Christianity is not subject to vacillation is a claim which requires a separate debate. I assume you base this on the premise that Christianity is right, we humans just need a lot of time and work to interpret it properly. So all the errors and vacillations are our fault not the fault of Christianity. This is of course an argument incapable of refutation. One day you could turn the whole lot upside down and inside out on the basis of a new revelation without ever conceding a failing. Which of course is what happens when you declare that 2000 years of Christian history is all not relevant because they had it wrong and of course the Pope is not a Christian anyway and never was.
Type in "authorship of Genesis" in Google search, and you'll see the first ten responses "generally" disagree with your characterization of the origins of Genesis. "Generally" is used only because two of the entries from wikipedia are closer in agreement with your view. However, closer scrutiny of the wiki finds its resources and therefore its overall reliability on a scale south of suspect.
I am not interested tonight in wading through the literature on my shelves to make an argument on this point. I am well aware that that would become a very extended debate. However I do not take my opinions from Wikipedia, though it has turned up some interesting stuff at times. There is a lot of literature written from different perspectives and I do not for example waste my time on religious bigotry, preferring decent history and some philosophy. Here it may indeed be that sources contradict each other but the judgement is not made by a majority vote, it is made on the quality of the evidence and reasoning. Some time I may get around to it but I do not have to write essays here - just put forward my own views. You may disagree with them but they are not as uninformed as you like to allege.
some early Christians had their priorities in places other than where intended by the Lord Jesus Christ. Shame on them? They're in good company, because--- as jaywill has pointed out--- the apostles were a bit clueless themselves.
So we are not in dispute here at all. That's good don't you think? I was not aware that your pal jaywill had any status as one of the founders of Christianity and his opinion about the underlying motivation and sincerity of these people is entirely imaginative on his part, however much you may agree with it. I have no reason to agree or disgree - it is his opinion, no doubt sincerely held after much thought.
....Did Paul invent Christianity? Hardly! He was out for their blood, until the Lord Jesus Christ Himself intervened and showed him the light. The point is, as the administration changed and we moved from one dispensation to another, some folks had it completely wrong, some partially right.
So the author of Romans was out for their blood? That is a ludicrous distortion. Obviously the author of Romans was a changed man from the younger Paul and you know that so you are playing about with words.
It may be that the Lord Jesus Christ intervened, but it was after the crudifixion that this took place. Certainly it was not the pre-crucifixion Jesus, not the apostles and not their supporters in Jerusalem and it was not in the Gospels. What Paul came up with was original and new and indeed an inspiration. It was Paul ( however inspired) who transformed the message from Jewish to Christian and established its key forms and themes.
Furthermore, your ill-advised use of the term "contradiction" serves only to highlight your ignorance of ancient Hebrew customs and literature. Ditto your unfounded blanket characterization of the supposed mythical view of ancient Jews.
I wonder if we use that word "myth" in the same way. It does not mean lie, for example, and is not inherently derogatory. Certainly it is so widely accepted that your foaming at the keyboard must have other explanations.
What a load of crap comes out of the keyboard in front of you. In that other thread, I challenged you on this issue, specifically, you said the Bible was subject to re-writes, whereas the Qu'ran was not, thereby rendering one less reliable than the other.
On 9 March I wrote: "Well I reckon the Qu'ran was indeed completed by 700 give or take. So 1,400 years is about there. Unlike the Bible it has not been subject to extensive re-writing, nor to selective memory according to the groups using it. All Muslims rely on the identical, unchanging text."
I do not see any statement about reliability. None whatever. As an atheist I am not inclined to favour either source in those terms. They are also so different to each other on nearly every level that making comparisons is close to the proverbial apples and oranges.
The point was about when the Qu'ran was written and this question is a lot easier to answer than when was the Bible written. So much so, indeed, that to enter into a debate with you about the dating, context and authorship of the diverse books in the Bible would be a wild undertaking. You may hold your view as you wish, but you cannot deny that this is a topic on which there has been debate and divergent opinions.
There has been no such debate about the Qu'ran. As I repeatedly observe, this is more a curioisty than a matter of special importance.
You could only justify your agressive position on the basis that you and jaywill are absolutely right and everyone who disagrees with you is worse than wrong. I think you are totally wasting your time here in the belief that you may have found some point on which I fall short of perfection and the mistaken assumption that in that case I might be upset.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by jaywill3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
[b]See First Cor. 15:3-7. [/b]
.,.....I passed on to you as of first importance.......
