Questions for Jesus-Freak

[fuelair]

hey
you
cant
ignore
SUPER DUPER
BIG TEXT CAN YOU?

A weasler ignores under the loudest of circumstances!

 

[Hokulele]

Well, they tend to be pretty obvious. If you read the Joshua passage in context he can continue fighting because the sun is still up. It is painful obvious that it is meant literally. In Ecclesiastes the way it is written makes it obvious that it is a poetic device. If you cannot see the difference you are being willfully ignorant. But since that probably won't satisfy you, let me also say that even if it weren't just obvious, the study of it in the original Hebrew, as well as general knowledge of the text itself would help greatly. For example, Ecclesiastes is in the style of Wisdom literature and it is given over to poetic devices. Ta-dah!

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think I am going back to Ecclesiastes again. It does seem to make my original point. Here is the quote in context:

[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

So, it is meant to be a cyclical fact in a list of cyclical facts. Although today we can say "That's just a figure of speech, it is obvious that they did not mean that literally.", I think at the time it was written, it was meant literally. The author and the intended audience honestly believed the sun "hasteth to his place where he arose" since they knew they were operating in a geocentric system. In the 1500's this began to change. By around 1600, most people accepted a heliocentric model of the solar system. After 400 years of heliocentricity, we view this passage and similar ones much differently.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?

 

[fuelair]

Why not? because you say so? The satisfaction of their guilt was already paid by Christ, so their is nothing for the wronged to seek. The debt of the sinner to the wronged has been paid in God's blood. When God's mercy mitigates his justice and he makes anew a sinner, then the satisfaction of his Justice was met by his own blood.

Not justice - you may think it is - and I do hope you are never in a situation where you find out how wrong that belief is.

 

[edge]

Evil Began with the Angels, Not With Man
But evil in the universe did not begin with man, evil began with the angels, in fact. with Lucifer, the highest of all the angels. Lucifer, later to become Satan the Destroyer, was originally God's prime minister in the court of heaven until he revolted along with a third of the angelic hosts. (See "Who is Satan?") Hebrews 2:5 says that the age which is to come (the millennium) will not be under the jurisdiction or rule of the angels. This statement implies that the age we live in now is under the rule and government of the angels. A careful study of the angels and their work as revealed in the Bible shows that God uses the angels not only as messengers but also as his instruments in the government of the forces of nature (storms, winds, floods, hurricanes, etc.). Angels are also mighty "princes" in charge of the affairs of nations (Daniel 10:10-21).
Nature Disrupted by the Angelic Revolt and the Fall of Man
The disruption of the old creation resulting from the fall of Lucifer and a host of angels is the root cause for death coming into human experience, as noted above. What is often overlooked, is the fact that nature itself was also drastically affected (Gen. 3:17,18, Rom. 8:19-22) by the angelic revolt. Lucifer before his fall evidently held "the highest and most important post in the administration of the universe...what we would call God's prime minister to use a human analogy." (Ref. 1). His defection from his high post in God's government of the cosmos was serious indeed, not only for man, but also for nature.
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
What are some of the possible consequences the fall of the angels may have had on the creation itself? These disruptions in the physical universe seem to have included some or all of the following:
· The "quality" of time experienced by our first parents in the Garden of Eden was drastically changed at the time of their fall.
· At least five separate "curses" from God which are consequences of human sins are mentioned in Genesis. In some way we do not yet understand the fecundity of nature was reduced by these curses, indicating a reduction of sustaining power from God into the physical creation. Opportunistic weeds, bugs, diseases and maladies are some of the results.
· The Second Law of Thermodynamics was apparently not in effect before the fall---the universe was previously self-renewing, The Second Law can be stated in three ways: (1) Energy to do useful work is becoming less available with the passage of time. (2) Orderly systems have a tendency to fall apart, collapse, rot and decay with the passage of time, and (3) The information content of a system (a measure of the degree of order) tends to decrease with the passage of time. Our once orderly, perfect universe is running apart, losing its order and splendor and becoming inexorably more chaotic with the passage of time. (Ref. 3)
· There was quite possibly no radioactive decay before the fall due to a greatly stability of certain atomic nuclei which are now unstable or marginally stable. Radioactive decay may be a consequence of the fall, (see Col. 1:17, 2 Peter 3:10*) (Ref. 4).
· Catastrophes and "natural" disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and famines were unknown in the creation before the fall. Predatory behavior in the animal world was unknown. Thorns, thistles, pests, and disease were unknown.

