-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
More than one god in the Bible?
- Thread starter DonJunbar
- Start date
rsaavedra
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 650
Kind of off-topic, and this might sound like joking but no I'm serious.
I wonder if this meaning of "El" might have been what the authors of Superman (Siegel and Shuster) had in mind when writing their famous comic book.
The father of Superman in Krypton is called "Jor-El", and Superman himself (Clark Kent on Earth) had "Kal-El" as his birthname on Krypton.
Anyone know whether this biblical root is what they based their character naming on?
The Wikipedia entry does mention the following:
Last edited:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,281
Then the Europeans arrived and enslaved everyone in the name of another false god.
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
I think it is normal academic practice amongst historians to approach such records from a non-religious standpoint. This in itself is not a comment positive or negative on the religious aspect for the various faiths that use these texts. If there are those whose start point is to knock or disprove texts purely because they are held in esteem by religious devotees then this seems to me to be wrong headed. If an Israelite is writing about events, say of the Babylonian captivity, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he knew where he lived and the events and people of influence at the time. He may use terminology that ascribes specific causes and effects according to religious beliefs (say a king going mad) but that doesn't mean the king didn't go mad. With luck alternative documents can sometimes be tied to Biblical references and these may confirm the events - they cannot, in my view, confirm the religious perspective ascribed to them nor is it likely a historian would attempt to do so.
Last edited:
I am being misunderstood.
Your objection would be valid if I were comparing Peter and Einstein as being educationally equal. However I am not. It is concept that is being compared.
Temporary toleration does not mean "not minding"
No one is trying to defend sin based on ignorance. Sin is sin regardless of ignorance. However, gentiles were never under the Law and were therefore not expected to follow the Law and were thus never punished for braking the Mosaic law. Only those under the Mosaic Law with all its stipulations, both ceremonial and moral were to be treated in accordance with the punishments specified under law.
Nevertheless, mankind in general remained under the law of sin and death and reaped death as a consequence.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
That is the operative phrase! "You would think!"
King James Version (KJV)
Isaiah 55:7-9
8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Permission of a bad situation doesn't necessarily indicate approval. It can be temporary in order to provide the necessary time to begin to set things straight.
Few Christians?
Many were never expected:
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Let's consider ancient Israel first: That is until the advent of Christianity:
Israel was in a covenant relationship with God which required obedience. The consequences of not being true to that Law Covenant were clearly enumerated and understood and agreed to. Part of the consequence of breaking that covenant was withdrawal of divine support. So the times when Israel was defeated were the times during which they-as a nation, had alienated themselves from God by breaking the Law Covenant. Under such a situation God was under no legal obligation to protect as he had clearly stated in Deuteronomy and that resulted in defeats and deportations to Assyria and Babylon.
That was the situation between Israel and God until the arrival of Christianity. Of course Jews will disagree. But from a Christian standpoint, Israel ceased to be under the Law Covenant with the offering of a Ransom sacrifice which instituted a new covenant based on grace and not law.
Once that Covenant was instituted, literal Israel was replaced by a spiritual Israel composed of those putting faith in the New Covenant via faith in Jesus Christ. Unlike literal Israel,
spiritual Israel would be composed of people from all nations.
By and large most Jews rejected that new covenant and strove remain loyal
to the original one still under the delusion that all remained as it had been.
But it wasn't. In fact, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies and the inability to reestablish the Temple along with the whole ceremonial law framework during the centuries to come proves that it wasn't.
So because of this changed relationship-the question is irrelevant.
BTW
If I missed any point-please feel fre to bring it up again.
Last edited:
Ya they are called Mexicans now. So since there are still native Indians there they apparently didn’t enslave everyone.
False is just your opinion and is moot.
So the lesson here is you get what you give and still if you kill by the sword you will die by the sword, If you take slaves you might just be a slave.
Lets say that the natives were superior and invaded Europe.
Where would you be now?
Probable nowhere.