The thing is, it's about deciding what is important and what it signifies and what follows from this. That is Paul's contribution.
08 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I don't know of more than a couple. I believe there were just as many in the decades before that. Come to think of it, the ones I know of were from the 70's and 80's.
Have there not been many evangalist in the last few decades that have come and gone claiming to be the Messiah and should be to one to follow?
Have there not been more world wars the last hundred years or more then ever in history?
Yes, 2 of them. But I see nothing in the Bible quote you give that says 'world wars'. That is a condition you made up to try and fit what you have observed.
Are we not hearing of earth quakes as never beore in mans history? In fact two major ones happened today.....
Yes we are. But the same was true last century. And yet again, you have added a condition (news) that is not in the Biblical quote you have given. The actual number of quakes has not increased, only the news of them. The Bible says nothing about news of quakes.
Are not more people starving today with result in deaths as never before and with the threat of global warming looming on the horizon, many more will no doubt follow?
No, they are not. World hunger has been going down over the last few decades.
Have not hundreds of thousands been killed in the name of Jesus and his message?
Yes, but that has been going on for the last 20 centuries or so.
Has not sinful ways of life increased as never before?
Not that I am aware of.
Many life styles that are completely against God's morals and laws are now being accepted into the mainstream as never before.
Not that I am aware of.
Do not Jehovah's Witnesses spend over a billion hours in over 250 countries and year in the door to door teaching work that Jesus told us all to do?
I don't see that in the Bible quote you give.
So to answer your questions as to what I've personally seen.......All of these.
So you are very creative as to how you interpret the Bible. Is that why you were so reluctant to make a list?
How could you possibly expect me to have guessed all that? How could you expect me to insert things like 'news' or 'world' in the Bible in the appropriate places? Yet you kept telling me to go read it for myself.
Now what about the OP of this thread. Can you tell us what you understand by it, and what you see as having taken place.
08 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by finnegan
Hold the phone there, pilgrim. The subject of re-writes was introduced by you, not anyone else. I'm merely the guy who challenged you on it.
Not untrue but it was in a different thread and that is a different debate. You have hijacked this topic here.
[]...because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so and the mistaken assumption that in that case I might be upset.[/b]
Not untrue but it was in a different thread and that is a different debate. You have hijacked this topic here.
...because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
I 'feel' that way only because you've failed to support your assertions otherwise.
Well in fact on 14 March I ended my discussion as follows:
You wrote: As far as the 66 books being compiled over the course of 1500+ years, that's hardly a newsflash.
I replied: Precisely and similarly my comment that the Qu'ran is accepted by all Muslims is simply a matter of fact. I fail to see what you are debating here or why it matters.
Let's keep the order straight. In the other thread, you made the unsupported (and ultimately baseless) assertion that the Bible has been subject to re-writes... in contrast to the Qu'ran, which, according to you, is the unaltered text serving as the basis of faith for Muslims worldwide. When challenged for proof of these re-writes, you waved it off with a reference to Karen Armstrong
that bastion of intellectual pursuit, whose contributions to the discussion can be summed up in two words: speculative pulp
, and a vague-at-best generalization of the seeming contradictions of Genesis' two opening narratives. By any standard, your assertions did not stand.
With that background, in this discussion you attempted to trot/drag out the same dead horse, albeit with a new saddle on him. It's essentially the same crap, nonetheless, and you have yet to back up your claim of biblical re-writes. You have but one objective in the game: cast doubt on the veracity and reliability of the Bible. It's a cute ploy, but really rather tiring coming from a person of your obvious intellectual curiosity. Were you less robust in your thinking, the obsession would make more sense; however, you have otherwise shown yourself as far too adroit to sell this non-issue as a view you honestly hold.
Maybe you meant something different? I would not wish to put words into your mouth as you might suffocate.
Yep. I ought to have used a word such as 'vacillation' or some such. Thanks for looking out.
For example on this Forum they attack the Qu'ran as violent and say Christianity is not violent by referring exclusively to what Jesus said, neglecting to acknowledge that Christianity embraces the entire Bible, in which case their comparisons are not quite so convincing. For example I gave a quote from Jeremiah in another thread.
As you yourself have already admitted, the Qu'ran was put together during a predominately violent time. The Muslim world is all about submission and aggression--- struggle, in a word. Christianity makes some specific, unequivocal claims regarding the kingdom of God which place it at odds with any view (including those found within the Holy Roman Empire) which encompasses an earthly iteration of that kingdom. The Qu'ran speaks from such a view when it denies freedom of choice.