It's not God who does these things right now in our time.
This isn't to long for you to read is it?

http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml

 

[fuelair]

So do I, and you are irrationally bending mercy into meaning injustice.



Uh no, it is mercy because God does not make them pay for their own crimes. He maintains His justice, however, with his own blood.

Other than believing that IF THERE WAS A GOD, IT SHOULD BE HUNTED AND KILLED FOR ITS' CRIMES,I want criminals to pay for theirs' themselves.

 

[Beleth]

Islam is a Christian based heresy. There is a lot of evidence that Mo was exposed to Christianity and Gnosticism, the three biggest being his employment as a trader, the stories in the hadith that say so, and the passages in the Quran that are perverted versions of stories in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Gnostic works. It is painfully obvious that he borrowed his stories, and the errors in them prove them less than genuine. If you want to make an argument about what is revelation the Quran is the last place you want to look. Especially since it contains such golden nuggets of awesome as telling his followers to test what he said by the Bible. He failed the test.

Would that you apply the same level of critical thinking and study to the problems with Christianity that you do to the problems with Islam.

Let me guess. You were raised in a Christian neighborhood, weren't you?

 

[edge]

As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.

Which Jews the ones that had Jesus crucified and their linage there after?

Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.

That’s a lie.
That’s back sliding.

Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw.

Read my last post.

No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.

Read the post before that.

You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.

Ossai

So he was born into his house, his line?
Doesn’t say anything about genetics?

 

[SimonD]

A weasler ignores under the loudest of circumstances!

As typical with religious people they only answer the questions that are not to hard. Once the going gets tough they will side step the question, or, as I got a lot at school, tell you that you are a bad person for not believing in the Bible.

I am still waiting for JF to answers Slingblade's question in the "JF challenge" thread

 

[SimonD]

Which Jews the ones that had Jesus crucified and their linage there after?

The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews

 

[Lonewulf]

The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews

Er, it's not *really* that simple. The Jewish church did have a hand in Jesus' execution, but the romans were the ones that carried it out (though the Caesar did not want Jesus' blood on his hands).

However, Jesus was a rabbi. So if the Jews kill a Jew, then you could say that a Jew was martyred on the cross, therefore we should respect Judaism.

 

[SimonD]

Er, it's not *really* that simple.

It never is

The Jewish church did have a hand in Jesus' execution, but the romans were the ones that carried it out (though the Caesar did not want Jesus' blood on his hands).

However, Jesus was a rabbi. So if the Jews kill a Jew, then you could say that a Jew was martyred on the cross, therefore we should respect Judaism.

The argument that the Jews killed Christ has been used to murder them in huge numbers throughout history. I just feel that we need to make the distinction.

 

[hgc]

Which Jews the ones that had Jesus crucified and their linage there after?

I like that lineage bit. I guess you mean all the Jews who didn't become Christians, right? That lineage? Would those be the same ones making matzo with the blood of Christian children?

JEWS! Killing Christ since before you were born! Don't accept substitutes.

 

[edge]

Many Orthodox Jews are now turning to Christ they are making the distinction, recognizing the New from the Old, albeit slowly.
It was the way it had to come about, not every Jews fault, many where followers of Christ..........Gods plan.
You can't condem the whole population.

 

[FaisonMars]

Then you don't know much about textual criticism or you have been listening to too much Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar at UNC who wrote Misquoting Jesus, which is about the problems of reconstructing the "original" New Testament from the earliest manuscripts-- it's an excellent book. He's also written on the historical Jesus and on the gospels that were left out of the NT canon.

Are you casting aspersions on Ehrman's work? If so, are they based on any evidence that is not based on your faith? If so, have you presented your opposing view to the community of religious scholars?