Your ancestors would have had their hearts ripped out from their bodies on top of a newly constructed pyramid just south of Paris .I wouldn't be here either, or we would be born into slavery ourselves.
So we are here because of the grace of God what men do after, is from men, weather they perpetuate the real meaning or not of the religion of their times and it has led us to a better understanding in this age, as taking slaves now is forbidden practice world wide.
The Spanish mostly where greedy and zealous and catholic, they were after gold and spices just by taking slaves they weren’t adhering to the teachings of the new covenant?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,281
The above is so pathetic that I needn't bother to respond. Your bigotry and lack of reason is self evident.
SimonD
Rouge Element
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,092
'El' was also used in the 2000AD comic book series 'Slaine'. The celtic warrior 'Slaine' went to the 'underworld' to fight the with good 'Els' against the bad 'Els'. I wonder if the norse 'Elves' are related as well?
SimonD
Rouge Element
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,092
As a concept, I have no objections to the point you are making.
This statement seems to contradite itself. How can all men be subject to the law except were they don't know about it?
Which is an arguement from authroity - Don't question God.
God's wants all people to be saved, but doesn't expect much of a result? I'm glad he's not bowling for my team.
So not a forgiving, loving god, but a vengeful one. If that's the way he wants to treat his people, I'm not interested.
SimonD
Rouge Element
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,092
No, we are here by the grace of men. God never turned up at any of the turning points in history. Perhaps he didn't get the meno
The rest of mankind were never subject to the Mosaic Law. Only natural Israel was. Neverthless they were subject to the law of sin and death due to being sons of Adam who passed on his fallen condition via genetics.
BTW
The reason Israel was under Mosaic Law or the Law mediated by Moses, was because the nation had agreed to be under Mosaic Law after they were offered the opportunity at Mount Sinai.
In Exodus 19:5 "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."
Being under such law obligated them to follow certain ceremonial practices such as tithing, offer of sacrifices for sin etcetera.
I don't subscribe to arguments merely from authority and would never respect a God who doesn't permit us to ask questions.
The scripture is simply an explanation as to why some things which God permits or does are a bit difficult to understand from our limited intellectual finite viewpoint.
The analogy is false since a game isn't similar to the situation you 're comparing it to. In his heart he would like to grant salvation to everyone. But he cannotr expect everyone to accept his offer. In fact, he cannot expect the majority to
accept his offer. This isn't due to flaw of his proivision-it's due to flaw in human hearts.
Forgiveness is granted all people willing to take advantage of the Ransom sacrifice provided by Jesus not just the descendants of Abraham. Neither were Hitler's crimes approved of or mandated by God as you are assuming.
As to relationship with any particular people, a spiritual Israel replaced the natural one after the establishment of a new covenant:
Here is an article which explains it in detail:
Spiritual IUsrael
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK...ledesktop.homestead.com/spiritual_israel.html
Last edited:
Really, you got that from a scenario.
About people like the Spanish of those times.
Iaisha 56:11
11 They are dogs with mighty appetites;
they never have enough.
They are shepherds who lack understanding;
they all turn to their own way,
each seeks his own gain.
About the Indians that worshiped a feathered serpent god.
Rev.
19The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20Every Island fled away and the mountains could not be found.