The dispensation at the time of Jeremiah's laments was unique to that time and was a precursor to the Church Age. To be sure, there is coming an exceedingly violent time in the history of man, as has never been seen before. It will be visited upon this planet by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself!
Which of course is what happens when you declare that 2000 years of Christian history is all not relevant because they had it wrong and of course the Pope is not a Christian anyway and never was.
Wheat, tares.
Here it may indeed be that sources contradict each other but the judgement is not made by a majority vote, it is made on the quality of the evidence and reasoning.
Well of course it is. And it goes without saying that anyone who concludes differently than you on the subject is doing so on the basis of bad input and poor reasoning. Ha!
So we are not in dispute here at all. That's good don't you think?
I feel no rosy glow, but it does offer some respite, oddly.
I was not aware that your pal jaywill had any status as one of the founders of Christianity and his opinion about the underlying motivation and sincerity of these people is entirely imaginative on his part, however much you may agree with it.
All it takes is a dedication to study and an open mind.
So the author of Romans was out for their blood? That is a ludicrous distortion. Obviously the author of Romans was a changed man from the younger Paul and you know that so you are playing about with words.
Aack! I was pointing out that this "Jew of Jews," a former high-ranking member of the ruling Jewish priesthood who was so fervent for the purity of his faith that he was a willing participant in seeking the destruction of those who blasphemed the Word of God, after transformation became the leading proponent of Christianity. To say that he had a different message, a new message other than what was put forth by the Lord Jesus Christ fails to align with the facts. Such a view demands that Paul be an opportunist rather than a man of faith--- which makes literally no sense whatsoever, when one considers the histrocity of Paul's suffering and ultimate death in the name of Christianity.
I wonder if we use that word "myth" in the same way. It does not mean lie, for example, and is not inherently derogatory. Certainly it is so widely accepted that your foaming at the keyboard must have other explanations.
Ask 100 people if the term 'myth' is equated with truth or fiction, then get back to me with the results.
On 9 March I wrote: "Well I reckon the Qu'ran was indeed completed by 700 give or take. So 1,400 years is about there. Unlike the Bible it has not been subject to extensive re-writing, nor to selective memory according to the groups using it. All Muslims rely on the identical, unchanging text."
I do not see any statement about reliability. None whatever. As an atheist I am not inclined to favour either source in those terms. They are also so different to each other on nearly every level that making comparisons is close to the proverbial apples and oranges.
Seriously? When you look up the word 'reliability,' does the definition give any indication of the term 'rely' within it?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reliability
If the Muslims are relying on an unchanging text and the Christians are supposedly relying on a changing, vacillating text, which of the two groups could be considered to have a more reliable base?
You could only justify your agressive position on the basis that you and jaywill are absolutely right and everyone who disagrees with you is worse than wrong.
I prefer to believe that I am right simply because I am so damn good looking. Heck, you base your assumptions on something equally specious, so I can't be that far off, right?
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou need to look at the big picture and do more research on these facts, then we can talk more.
I don't know of more than a couple. I believe there were just as many in the decades before that. Come to think of it, the ones I know of were from the 70's and 80's.
[b]Have there not been more world wars the last hundred years or more then ever in history?
Yes, 2 of them. But I see nothing in the Bible quote you give that says 'world wars'. That ...[text shortened]... Can you tell us what you understand by it, and what you see as having taken place.[/b]
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways. In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.
I wonder if we use that word "myth" in the same way. It does not mean lie, for example, and is not inherently derogatory. Certainly it is so widely accepted that your foaming at the keyboard must have other explanations.
Ask 100 people if the term 'myth' is equated with truth or fiction, then get back to me with the results.
A story may be considered true (and therefore a myth) in one society, but considered fictional (and therefore a folktale) in another society. In fact, when a myth loses its status as part of a religious system, it often takes on traits more typical of folktales, with its formerly divine characters reinterpreted as human heroes, giants, or fairies.
One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events. According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods.
Some theories propose that myths began as allegories.
- allegories for natural phenomena: Apollo represents fire, Poseidon represents water, and so on.
- allegories for philosophical or spiritual concepts: Athena represents wise judgment, Aphrodite represents desire, etc.
Some thinkers believe that myths resulted from the personification of inanimate objects and forces.