 

[edge]

I like that lineage bit. I guess you mean all the Jews who didn't become Christians, right?

No, the ones who where evil and hypocrites there after, just like any other nationality.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.


Christianity is a Jewish based heresy.
Who where these that said that and acted on that premise?

 

[Ossai]

jesus_freak

Don't see anywhere that it says the earth is flat...but I can understand this one pretty clearly...
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).

Did you even bother checking out the link I provided. Put the quotes in context, they all support a flat earth; the Babylonian cosmology to be specific.

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

Why not throw a bit more context in:

9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.

10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.

11 The pillars of the heavens quake,
aghast at his rebuke.

12 By his power he churned up the sea;
by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.

13 By his breath the skies became fair;
his hand pierced the gliding serpent.

14 And these are but the outer fringe of his works;
how faint the whisper we hear of him!
Who then can understand the thunder of his power?"

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).

And a bit more

29 Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds,
how he thunders from his pavilion?
30 See how he scatters his lightning about him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
31 This is the way he governs [d] the nations
and provides food in abundance.
32 He fills his hands with lightning
and commands it to strike its mark.

Apparently YHWH is the one tossing lightning bolts around.

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

Babylonian cosmology. Look at the illustration on the previous link I provided.

I could go on and on but even non beleivers have to be pretty amazed by some of these.

What is supposed to be the amazing bit? The poetic language?

Ossai

 

[bruto]

If he gave us a perfect prophesy then things would be predestined, so we cannot know of the things to come exact hours, dates.
Only Jesus is able to look into the future clearly.
That would cancel out freewill also.
There are signs to read from them, “prophesies” as warnings.

He wants us to have faith, blind faith, which is different from the scales on your eyes.
When we remove the scales on our eyes we have faith and see even more clearly although you may call us blind it means the opposite has occurred.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not talking about perfect prophesy. I'm talking about reasonably unambiguous manifestation. It's clear, if you choose to believe the bible, that god once upon a time made himself quite clear. He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. He bargained with Abraham. He handed Moses the commandments, written on stone. He spoke to Job from the whirlwind. Why did he not demand blind faith in biblical times? Why now? Why should he demand blind faith? And what is the faith actually supposed to be in? The scriptures are ambiguous, their sources poorly known, selected from a much larger body of literature by medieval churchmen. The only reason to consider that the scriptures are genuine and divine is the authority of churches - the same churches which have for millennia used those scriptures to justify war, persecution, enslavement, genocide, political, moral and ecclesiastical corruption. Why would a halfway reasonable God demand that we exercise blind faith in the authority of churches, and why would a halfway reasonable God expect us not to question writings so malleable?

 

[skeptifem]

Don't see anywhere that it says the earth is flat...but I can understand this one pretty clearly...
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).

Many of those quotes says the earth doesnt move. Isn't that innaccurate enough? Would you defend the use of a school science book that said multiple times that the earth doesnt move at all? Or that bats are a type of bird(yes, the bible really says that)?


This is what I meant by choosing ignorance. You are choosing to be ignorant of obvious innacuracies in the bible in favor of pointing out what was correct, while still saying the bible is literally true. I would like to know why you wont even learn the opposing sides points and consider them. I would really, really like to know why you wont even look.

 

[Ossai]

edge

Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.

That’s a lie.
That’s back sliding.

How is that a lie? That is what the majority of Christian churches teach. Jesus forgives everything.

Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw.

Read my last post.

Where do you find that tripe? It’s the same as most of your religion, people making $#!+ up. Got any evidence whatsoever to back up any of what you posted?
Let’s turn it around. What would you accept as evidence to falsify the bit you quoted earlier?

No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.

Read the post before that.

I did. It does not address the point raised.

You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.

So he was born into his house, his line?
Doesn’t say anything about genetics?

Do you even know the messianic prophecies? Please list them.

Ossai

 

[hgc]

No, the [Jews] who where evil and hypocrites there after, just like any other nationality.

So the Jews who killed Jesus were evil and hypocrites? How so? Didn't God send his only son to die on the cross? Are you saying God's plan depends on evil hypocrites for fulfillment? I am sooooo confused.