There was little available land for occupation and the Aztecs lived a peripatetic existence, periodically being moved on by one state after another appalled by their savage ways and liking for human sacrifice. Eventually, they settled on some uninhabited swampy islands near the western shore of Lake Texcoco
The precinct also included the priest's residence, a large ball court, and a tzompantli on which the skulls of many thousands of sacrificed victims were displayed. Surrounding the precinct were the palaces of Tenochtitlán's rulers, two major market-places, and, beyond these, the houses of the town's inhabitants.Agriculture was intensive and heavily dependent on water control systems established in the Basin of Mexico by the Teotihuacan state. These water control systems were crucial both for irrigation and the draining of lakes. The Aztecs also made use of floating gardens by dredging lakes and piling the silt up to form raised surfaces.Aztec society was stratified into three main classes: nobles (pilli), who were relatives of the king; commoners (macehuales), who belonged by birth to one of twenty clans; and displaced and conquered people (mayeques), who worked as tenants. Craftsmanship was important and Aztec artists excelled in stone sculpture. Other nations, particularly the Mixtec of Oaxaca were engaged to make featherwork, polychrome ceramics, superb gold jewellery, and intricate mosaics.The Aztec state was a militaristic regime, constantly at war in order to conquer other states and force them to pay tribute, and as a way of obtaining captives to sacrifice.The Aztecs inherited from the Toltec and the Maya the practice of human sacrifice. It was believed that the main Aztec deities, Huitzilopochtli and Tezcatlipoca, needed regular nourishment from the blood and heart of sacrificed victims in order to perpetuate the continued existence of the universe. Up to 15 000 people a year were sacrificed, mainly by ripping out the beating heart of the victim who was stretched out on a stone in front of the temple of the god. High-status warriors, nobles, and priests ate the flesh of those sacrificed.The Aztec empire came to an abrupt end on 13 August 1521 when Hernan Cortés and his Spanish conquistadors took the Aztec capital and its emperor Montechzuma (Montezuma) II.
http://www.answers.com/aztec&r=67
BABYLON THE GREAT
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
13Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
9He who has an ear, let him hear.
10If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed[c] with the sword,
with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
Tlaloc, the god of rain and fertility, was greatly feared among the Aztec, who drowned children to appease him.
"Taking into account its position, the form, and what I can see from a side, it should represent the Earth God (Tlaltecuhtli), the Earth Goddess (Tlaltecuhtli, Coatlicue), or a nocturnal deity such as Itzpaplotl of Coatlicue," López Luján said.
Some archaeologists speculate it could lead into an underground chamber.
"The importance of the monolith is what we are going to discover," Alberto Diaz, a member of the archeological team, told the Reuters news agency.
"It's likely that it is part of a chamber, of some offering. We won't know until we get close. First we have to get the stone out."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061005-aztecs_2.html
The worship of Quetzalcoatl sometimes included human sacrifices, although in other traditions Quetzalcoatl was said to oppose human sacrifice.
Mesoamerican priests and kings would sometimes take the name of a deity they were associated with, so Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan are also the names of historical persons.
One noted Post-Classic Toltec ruler was named Quetzalcoatl; he may be the same individual as the Kukulcan who invaded Yucatan at about the same time. The Mixtec also recorded a ruler named for the Feathered Serpent. In the 10th century a ruler closely associated with Quetzalcoatl ruled the Toltecs; his name was Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl. This ruler was said to be the son of either the great Chichimeca warror, Mixcoatl and the Colhuacano woman Chimalman, or of their descendant.
The Toltecs had a dualistic belief system. Quetzalcoatl's opposite was Tezcatlipoca, who supposedly sent Quetzalcoatl into exile. Alternatively, he left willingly on a raft of snakes, promising to return.
When the Aztecs adopted the culture of the Toltecs, they made twin gods of Tezcatlipoca and Quetalcoat, opposite and equal; Quetalcoatl was also called White Tezcatlipoca, to contrast him to the black Tezcatlipoca. Together, they created the world; Tezcatlipoca lost his foot in that process.
The Aztec Emperor Moctezuma II initially believed the landing of Cortés in 1519 was Quetzalcoatl's return. Cortes played off this belief to aid in his conquest of Mexico.
The exact significance and attributes of Quetzalcoatl varied somewhat between civilizations and through history. Quetzalcoatl was often considered the god of the morning star and his twin brother, Xolotl was the evening star (Venus). As the morning star he was known under the title Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, which means literaly "the lord of the star of the dawn". He was known as the inventor of books and the calendar, the giver of maize corn to mankind, and sometime as a symbol of death and resurrection. Quetzalcoatl was also the patron of the priests and the title of the Aztec high priest.