According to the myth-ritual theory, the existence of myth is tied to ritual. In its most extreme form, this theory claims that myths arose to explain rituals.This claim was first put forward by the biblical scholar William Robertson Smith. According to Smith, people begin performing rituals for some reason that is not related to myth; later, after they have forgotten the original reason for a ritual, they try to account for the ritual by inventing a myth and claiming that the ritual commemorates the events described in that myth.
Joseph Campbell defined myths as having four basic functions:
the Mystical Function --experiencing the awe of the universe;
the Cosmological Functionb --explaining the shape of the universe;
the Sociological Function --supporting and validating a certain social order; and
the Pedagogical Function --how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
My selection and highlights.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSuch a view demands that Paul be an opportunist rather than a man of faith
So the author of Romans was out for their blood? That is a ludicrous distortion. Obviously the author of Romans was a changed man from the younger Paul and you know that so you are playing about with words.
Aack! I was pointing out that this "Jew of Jews," a former high-ranking member of the ruling Jewish priesthood who was so fervent for the purity ...[text shortened]... one considers the histrocity of Paul's suffering and ultimate death in the name of Christianity.
Why does it have that implication? Jesus did not found a religion. Jesus did not determine how people might interpret his words and death. Jesus wrote nothing. According to you and Jaywill, even his disciples were idiots (which I would debate another time - a curious way to discredit them in arguments with Paul I suspect). If Jesus is the subject under scrutiny as it were, who determines its significance and who decides how best to carry the message forward? Who even decides what to include or not include in the record? Was his death a failure (as many people thought of course), was he to be resurrected as an Earthly messiah in their lifetimes, or could it all be interpreted as something very different?
Take your account - that the dead but resurrected Jesus gave Paul his inspiration through a conversion experience - and agree that in turn Paul used that inspiration and persuaded others of its importance and value. His inspiration was, of course, to see things differently - to give it a different interpretation.
Why is that "opportunistic" in your terminology?
I have to add that people have suffered horribly for very strange causes over history and that is not in itself an assurance of anything much that is helpful to us. Just the history of people dying for their (diverse) religious beliefs is vast. People have suffered horribly for trying to express scientific beliefs. People have suffered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is not a relevant consideration.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75I think I have done more research than you. You seem to rely on heresay an news reports for your information, and for your Bible interpretation, you are quite creative, adding in words in order to totally change the meaning to suit your desired interpretation.
You need to look at the big picture and do more research on these facts, then we can talk more.
Of course you know all this - which is why you were so reluctant to get into a discussion with me on the subject.
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not avoiding any discussion with you are anyone else. I just think it's sad that ones like yourself seem to be blind to the facts that the whole world can see as to the fear and confusion that most have wondering where things are going and how life is going to end up for us all.
I think I have done more research than you. You seem to rely on heresay an news reports for your information, and for your Bible interpretation, you are quite creative, adding in words in order to totally change the meaning to suit your desired interpretation.
Of course you know all this - which is why you were so reluctant to get into a discussion with me on the subject.
For example with the jokers in Washington DC right this minute who can't seem to find their way out of a paper sack in deciding how to run this government.
The Bible is very clear with it's description of what was to happen in the future of mankind with certian events that would affect us all, and what to do when we see those things happen. It is out of love from God to give us signs even though the Bible says the majority will not see and recognize them.
So I'm not preaching to you or anyone else but simply repeating what the Bible is saying to us all.
So either you fit in the catagory that sees and understands and then acts upon it, or you don't.
The Bible clearly says there will be only 2 roads in the future of mankind. The broad and spacious that leads to distruction, and the cramped and narrow that leads to life. So it seems the "crowd" doesn't have a bright future ahead........
09 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Here's a thought...perhaps the Bible is wrong! Or that your interpretation of it is wrong. Or perhaps the Bible is wrong and you compound this wrongness with a wrong interpretation of it!
I'm not avoiding any discussion with you are anyone else. I just think it's sad that ones like yourself seem to be blind to the facts that the whole world can see as to the fear and confusion that most have wondering where things are going and how life is going to end up for us all.
For example with the jokers in Washington DC right this minute who ca that leads to life. So it seems the "crowd" doesn't have a bright future ahead........
Do you seriously believe that any events mentioned by huma...ahem...supposedly inspired by "God" 2000 years ago specifically relate to events taking place now??? 😕 What about stuff that has happened all throughout history? Why do such scriptural verses fail to apply to those times?