Most Mesoamerican beliefs included cycles of worlds. Usually, our current time was considered the fifth world, the previous four having been destroyed by flood, fire and the like. Quetzalcoatl allegedly went to Mictlan, the underworld, and created fifth world-mankind from the bones of the previous races (with the help of Cihuacoatl), using his own blood to imbue the bones with new life.
His birth, along with his twin Xolotl, was unusual; it was a virgin birth, born to the goddess Coatlicue. Alternatively, he was a son of Xochiquetzal and Mixcoatl.
One Aztec story claims Quetzalcoatl was seduced by Tezcatlipoca but then burned himself to death out of remorse. His heart became the morning star (see Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli).
http://www.crystalinks.com/quetzalcoatl.html
Puzzling to some is how Quetzalcoatl apparently evolved into a white man. When Cortes's small force landed in Mexico, the Aztecs could surely have crushed it by sheer weight of numbers. But Moctezuma II fatally hesitated: Quetzalcoatl, like Douglas MacArthur, had promised to return and it would be an act of extreme impiety to take arms against beings who might be revenants of their ancestral dieties. Yet how could the copper-skinned Meso-Americans possibly believe that these hairy, white-skinned invaders were in any way connected with them either on the human or divine level?
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history/jtuck/jtquetzalcoatl.html
These were some real nice people!
The Spanish seem like cub scouts.
They were in opposition to the one true God.
http://www.talariaenterprises.com/product_lists/precolumbian.html
Picture of the moving snake pyramid.
http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/5.htm
Interesting that they had three classes in their society.
The North American Indians are a different story they were doing the best that they could. I would have loved to be an Indian of the plane states.
Last edited:
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
Exactly! The Spaniards behaving that way were not behaving in a Christ-like manner. That's why Bartolome de Las Casas went out of his way to call them hipocrites.
excerpt
Last edited:
900 years of the Moors ruling Spain and who was this inquisition directed at let see what you know?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
That's nice.
Still, it's baffling how a supposedly loving god, sits by and watches while civilizations are tortured and slaughtered into oblivion, in his name .
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
In the day and age of computers any such request is stymied by the power of Google.
However, my Master is in History and I am conversant with the doings of Torquemada and his intense dislike for the Converso (Jews, and to a lesser extent Muslims, who had professed conversion to Christianity) That said he didn't like Muslims or those he considered still clinging to Pagan beliefs or, indeed, heretics of the Church. He was an equal opportunity religious nut who just happened to especially distrust Jews. The Spanish were, as far as one can tell, the first to outline a notion of pure blood and the need to keep Moors and Jews out of the National blood line. An attitude they carried to the New World and a notion that spawned the seeds of the appalling racism that accompanied the subsequent enslavement of Black Africans.
How's that
A precis of 500 years of Old and New World History in about 150 words.The test isn’t over but will be.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=22&version=31
(Jews, and to a lesser extent Muslims, who had professed conversion to Christianity)
It was directed at their own people.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/67147
From 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas.
According to one estimate, 7,000 English people were abducted between 1622-1644, many of them ships’ crews and passengers who were stopped and seized by slave traders mid voyage.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
http://uk.altermedia.info/?s=slavers&submit=Search
Why do you make it out that the Spanish were responsible for all of the slavery trade?
It still happens even today but not on the scale that past history shows us, so it seems that God lets us learn from past mistakes to an extent.
What you consider lies but which countless millions consider truths.
I don't place people who merely disagree on ignore lists. I place people who deviate the thread via irrelevant insults or constant misrepresentation of what I say, or who choose to simply clutter the screen with an incessant mindless heckling and jeckling.
Such people add nothing but only serve to distract. So I see no reason to allow them space on my personal computer screen.
BTW
A recent moderator warning to be civil severely restricts the manner I might respond to to any antagonist. So unlike you and your atheist buddies, I'm more or less limited to the ignore defense.
Last edited: