PDA

View Full Version : NFBT: Biblical Pool of Siloam Uncovered


Pages : [1] 2 3

DanT
08-11-2005, 08:53 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/la-sci-siloam9aug09,0,3290951.story?coll=sfla-newsnation-front

Biblical Pool Uncovered in Jerusalem


The reservoir served as a gathering place for Jews making pilgrimages and is said in the Gospel of John to be the site where Jesus cured a blind man.

By Thomas H. Maugh II
Times Staff Writer
Posted August 9 2005


Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the Old City of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, according to the Gospel of John.

The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is "a much grander affair" than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, said Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, which reported the find Monday.

"Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit" to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. "Now we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was."

A gospel that was thought to be "pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history," he said.

Religious law required ancient Jews to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem at least once a year, said archeologist Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa, who excavated the pool. "Jesus was just another pilgrim coming to Jerusalem," he said. "It would be natural to find him there."

The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between AD 400 and 460 by the Empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several biblical sites.

The site of yet another Pool of Siloam, which predated the version reputedly visited by Jesus, is still unknown.

That first pool was constructed in the 8th century BC by Judean King Hezekiah, who foresaw the likelihood that the Assyrians would lay siege to Jerusalem and knew a safe water supply would be required to survive the attack.

He ordered workers to build a 1,750-foot-long tunnel under the ridge where the City of David was located. The tunnel connected Gihon Spring in the adjacent Kidron Valley to the side of Jerusalem less vulnerable to an attack.

The first Pool of Siloam was the reservoir holding the water brought into the city. It was presumably destroyed in 586 BC when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar razed the city.

The pool of Jesus' time was built early in the 1st century BC and was destroyed by the future Roman Emperor Titus about AD 70.

The pool was discovered by a repair team excavating a damaged sewer line last fall under the supervision of Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities Authority. As soon as Shukron saw two steps uncovered, he stopped the work and called in Reich, who was excavating at the Gihon Spring.

When they saw the steps, Shukron said, "we were 100% sure it was the Siloam Pool."

With winter approaching, the two men had to hurry their excavation so the sewer could be repaired before the rainy season.

As they began digging they uncovered three groups of five stairs each separated by narrow landings. The pool was about 225 feet long, and they unearthed steps on three sides.

They do not yet know how wide and how deep the pool was because they have not finished the excavation. The fourth side lies under a lush garden — filled with figs, pomegranates, cabbages and other fruits — behind a Greek Orthodox Church, and the team has not yet received permission to cut a trench through the garden.

"We need to know how big it is," Charlesworth said. "This may be the most significant and largest miqveh [ritual bath] ever found."

The excavators have been able to date the pool fairly precisely because of two fortunate occurrences that implanted unique artifacts in the pool area.

When ancient workmen were plastering the steps before facing them with stones, they either accidentally or deliberately buried four coins in the plaster. All four are coins of Alexander Jannaeus, a Jewish king who ruled Jerusalem from 103 to 76 BC. That provides the earliest date at which the pool could have been constructed.

Similarly, in the soil in one corner of the pool, they found about a dozen coins dating from the period of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome, which lasted from AD 66 to 70. That indicates the pool had begun to be filled in by that time.

Because the pool sits at one of the lowest spots in Jerusalem, rains flowing down the valley deposited mud into it each winter. It was no longer being cleaned out, so the pool quickly filled with dirt and disappeared, Shanks said.

The story of Jesus and the blind man, as told in John, is well known. Jesus was fleeing the Temple to escape either the priests or an angry crowd when he encountered the man. His disciples asked Jesus who had sinned, the man or his parents, to cause him to be born blind.

Jesus said that neither had sinned, but that the man had been born blind so that God's work might be revealed in him. With that, he spat in the dust to make mud, which he rubbed in the man's eyes before telling him to wash it off in the Pool of Siloam. When the man did so, he was able to see.

Count Alex's Wins
08-11-2005, 08:55 PM
I wonder if the piss survived all these years?

Count Alex's Wins
08-11-2005, 08:55 PM
Do you think Jesus could do a triple backflip off the high dive? No splash, of course. 10.0 10.0 10.0

Ari Chi3fs
08-11-2005, 09:40 PM
that is pretty awesome archeological find.

GoChiefs, if you have nothing to say, dont say anything.

You really need to fine-tune your BS filter, because you say too much dumb crap. 1/2 of what you post could probably be eliminated.

Count Alex's Wins
08-11-2005, 09:45 PM
that is pretty awesome archeological find.

GoChiefs, if you have nothing to say, dont say anything.

You really need to fine-tune your BS filter, because you say too much dumb crap. 1/2 of what you post could probably be eliminated.

Hilarious, coming from you.

stevieray
08-11-2005, 10:09 PM
Thanks DanT... :clap:

Saulbadguy
08-11-2005, 10:19 PM
Hilarious, coming from you.
Yes indeed...

Saulbadguy
08-11-2005, 10:20 PM
I heard that Jesus cured a blind man, but I never heard of this place. Pretty cool find if its true.

Count Alex's Wins
08-11-2005, 10:25 PM
BTW, does the saying "mud in your eye" relate to this?

Rain Man
08-11-2005, 10:41 PM
It'd be cool to be a workman and bury those coins if you knew that they wouldn't be found for 2,000 years.

I wonder if any descendents of the workmen will file lawsuits. What are 30 shekels worth with 2,000 years of interest at the prime rate?

Ari Chi3fs
08-11-2005, 11:13 PM
Hilarious, coming from you.

Luckily, the shit I post is calculated bs. I save my best thoughts for my personal journals and book I am writing.

It seems that you and Saul have to post any thought that comes to your mind. Both of your BS filters need adjustments... thats all im saying.

Count Alex's Wins
08-11-2005, 11:20 PM
Luckily, the shit I post is calculated bs. I save my best thoughts for my personal journals and book I am writing.

It seems that you and Saul have to post any thought that comes to your mind. Both of your BS filters need adjustments... thats all im saying.

My BS is as calculated as yours.

go bowe
08-11-2005, 11:21 PM
Luckily, the shit I post is calculated bs. I save my best thoughts for my personal journals and book I am writing.

It seems that you and Saul have to post any thought that comes to your mind. Both of your BS filters need adjustments... thats all im saying.hell, most of my thoughts don't make it to my mind...

that has never stopped me from blabbering all over the planet... :p :p :p

go bowe
08-11-2005, 11:22 PM
My BS is as calculated as yours.ok now, just how do you calculate bullshit?

by the pound?

or by the yard?

Count Alex's Wins
08-11-2005, 11:23 PM
ok now, just how do you calculate bullshit?

by the pound?

or by the yard?

By the dumbasseri (rep for anyone that gets the religious joke)

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 12:08 AM
You know I think that even if they would find the Ark itself, it wouldnt change very many peoples view of the Bible or the flood.

The Pedestrian
08-12-2005, 12:09 AM
It seems kind of odd that this pool is just now being discovered...no matter how much fluff the writers of the bible put around the stories, they always used the correct locations of "landmarks" to make it as realistic as possible. Besides, we already know that there was at least a philosopher named Jesus who had a cousin John...the question is whether or not the miracles really took place.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 12:12 AM
It seems kind of odd that this pool is just now being discovered...no matter how much fluff the writers of the bible put around the stories, they always used the correct locations of "landmarks" to make it as realistic as possible. Besides, we already know that there was at least a philosopher named Jesus who had a cousin John...the question is whether or not the miracles really took place.

Would it really matter?

The Pedestrian
08-12-2005, 12:14 AM
You know I think that even if they would find the Ark itself, it wouldnt change very many peoples view of the Bible or the flood.

One day when I was flipping through channels, I saw something on Discovery that said a large wooden ship was found on Mt. Ararat and would disappear during the colder seasons; but the Turks apparently won't allow an investigation to take place. Kind of makes ya wonder if it really is out there...then knowing that it wouldn't change anyone's view, it makes ya want to just drink another beer and watch the Chiefs win the SB on ESPN Classic again.

The Pedestrian
08-12-2005, 12:19 AM
Would it really matter?

It would put people a little more on edge about Revelation...

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 12:19 AM
It would put people a little more on edge about Revelation...

Why would you say that?

The Pedestrian
08-12-2005, 12:30 AM
Why would you say that?

The miracles are part of what makes the bible unbelievable to some people because they don't take place today without the help of technology. If people found out that the miracles really did take place as they were written without aid from canibus, then it would make more of them believe that what Jesus said in Revelation was true. Either way, we'll all find out in 2028.

deadbabyseal
08-12-2005, 02:39 AM
Either way, we'll all find out in 2028.
The world's gonna end in 2028? That sucks,I don't retire till 2031.

Taco John
08-12-2005, 04:21 AM
His disciples asked Jesus who had sinned, the man or his parents, to cause him to be born blind.



More proof that the belief of reincarnation was alive and well among Jesus's disciples. How could this man have sinned before he was born unless he did it in a life prior to the one he was living in?

Taco John
08-12-2005, 04:25 AM
The miracles are part of what makes the bible unbelievable to some people because they don't take place today without the help of technology. If people found out that the miracles really did take place as they were written without aid from canibus, then it would make more of them believe that what Jesus said in Revelation was true. Either way, we'll all find out in 2028.



ROFL What did Jesus say in Revalation?

Pants
08-12-2005, 05:28 AM
Don't you love that feeling when you're blazed out of your f*cking mind and then you concentrate on one thing so hard, it all comes to this ONE point and all of a sudden it just explodes and overflows and you're like "WTF is happening? Where am I? WTF?" You're completely clueless about your surroundings and go into instant panic mode, and then you realize you're here and all is good. You take another hit and finally realize that... f*ck what was I gonna say? I love that feeling.

Chief Henry
08-12-2005, 06:46 AM
Thanks DanT... :clap:


NO Doubt about that. This is rep worthyness to me.

Count Alex's Wins
08-12-2005, 07:56 AM
One day when I was flipping through channels, I saw something on Discovery that said a large wooden ship was found on Mt. Ararat and would disappear during the colder seasons; but the Turks apparently won't allow an investigation to take place. Kind of makes ya wonder if it really is out there...then knowing that it wouldn't change anyone's view, it makes ya want to just drink another beer and watch the Chiefs win the SB on ESPN Classic again.

I think the Ark of the Covenant would be a much cooler find.

ROYC75
08-12-2005, 08:29 AM
...the question is whether or not the miracles really took place.


The fact that you were born and not hatched is ( miracle ) proof enough for me.........

Electric
08-12-2005, 08:50 AM
this thread has been hijacked.

ct
08-12-2005, 10:25 AM
You know I think that even if they would find the Ark itself, it wouldnt change very many peoples view of the Bible or the flood.

Noah's Ark? (http://www.wyattmuseum.com/)

Electric
08-12-2005, 10:30 AM
The fact that you were born and not hatched is ( miracle ) proof enough for me.........

Ya know Roy, it's not scientifically proven that Chico Diablo wasn't hatched!!!

ct
08-12-2005, 10:32 AM
More proof that the belief of reincarnation was alive and well among Jesus's disciples. How could this man have sinned before he was born unless he did it in a life prior to the one he was living in?

Did you not read the response to that question from Jesus?

tyton75
08-12-2005, 10:43 AM
Very cool archeological find!

And it doesn't matter if they find every biblical artifact... it still won't sway non-believers... and as for if the miracles took place or not... thats whats called Faith boys and girls... if you believe, you have faith that it did happen.. if you don't have faith, then you don't believe...

is that hard to grasp??


and I'm an agnostic, so I have no freaking clue what I believe in, other than Jesus was a very powerful, well respected and wholely good person who should be revered simply for his actions even if you don't "believe"

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 10:47 AM
More proof that the belief of reincarnation was alive and well among Jesus's disciples. How could this man have sinned before he was born unless he did it in a life prior to the one he was living in?

That right there is funny......I dont care who you are.

Talk about context abuse. Man, now thats reaching!
It never seizes to amaze me that those who actually know very little bible accuracy, seem to speak loudest.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 10:49 AM
Very cool archeological find!

And it doesn't matter if they find every biblical artifact... it still won't sway non-believers... and as for if the miracles took place or not... thats whats called Faith boys and girls... if you believe, you have faith that it did happen.. if you don't have faith, then you don't believe...

is that hard to grasp??

and I'm an agnostic, so I have no freaking clue what I believe in, other than Jesus was a very powerful, well respected and wholely good person who should be revered simply for his actions even if you don't "believe"

True, and respect to the tune that the calendar we use is based upon his birth.

Sparty
08-12-2005, 11:19 AM
Not that I will get in depth of "The Book of Revelation" or the bible, but let's just say if you were a disciple of Jesus, why would you walk hundreds of miles to preach the gospel of Jesus. Also why would they put themselves in danger from the Romans or Jews who did percecute them by:
a) stoned to death
b) hung upside down on the cross to die
c) beheaded
d) beaten to death
e) prisoned...and their prisons didn't have TV, 3 square meals a day...

They did that because the witnessed the miracles first hand. Would you put yourself in harms way if you didn't beleive?

Don't take my word for it...research it yourself. Read a book by Lee Strobel "The Case for Christ." Don't bother posting anything until you've read the book.

If you wnat to know what Revelation is about, there are many books on that too. By the way, no one knows the time of the end of the world. Only our Father himself knows the time (Mark 13:32.) But Jesus gave clues as to know how close we are to that time (Matthew 24). Watch the Jews and the Palestine issues very closely too. Also, Revelation was not the only book in regards to the end times. The old testament Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Amos and a few others that have scripture regarding the end times. The new testament Mark 13, Matthew, 1 Corinthians are a few in the new testament too.

I've only studied for a few years regarding the end times as there are manys more individuals that have been studing it many, many years. God is still revealing information to them all the time.

As for me, it just comes down to faith. I'm not worried about the end times as much as I was worried about my salvation. I have been saved though and asked Jesus to come into my heart to change me. I once didn't have any faith or knowledge of Jesus or God. But I'm striving to be Christ-like but Jesus knows I'm so far away still. I would appreciate if anyone wants to pray for me to strenthen my faith and to live more Christ like. If anyone has a need for a prayer then let me know too.

Electric
08-12-2005, 11:23 AM
Did you not read the response to that question from Jesus?

TJ might read, but he can't comprehend much. He is a donko fan, or a donko's back side - I don't remember which.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 11:29 AM
You know I think that even if they would find the Ark itself, it wouldnt change very many peoples view of the Bible or the flood.

And I suppose if you found the golden tablets, you'd abandon your current faith and become a Morman?

patteeu
08-12-2005, 11:32 AM
TJ might read, but he can't comprehend much. He is a donko fan, or a donko's back side - I don't remember which.

I'm confident that Taco's knowledge of and understanding of the bible would put yours to shame.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 11:35 AM
Not that I will get in depth of "The Book of Revelation" or the bible, but let's just say if you were a disciple of Jesus, why would you walk hundreds of miles to preach the gospel of Jesus. Also why would they put themselves in danger from the Romans or Jews who did percecute them by:
a) stoned to death
b) hung upside down on the cross to die
c) beheaded
d) beaten to death
e) prisoned...and their prisons didn't have TV, 3 square meals a day...

They did that because the witnessed the miracles first hand. Would you put yourself in harms way if you didn't beleive?

Don't take my word for it...research it yourself. Read a book by Lee Strobel "The Case for Christ." Don't bother posting anything until you've read the book.

If you wnat to know what Revelation is about, there are many books on that too. By the way, no one knows the time of the end of the world. Only our Father himself knows the time (Mark 13:32.) But Jesus gave clues as to know how close we are to that time (Matthew 24). Watch the Jews and the Palestine issues very closely too. Also, Revelation was not the only book in regards to the end times. The old testament Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Amos and a few others that have scripture regarding the end times. The new testament Mark 13, Matthew, 1 Corinthians are a few in the new testament too.

I've only studied for a few years regarding the end times as there are manys more individuals that have been studing it many, many years. God is still revealing information to them all the time.

As for me, it just comes down to faith. I'm not worried about the end times as much as I was worried about my salvation. I have been saved though and asked Jesus to come into my heart to change me. I once didn't have any faith or knowledge of Jesus or God. But I'm striving to be Christ-like but Jesus knows I'm so far away still. I would appreciate if anyone wants to pray for me to strenthen my faith and to live more Christ like. If anyone has a need for a prayer then let me know too.

Why would so many Branch Davidians have allowed themselves to roast together in a GI bonfire if they didn't believe in David Koresh? I guess that proves he was the second coming. :shake:

But I do wish you the best of luck in the faith you've chosen. I hope it brings you lots of comfort in the trying times.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 11:36 AM
And I suppose if you found the golden tablets, you'd abandon your current faith and become a Morman?

Nice try.
The Bibles historical accuracy completely stands on it own.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 11:37 AM
The world's gonna end in 2028? That sucks,I don't retire till 2031.

I guess this settles the question of whether I should take the reduced Social Security at 62, rather than waiting until I'm 70 for the full thing.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 11:38 AM
Nice try.
The Bibles historical accuracy completely stands on it own.

That's not really an answer to my post. Although I suppose you are implying that your answer is "no, I have already decided what truth is and no amount of evidence can shake my belief." Which, of course, is what you are criticizing skeptics for in the first place.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 11:39 AM
Nice try.
The Bibles historical accuracy completely stands on it own.


The Iliad and Odyssey are pretty accurate, too.

Electric
08-12-2005, 11:54 AM
Nice try.
The Bibles historical accuracy completely stands on it own.

You can argue until death over the accuracy of the Bible, but everyone here that is trying to debunk the Bible has their mind made up or are arguing the point just to be arguing.

It has been stated by many theologians that a man can use his intellect to argue away anything said in the Bible. The difference between those that will make that argument and most Christians is that we have a faith factor that they cannot fathom.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 12:53 PM
That's not really an answer to my post. Although I suppose you are implying that your answer is "no, I have already decided what truth is and no amount of evidence can shake my belief." Which, of course, is what you are criticizing skeptics for in the first place.

I didnt say no, but I wasnt born yesterday either. You can believe what ever you want and yes I have spent a lot of time reading, reasoning and researching. There is a overwhelmingly amount of historical evidence that gives the bible it historical credibilty, almost all historians agree. Since there has been no book remotely like it, it would take something more than major to shake the credibility it has and there is nothing improper or naive in believeing that. There are people who dont believe that the Holocaust happend or that we even landed on the moon, even with the overwhelming evidence. Should I critisize you as being naive since you have already decided what truth is on these matters?

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 01:02 PM
That's not really an answer to my post. Although I suppose you are implying that your answer is "no, I have already decided what truth is and no amount of evidence can shake my belief." Which, of course, is what you are criticizing skeptics for in the first place.

The very first book of the bible says that God create everything in 6 days, and on the 7th day he rested. If you believe this happened in 6 days, stop reading here.



Many believe that a day was represented by a period of time such as 1,000 years, and that time is not the point of the story, but the point is that even God observed the Sabboth. If this is the case, and the very first book of the Bible contains historical inaccuracies told to make a point, then why wouldn't this re-occur in later places of the Bible?

First and foremost, even if Jesus was just a regular guy, the effects of the Pentecost and the effect he had on people after his death was so strong that they believed that he was the litteral son of God. Christianity was not some get rich religous scheme like scientology. These were people that were so moved by a man that they truly believed he was the way to heaven, and they tried to spread this good news. The effect of that same good new is felt by many people, including myself today.

I had too many unanswered question about religion, and turned away from it during high school. I have spent a lot of time studying on the events of the Bible, and I have read a ton of religious and historical books about Jesus and I have determined this. Everything in the Bible is 100% true, and a lot of it actually happened.

For example, Matthew Mark and Luke have Jesus being crucified on the day of Passover, which is Saturday. John has him being crucified on the day of Passover Preparation. Did he make a mistake, or did he change the actual events to make a deeper theological point? The day of Passover preparation everybody got the food ready, took their animals to the temple be sacraficed, then took them back home to put on a spit to cook and eat for the feast. On several occassions John refers to Jesus as the "Lamb of God", so it only makes sense that he would have Jesus dying on the cross as our sacrafice while all of the other lambs were being slaughtered.

I could go on for hours about the historical inaccuracies and historically proven events in the Bible, but it would only 1. Give reasons of doubt to believers that don't understand what it is saying, and 2. Give ammo to people like the "did they still find the piss?" guy to use for number 1.

There is an awesome book out by Bruce Chilton called "Rabi Jesus", that is a "Historically Accurate" story of Jesus' life. I quote the Historical Accurate part because noboy knows for sure, but it has most of the beliefs shared by the latest historical Jesus scholars. I think he made some mistakes, but he did a great job of telling the story about a bastard son of Roman soldier that went on to be so connected with God he was used as a sacrafice to save all of man kind. If you are a die hard Christian you will hate this book. If you are an anti-Christian but know nothing about the topic, you will hate this book. If you know the Bible, and you know at least a little about historical Jesus, you will love this book.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 01:11 PM
I didnt say no, but I wasnt born yesterday either. You can believe what ever you want and yes I have spent a lot of time reading, reasoning and researching. There is a overwhelmingly amount of historical evidence that gives the bible it historical credibilty, almost all historians agree. Since there has been no book remotely like it, it would take something more than major to shake the credibility it has and there is nothing improper or naive in believeing that. There are people who dont believe that the Holocaust happend or that we even landed on the moon, even with the overwhelming evidence. Should I critisize you as being naive since you have already decided what truth is on these matters?

Unlike you, I haven't expressed my opinion on what truth is so criticism of me on that count would be kind of unreasonable.

FWIW, it is my understanding that the golden tablets delivered to Joseph Smith by God didn't refute the bible, but instead added to it. The belief that your bible is true isn't incompatible with you converting to Mormanism (I don't know what the proper word is so I appologize to any who are offended by my use of "Morman" and "Mormanism"). It is just your interpretation of that truth that the Book of Morman would bring into question, if I understand it correctly.

BTW, I found your "almost all historians agree" comment laughable. I guess it depends on what you are trying to say they agree on.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 01:17 PM
The difference between those that will make that argument and most Christians is that we have a faith factor that they cannot fathom.

Yes, you've got a grip on something that many people can't even fathom. That's likely. :rolleyes:

Electric
08-12-2005, 01:22 PM
Yes, you've got a grip on something that many people can't even fathom. That's likely.

If I understood everything in the Bible I'd claim so, I was making a comment that has been repeated throughout the last century and beyond. You deny that what the Bible says is true. You can deny anything and everything it says, but it does not make the Bible any less true.

The fact that you have no confidence in what I say is of no consequence to me. Then again I have absolutely no confidence in you knowing what you are presenting as fact either.

Try staying at the Holiday Inn Express, maybe you will be enlightened.

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 01:31 PM
Yes, you've got a grip on something that many people can't even fathom. That's likely. :rolleyes:

You are exactly proving his point. I have experienced things that could be coincidence, but as I take all of those things into consideration it is obvious that they were not coincidence. And a lot of this happened during a time when I was not looking for religion, and not looking for the inconvienience of being involved in church. It is not that he himself has a grip on the faith factor, but there are millions of Christians in the same boat, people that are not Christians have not had those experiences, and when they do they become Christians.

I heard a preacher say not too long ago that the reason why some non-believers think that Christians are hypocritical, fanatical, biggots, was because they had met hypocritical, fanatical, biggot Christians.

It is easy for Christians to say "all men sin, I am not perfect" and use that as an excuse. A lot of times I don't even say anything about religion because I don't want people to associate my actions with what being a Christian is all about. I truly believe that 1 billion Muslims are going to die and spent eternity in a burning hell, but how long will a conversation go if you start it off telling them those things?

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 01:34 PM
Why would so many Branch Davidians have allowed themselves to roast together in a GI bonfire if they didn't believe in David Koresh? I guess that proves he was the second coming. :shake:

But I do wish you the best of luck in the faith you've chosen. I hope it brings you lots of comfort in the trying times.

After all of the Branch Davidians burned, if people continued to witness the miracles and power of David Koresh, then there would still be a following and the point would be more valid.

In this case 1. David Koresh was not ressurected, 2. the affects of his power and teaching does not continue to flow to people, and 3. nobody has ever found a likeness of David Koresh's mother in a tortilla.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 01:40 PM
If I understood everything in the Bible I'd claim so, I was making a comment that has been repeated throughout the last century and beyond. You deny that what the Bible says is true. You can deny anything and everything it says, but it does not make the Bible any less true.

The fact that you have no confidence in what I say is of no consequence to me. Then again I have absolutely no confidence in you knowing what you are presenting as fact either.

Try staying at the Holiday Inn Express, maybe you will be enlightened.

Knock, knock, knock... is anybody in there?

I haven't denied that what the Bible says is true and I haven't presented anything as fact (without appropriate disclaimers indicating that I'm not 100% sure of Morman teachings) either.

What I've done is responded to the few people who come across to me as people who have strong faith but who believe that their faith is rooted in some kind of rational discovery process. And more importantly, people who dismiss those who seem to disagree with them as people who "cannot fathom" the truth of their faith.

I don't have a problem with people who believe. I think that's great. I have a problem with people who make it clear that they believe they are better than others just because they have a faith to which they cling tightly and which others don't share.

I didn't respond negatively to KC King's post below because he seemed to be making a sincere effort to discuss a serious topic without belittling those who may not share his beliefs and because I thought his point was meant more to be read than to generate a response. I thought you and C-Mac were kind of condescending so I responded to the two of you. IMO, a "holier than thou" attitude isn't a good way to evangelize Christian beliefs.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 01:40 PM
I'm thinking about becoming a worshiper of electric, because he knows things that I can't fathom.

Uatu
08-12-2005, 01:46 PM
You know, Electric, I am down with the same spiritual entities as you are, but there's a good chance that by being condescending - and given your negative reputation on the board - you may be doing more harm to the cause than good.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Unlike you, I haven't expressed my opinion on what truth is so criticism of me on that count would be kind of unreasonable.

FWIW, it is my understanding that the golden tablets delivered to Joseph Smith by God didn't refute the bible, but instead added to it. The belief that your bible is true isn't incompatible with you converting to Mormanism (I don't know what the proper word is so I appologize to any who are offended by my use of "Morman" and "Mormanism"). It is just your interpretation of that truth that the Book of Morman would bring into question, if I understand it correctly.

BTW, I found your "almost all historians agree" comment laughable. I guess it depends on what you are trying to say they agree on.


Historians and Scientists are different...ha ha ha.

Electric
08-12-2005, 01:55 PM
Knock, knock, knock... is anybody in there?

I haven't denied that what the Bible says is true and I haven't presented anything as fact (without appropriate disclaimers indicating that I'm not 100% sure of Morman teachings) either.

What I've done is responded to the few people who come across to me as people who have strong faith but who believe that their faith is rooted in some kind of rational discovery process. And more importantly, people who dismiss those who seem to disagree with them as people who "cannot fathom" the truth of their faith.

I don't have a problem with people who believe. I think that's great. I have a problem with people who make it clear that they believe they are better than others just because they have a faith to which they cling tightly and which others don't share.

I didn't respond negatively to KC King's post below because he seemed to be making a sincere effort to discuss a serious topic without belittling those who may not share his beliefs and because I thought his point was meant more to be read than to generate a response. I thought you and C-Mac were kind of condescending so I responded to the two of you. IMO, a "holier than thou" attitude isn't a good way to evangelize Christian beliefs.

You are responding to this post without regard for the point being discussed, you are reverting back to things that have happened in the past. The base belief in Christianity is surrounded by the faith that each person has. You have made light of that faith in other posts on this thread. If I tried to belittle you it was because of your attitude towards what has been said. If I seem to be "holier than thou" it doesn't seem as if that is my problem. If I tell you that I am "holier than you" then I have a problem, I didn't say that. I know where my faith is and who is the source that sustains me. If I were trying to evangilize, as you have indicated, I wouldn't be doing it here. My inability to express my non-technical thoughts limits what I can do in this type of forum. I am not a public speaker so that is out as well. If you are offended by me, we both have a problem. If you dislike me because of what I try to say, you have a problem that cannot be fixed. You don't understand the direction of my communication and I am unable to put it into terms you can understand.

If you saw someone raised from the dead or some other miracle that is not medically provable, would you change your view?

Electric
08-12-2005, 01:57 PM
I'm thinking about becoming a worshiper of electric, because he knows things that I can't fathom.

I think you need to go find David Koresh, his kind is more your type for worship.

Do you have faith in God? Are you agnostic? or just an ass?

Saulbadguy
08-12-2005, 01:57 PM
Tom Cash doesn't really act like a good Christian.

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:00 PM
You know, Electric, I am down with the same spiritual entities as you are, but there's a good chance that by being condescending - and given your negative reputation on the board - you may be doing more harm to the cause than good.

My reputation on this board is cultivated to prove a point. It is also an ongoing bet with another member of the board. If I win (and it looks as if I will) the loser of the bet is to donate some money to the 37 Forever Foundation.

Don't get me wrong, I am a total asshole at times. I'm overly opiniated and offended easily. I lash out as people that insult me and the things I believe. It's a terrible job to have, but if it weren't for me there would be many posters on this board that wouldn't have anything to do but watch porn on their computers. Yep, I'm trying to save them from porn!!!

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 02:00 PM
I think you need to go find David Koresh, his kind is more your type for worship.

Do you have faith in God? Are you agnostic? or just an ass?


I am an electrician. For in electric, I find power.

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:02 PM
Tom Cash doesn't really act like a good Christian.

Well, that means that I do have hope to be forgiven for not being a good Christian. How about you, you don't show much in the way of Christianity with your comments. Maybe there is hope for you as well.

Pants
08-12-2005, 02:03 PM
Well, that means that I do have hope to be forgiven for not being a good Christian. How about you, you don't show much in the way of Christianity with your comments. Maybe there is hope for you as well.

He's jewish, you idiot.

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:03 PM
I am an electrician. For in electric, I find power.

Did you wire your homeless cart? I can't see the lights.

Do you need me to engineer a lighting package that you can put on the cart? I contract for $80.00 an hour for design and $145.00 an hour for programming.

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:04 PM
He's jewish, you idiot.

You forgot to ask me if I cared about his religion. I don't.

Something else you may want to consider. I do not care to know anything about most of the posters on this bb. It is not a part of life that is edifying for any reason. This is a playground for those of us that get bored easily with TV, especially during the off season.

As stated before, I know very few of the people here. Of those I do know I am not sure if I would ever want to be seen in public with most of them. Not that they are bad people, I just am very picky about the people I would consider friends. I always give a person the benefit of doubt when I first meet them, when they prove to be an asshole I tend to stay away.

You should try that sometime.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 02:04 PM
Did you wire your homeless cart? I can't see the lights.

Do you need me to engineer a lighting package that you can put on the cart? I contract for $80.00 an hour for design and $145.00 an hour for programming.


In the beginning, there was darkness. Then came electric, and now there is light. Behold the power of electric!

stevieray
08-12-2005, 02:07 PM
He's jewish, you idiot.

Captain Obvious.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 02:09 PM
You are exactly proving his point.

Not at all. I find it interesting that nothing you say in this post supports your initial assertion. It is quite possible for someone of a different faith to make arguments to debunk the bible. There is no justification for the assertion that non-Christians "cannot fathom" the faith that a Christian has.

I have experienced things that could be coincidence, but as I take all of those things into consideration it is obvious that they were not coincidence. And a lot of this happened during a time when I was not looking for religion, and not looking for the inconvienience of being involved in church. It is not that he himself has a grip on the faith factor, but there are millions of Christians in the same boat, people that are not Christians have not had those experiences, and when they do they become Christians.

Let me tell you a story about signs and coincidences.

My wife recently took a new job that is very challenging for a number of reasons. Her immediate supervisor is indecisive, many of her new peers are not fully supportive of her promotion, and she's working with a consultant who does fairly shoddy work and with whom she has personality conflicts. But the most challening thing about this job is that she is managing an operation within her business that she has no personal experience with so she is learning as she goes and she needs the consultant for subject matter expertise. She's gotten some fairly good feedback from her staff, from her customers, and from the senior management at her business so it's not all bad, but after a month or two on the job, she had her first heated confrontation with the consultant. This upset her quite a bit.

The next day, out of the blue, she got a call from a headhunter who said that a business in another state was really interested in having her fly out for an interview. She had previously done a phone interview with this business before her current employer offered her the promotion, but after accepting the promotion she told the out-of-state business that she wasn't interested anymore. When she got the call from the headhunter, he said the out-of-state business had interviewed several other candidates but they couldn't find anyone they liked as much as my wife. The out-of-state job would be a promotion within the same area of the business that my wife has lots of experience and most likely would be for more money than her current job. Furthermore, because of her inexperience, her current employer had promoted her on an interim basis rather than a permanent basis to make sure it was going to work out so she hasn't really made a long term commitment to the current job (I say this for Rain Man's benefit ;) ). Was this call a sign or a coincidence?

She eventually went on an interview trip and the out-of-state business remains interested in her. The only negative is that we would have to move about 10 hours away from family. IMO, that's not such a bad thing except my parents are getting old and it would be nice to be here for them and we have a sick person in our family and it's been very nice to have my parents around at times when we need help with our kids as a result of this illness. Only a week after her interview trip, but before she had decided whether to pursue the other job further, our family member ended up in the hospital and the fact that we were close to my parents made things a whole lot easier. Was this event a sign or a coincidence?

The actual story is more complex that what I've typed and there have been several signs/coincidences along the way that have pointed in various directions, but this post is getting way too long as it is. My point is that one person's sign is another person's coincidence and there really isn't any way to sort it all out IMO. You either believe or you don't. You either accept life's experiences as signs or you see them as coincidences. I have no doubt that whatever your experiences were, some other person who is no more and no less intelligent than you could have come to the opposite conclusion. And, of course, there are plenty of Christians who have had experiences that turned them away from their faith.

I heard a preacher say not too long ago that the reason why some non-believers think that Christians are hypocritical, fanatical, biggots, was because they had met hypocritical, fanatical, biggot Christians.

It is easy for Christians to say "all men sin, I am not perfect" and use that as an excuse. A lot of times I don't even say anything about religion because I don't want people to associate my actions with what being a Christian is all about. I truly believe that 1 billion Muslims are going to die and spent eternity in a burning hell, but how long will a conversation go if you start it off telling them those things?

There's a lot of wisdom in those two paragraphs.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 02:10 PM
3. nobody has ever found a likeness of David Koresh's mother in a tortilla.

ROFL

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:10 PM
In the beginning, there was darkness. Then came electric, and now there is light. Behold the power of electric!

I would laugh if I thought you were funny, but alas....:loser:

patteeu
08-12-2005, 02:12 PM
Historians and Scientists are different...ha ha ha.

Is this some kind of secret religious code that I can't fathom?

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:13 PM
It's been fun guys, but I'm off to do something really important.

(note to self: ignore idiots.......make list.........)

Electric
08-12-2005, 02:13 PM
Is this some kind of secret religious code that I can't fathom?

Just off hand I'd say that you couldn't even fathom 6 feet.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 02:14 PM
If you saw someone raised from the dead or some other miracle that is not medically provable, would you change your view?

If I believed it was real and not some kind of parlor trick, probably. I might not accept your explanation, whatever that would be, for it though.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 02:16 PM
I would laugh if I thought you were funny, but alas....:loser:

I have disappointed electric. I must now offer a sacrifice.


Anyone know where I can get a chicken?

patteeu
08-12-2005, 02:16 PM
I think you need to go find David Koresh, his kind is more your type for worship.

Do you have faith in God? Are you agnostic? or just an ass?

I think it's funny that the only people who can't get along with Rain Man are Electric and a few thin skinned broncos fans who didn't get his humor when he ripped their team last year on Orange Mane while CP was down.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 02:18 PM
I think it's funny that the only people who can't get along with Rain Man are Electric and a few thin skinned broncos fans who didn't get his humor when he ripped their team last year on Orange Mane while CP was down.


I'll win those Broncos fans over at some point.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 02:23 PM
I'll win those Broncos fans over at some point.

I don't really remember what you said over there, but I remember it being some of the funniest stuff I'd read in a long time. And some of them didn't seem to know how to handle a trash talker who didn't have to use profanity.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 02:40 PM
Is this some kind of secret religious code that I can't fathom?

Ya..sure it is. :rolleyes:
Look if you have a REAL desire to know about the bibles historical accuracies and be willing to use facts, reason and logic, then PM me, my door is always open to sharing knowledge. Then you can take what you want from it, but I will not argue just for the sake of arguing.

ct
08-12-2005, 02:42 PM
You are exactly proving his point. I have experienced things that could be coincidence, but as I take all of those things into consideration it is obvious that they were not coincidence. And a lot of this happened during a time when I was not looking for religion, and not looking for the inconvienience of being involved in church. It is not that he himself has a grip on the faith factor, but there are millions of Christians in the same boat, people that are not Christians have not had those experiences, and when they do they become Christians.

I heard a preacher say not too long ago that the reason why some non-believers think that Christians are hypocritical, fanatical, biggots, was because they had met hypocritical, fanatical, biggot Christians.

It is easy for Christians to say "all men sin, I am not perfect" and use that as an excuse. A lot of times I don't even say anything about religion because I don't want people to associate my actions with what being a Christian is all about. I truly believe that 1 billion Muslims are going to die and spent eternity in a burning hell, but how long will a conversation go if you start it off telling them those things?

Really? Ever heard of this book?

Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310247489/ref=wl_it_dp/104-9262152-5153500?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I34HVBNT488H2N&v=glance&colid=G640GAZQBFEU)

I haven't, but at least the title is intruiging.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 02:42 PM
The Iliad and Odyssey are pretty accurate, too.

Interesting, those were Steven Hawking's two favorite bedtime books....
:hmmm:

stevieray
08-12-2005, 02:49 PM
Interesting, those were Steven Hawking's two favorite bedtime books....
:hmmm:

Interesting, I think I've heard him do that impersonation.

Electric
08-12-2005, 03:07 PM
If I believed it was real and not some kind of parlor trick, probably. I might not accept your explanation, whatever that would be, for it though.

Who is asking you to believe me? I've witnessed miracles first hand, I know how they happened and when. Your inability to take someones word has no effect on me.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 03:08 PM
Who is asking you to believe me? I've witnessed miracles first hand, I know how they happened and when. Your inability to take someones word has no effect on me.

Please share.

Saulbadguy
08-12-2005, 03:10 PM
Who is asking you to believe me? I've witnessed miracles first hand, I know how they happened and when. Your inability to take someones word has no effect on me.
When are you going to have another meltdown? This is really dry.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 03:19 PM
I want to hear about the miracles.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 03:28 PM
Ya..sure it is. :rolleyes:
Look if you have a REAL desire to know about the bibles historical accuracies and be willing to use facts, reason and logic, then PM me, my door is always open to sharing knowledge. Then you can take what you want from it, but I will not argue just for the sake of arguing.

I have no serious interest at this point in an investigation of the bible's historical accuracy, but thanks for the offer. It's enough to satisfy my curiosity to know that it contains some things that are more able to be tied to current understandings of history than others. Articles like the one in the OP are interesting to me, but I don't have an interest in going line by line through the bible to find out what the scholarly debate about each assertion's historical accuracy entails. BUT, I do have an interest in being able to understand posts people make in response to mine and yours was indecipherable AFAICT.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 03:30 PM
Your inability to take someones word has no effect on me.

It made you post this response didn't it? That was God working through me to send you a sign urging you to continue to make a fool of yourself on internet message boards.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 03:32 PM
It made you post this response didn't it? That was God working through me to send you a sign urging you to continue to make a fool of yourself on internet message boards.


I wish God would use me to urge him to post about the miracles he's seen.

patteeu
08-12-2005, 03:39 PM
I wish God would use me to urge him to post about the miracles he's seen.

I'd like to hear about some of the miracles too. I'm sure they have something to do with him getting promoted in the Navy and having gainful employment now.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 03:40 PM
I have no serious interest at this point in an investigation of the bible's historical accuracy, but thanks for the offer. It's enough to satisfy my curiosity to know that it contains some things that are more able to be tied to current understandings of history than others. Articles like the one in the OP are interesting to me, but I don't have an interest in going line by line through the bible to find out what the scholarly debate about each assertion's historical accuracy entails. BUT, I do have an interest in being able to understand posts people make in response to mine and yours was indecipherable AFAICT.

Your crazy if you thought I was going to go into a line by line scholoarly debate of the Bible. The Bibles historical truth, fact or accuracies should be and are quite simple to ascertain, otherwise it would easily call them into question. Thats the problem with most Bible based religions, they try to complicate the understanding, of what in reality, is simplicity.

Halfcan
08-12-2005, 03:43 PM
What a cool report. Much better than hearing about how to make a sandwhich or someone bitchin about their job. Ali what kind of book are you writing? Halfcan

patteeu
08-12-2005, 03:51 PM
Your crazy if you thought I was going to go into a line by line scholoarly debate of the Bible. The Bibles historical truth, fact or accuracies should be and are quite simple to ascertain, otherwise it would easily call them into question. Thats the problem with most Bible based religions, they try to complicate the understanding, of what in reality, is simplicity.

I'd be more than happy to hear what you have to say on the subject if it is that simple.

Sparty
08-12-2005, 03:54 PM
To anyone that wants to respond:

Is Jesus Christ your Lord and savior? Yes or No?

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 03:55 PM
Really? Ever heard of this book?

Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310247489/ref=wl_it_dp/104-9262152-5153500?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I34HVBNT488H2N&v=glance&colid=G640GAZQBFEU)

I haven't, but at least the title is intruiging.

I have never heard of that book, but I think it is common knowledge that the Father of Jesus was the God of Hitler. That doesn't change that the Bible says that Jesus is the Truth and Light, and only through Him are you saved.

Once again that will rub people the wrong way because that is saying that everybody typing on this thread that has not accepted Jesus as their savior is going to die and go to hell. If I was on the other side of the discussion and did not believe in Jesus, after a "believer" told me that myself and maybe my wife and kids were going to burn in hell, it wouldn't make me feel good and it wouldn't make me want to learn anything more about that religion.

My favorite story in the Bible is the one about the prodigal son. Allow me to paraphrase... A guy has 2 sons. One son runs of and becomes a drug addict, sleeps with 1,000 women, rapes sheep, spends all of the family's money, and becomes a die hard Raiders fan. The other son stays at home, works hard on the family farm, goes to church three times a week, always obeys his father, has a great tan and really white teeth.

Anyway, the bad kid is strung out, broke, and desperate. He comes back home, and instead of his Dad being mad, he drops everything he does, hugs his son, and has a big welcome home party. The next morning the Dad loves the bad son as much as the good son, gives him all the same responsibilties and money and everything else the good son has earned.

The Bible tells it a little different, but the theological idea is the same. A murdering drug dealer can accept Jesus, and he is immediately showered with the same blessings as mother Theresa. We love to tell about what happened to Jonah when he didn't go to Ninevah, but the reason he didn't go was bacause he hated the Ninevites and did not want them to have God's blessing.

HolyHandgernade
08-12-2005, 03:59 PM
It is a big waste of time arguing these points because what is really being argued is perspectives not "history".

On the Deist board I post at most often, we have often theorized what is the difference between a deist and a theist. We finally settled on the difference between a having a faith in a personal god or a trust in an impersonal god, elaborated as follows:

* Because theists believe that God exhibits a personality, they treat God as a person, and that's why they have faith. But Deists recognize that faith is something we have in persons, and God is not a person. Therefore we rely on reason rather than faith.

* Because theists believe that God has personal relationships with people, they accept "revelation", hearsay tales of his relationships with people in the past. Deists on the other hand rely on experience over hearsay.

* Because theists believe that God is a person in their stories, they accept their myths as literal accounts of his personal involvement. Deists on the other hand recognize myths as metaphor, wherein the "person" is merely symbolic.

* Because theists interpret their mythology literally, their religions are heavily dependent on the historical veracity of those accounts. Consequently, they maintain a biased interest in the findings of historians and scientists. On the contrary, deism is not dependent upon the veracity of such tales and can accept the findings of science and history as independent of their beliefs.

So, theists will defend to the end of their days the historical veracity of their beliefs because it is context dependent upon it. Deists can take historical/scientific findings and judge them objectively on their own merit. That is why the Deist belief in God makes more sense to me, but I understand why theists defend their position so vigorously.

-HH

Chieficus
08-12-2005, 04:08 PM
I have no serious interest at this point in an investigation of the bible's historical accuracy, but thanks for the offer. It's enough to satisfy my curiosity to know that it contains some things that are more able to be tied to current understandings of history than others. Articles like the one in the OP are interesting to me, but I don't have an interest in going line by line through the bible to find out what the scholarly debate about each assertion's historical accuracy entails. BUT, I do have an interest in being able to understand posts people make in response to mine and yours was indecipherable AFAICT.

This isn't necessarily directed at you or anyone else here, but a couple of things I've read in the last few posts, I figure I'll comment in general:

One thing that bugs me about many "scholarly" approaches to the veracity of the Bible's historical narratives is the presupposition that many bring to the table. It is simply assumed by many that if we haven't found archeological verification for particular Biblical texts, then the Bible must be wrong. This is something that has happened over and over again... then they dig up a particular site that matches perfectly with the Bible and the claim becomes: "Okay, well, in this area they got it right, but with this other thing, we haven't found anything, so the Bible is wrong."

Now one can say that those thing of which we have yet to find proof for are not 100% verifiable; yet given the accuracy of the historical claims that have been verified, it's quite a foolish assumption to just write stuff off because we haven't seen the proof yet.

Halfcan
08-12-2005, 04:12 PM
Just a question? Where the heck has JC been for 2000 years and counting? I think he would have popped in to say hello by now? Very troubling that the world is going to hell fast and this guy won't stop in to prove anything. Just ten minutes on Leno could change the world. You know talk about the big football field in the sky, disprove Davinci Code, do a few magic tricks-walk on water, cure a few sick kids, then, see ya in another 2000 years. Hey JC where ya at??? Halfcan

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 04:13 PM
Truthfully, I have no doubt that the Bible is a strong historic document on lots of things like cities, everyday life, rulers, etc. Given the culture of the times, though, I must say that I question the miracles and other things, and I definitely wonder about some of the Old Testament books. Who wrote Genesis, for example?

Chieficus
08-12-2005, 04:14 PM
It is a big waste of time arguing these points because what is really being argued is perspectives not "history".

On the Deist board I post at most often, we have often theorized what is the difference between a deist and a theist. We finally settled on the difference between a having a faith in a personal god or a trust in an impersonal god, elaborated as follows:

* Because theists believe that God exhibits a personality, they treat God as a person, and that's why they have faith. But Deists recognize that faith is something we have in persons, and God is not a person. Therefore we rely on reason rather than faith.

* Because theists believe that God has personal relationships with people, they accept "revelation", hearsay tales of his relationships with people in the past. Deists on the other hand rely on experience over hearsay.

* Because theists believe that God is a person in their stories, they accept their myths as literal accounts of his personal involvement. Deists on the other hand recognize myths as metaphor, wherein the "person" is merely symbolic.

* Because theists interpret their mythology literally, their religions are heavily dependent on the historical veracity of those accounts. Consequently, they maintain a biased interest in the findings of historians and scientists. On the contrary, deism is not dependent upon the veracity of such tales and can accept the findings of science and history as independent of their beliefs.

So, theists will defend to the end of their days the historical veracity of their beliefs because it is context dependent upon it. Deists can take historical/scientific findings and judge them objectively on their own merit. That is why the Deist belief in God makes more sense to me, but I understand why theists defend their position so vigorously.

-HH

The majority of the theists that I personally know, don't fit the mold that you just describe.

Oh and I find this laughable... the last paragraph essentially reads: "Their view point is more subjective, mine is more objective." Yeah... let's just keep those presuppositions of yours hidden away nice and tidy in a locked closet shall we... :shake:

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 04:15 PM
Your crazy if you thought I was going to go into a line by line scholoarly debate of the Bible. The Bibles historical truth, fact or accuracies should be and are quite simple to ascertain, otherwise it would easily call them into question. Thats the problem with most Bible based religions, they try to complicate the understanding, of what in reality, is simplicity.

Which is very intersting because if simplicity was the goal a lot of the Bible would be believed as Theologically true but historically inaccurate.

Only 2 books in the Bible mention the birth of Jesus. On has Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethleham, one has them living there already. One has Herod the Great who died in 4BC trying to kill Jesus, the other has the reason for the travels to Bethlehem being a census by the Governor Quirinias who took office in 6AD. Both have Jesus being a descendant of David through Joseph, who was not his bioligical father(?), and the linage that connects him to David is different in each versions. The Septuagint was the Greek version of the old testament around during the time that the NT was written, and the word 'virgin' was mis-translated. The word in the Dead Sea Scrolls describe the woman in Isaih as a maiden, who is a virgin until she gets pregnant. The angels proclaimed "Glory to God in the Highest and on Earth Peace, Good Will Towords Men", which ironically was the exact same phrase used on coins with Augustus Caesars picture on them made 40 years before Jesus' birth (Julius Caeser was thought to have become a God, and people ignored the adoption of Agustus). When Jesus is raising Lazerus, Mary and his brothers come to see him, see what he is doing and they think he has "lost his mind". If you were impregnated by God would you think your child crazy for trying to raise the dead?

Simplicity would tell us that Jesus is no more the litteral Son of God any more than he had hooves and a fleece as white as snow. Simplicity would tell us that 'Son of God', 'Lamb of God', 'Light of the World', etc... are all metaphors describing Jesus. What is important is that the effects of the Jesus movement and the events expereienced during the Pentecost were so strong that the people that live 40 years after he died believed that he must have been the litteral Son of God.

Some think it is simpler to say, "I am not supposed to be able to make sense out of it, I just believe it is true". I think it is simpler to read the words that were written, study those words, and not worry about long standing traditions may be in the way of the truth.

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 04:21 PM
Just a question? Where the heck has JC been for 2000 years and counting? I think he would have popped in to say hello by now? Very troubling that the world is going to hell fast and this guy won't stop in to prove anything. Just ten minutes on Leno could change the world. You know talk about the big football field in the sky, disprove Davinci Code, do a few magic tricks-walk on water, cure a few sick kids, then, see ya in another 2000 years. Hey JC where ya at??? Halfcan

Can you imagine the cost of getting a commercial on that show? It would be outrageous.

http://untruenews.com/unimages/jay_leno.jpg

"Thanks for being here tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Let's take a quick commercial break, and when we come back we'll have our guests Gary Sinise, Courtney Love, and Your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Stay tuned!"

Rain Man
08-12-2005, 04:22 PM
Actually, if Jesus decided to go on Leno, it'd be really cool if he would resurrect a couple of famous past guests like Groucho Marx and Bob Hope, and have them on the same show.

I'd definitely watch it either way, though.

DanT
08-12-2005, 04:26 PM
...

The Bible tells it a little different, but the theological idea is the same. A murdering drug dealer can accept Jesus, and he is immediately showered with the same blessings as mother Theresa. We love to tell about what happened to Jonah when he didn't go to Ninevah, but the reason he didn't go was bacause he hated the Ninevites and did not want them to have God's blessing.

Yesterday I ran across this article on www.godspy.com on Mother Teresa. Here's the beginning. It has to do with being abandoned and being found, just like the story of the Prodigal Son.



Finding Joy in the Darkest Night: The Divine Abandonment of Mother Teresa

We always saw Mother Teresa smiling. But we’d be hard–pressed to find another saint who suffered a darkness so thick or a night so long.

By David Scott

It had been a long day, and Father Andrew M. Greeley was frustrated and grouchy as he climbed into a hot cab with Mother Teresa. More than 30 years later, he still remembered their hour-long ride through southern Ohio.

"She was the happiest human being I had ever met," he recalled when she died in 1997.

Mother Teresa, now known as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, might have been one of the most joyful people who ever lived.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta might have been one of the most joyful people who ever lived.
No other saint spoke or wrote as much about smiling as Mother Teresa did. We always saw her smiling. Friends said she had a quick, often self-deprecating, sense of humor, and sometimes she'd double over from laughing so hard.

Even people like Father Greeley, who hardly shares her vision of Catholicism, couldn't help noticing how she always seemed happy.

But after she died and was put on the fast-track for sainthood, we learned how much we didn't know about her. In letters made public during her beatification process—letters she had wanted destroyed—we glimpsed the shadow-side of the smiling face she showed to the world.

We learned that at the start of her ministry she had heard the voice of Jesus and seen visions. In one, she was transported "as a little child" to Golgotha, where she stood with Mary at the foot of the cross and spoke with the dying Jesus.

We learned, too, that for nearly fifty years following those initial visions and locutions, Mother Teresa's prayer life was one of dark, pitiless silence. She lived her entire public life—all that time we saw her smiling and talking about joy—panicked that God had rejected her, or worse, that he was out there in the dark hiding from her.

In one of those long-secret letters, from 1957, she bared her soul to a spiritual director:

"In the darkness... Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me?.. I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer... Where I try to raise my thoughts to heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul... I am told God lives in me—and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."


Link to remainder of article:
http://www.godspy.com/reviews/Finding-Joy-in-the-Darkest-Night-The-Divine-Abandonment-of-Mother-Teresa-by-David-Scott.cfm

Chieficus
08-12-2005, 04:35 PM
Which is very intersting because if simplicity was the goal a lot of the Bible would be believed as Theologically true but historically inaccurate.

Only 2 books in the Bible mention the birth of Jesus. On has Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethleham, one has them living there already. One has Herod the Great who died in 4BC trying to kill Jesus, the other has the reason for the travels to Bethlehem being a census by the Governor Quirinias who took office in 6AD. Both have Jesus being a descendant of David through Joseph, who was not his bioligical father(?), and the linage that connects him to David is different in each versions. The Septuagint was the Greek version of the old testament around during the time that the NT was written, and the word 'virgin' was mis-translated. The word in the Dead Sea Scrolls describe the woman in Isaih as a maiden, who is a virgin until she gets pregnant. The angels proclaimed "Glory to God in the Highest and on Earth Peace, Good Will Towords Men", which ironically was the exact same phrase used on coins with Augustus Caesars picture on them made 40 years before Jesus' birth (Julius Caeser was thought to have become a God, and people ignored the adoption of Agustus). When Jesus is raising Lazerus, Mary and his brothers come to see him, see what he is doing and they think he has "lost his mind". If you were impregnated by God would you think your child crazy for trying to raise the dead?

Simplicity would tell us that Jesus is no more the litteral Son of God any more than he had hooves and a fleece as white as snow. Simplicity would tell us that 'Son of God', 'Lamb of God', 'Light of the World', etc... are all metaphors describing Jesus. What is important is that the effects of the Jesus movement and the events expereienced during the Pentecost were so strong that the people that live 40 years after he died believed that he must have been the litteral Son of God.

Some think it is simpler to say, "I am not supposed to be able to make sense out of it, I just believe it is true". I think it is simpler to read the words that were written, study those words, and not worry about long standing traditions may be in the way of the truth.

Stuff like this makes me :shake: as well:

1) Luke's account of Jesus' birth speaks of the travel. The Matthew account doesn't mention it, but it doesn't mention that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem either.

2) Concerning the geneologies, there is a difference, yes. A couple explanations. The one I favor and think fits well with the evidence is that one is biological (Luke) and one is royal (Matthew).

3) "Virgin" was not mistranslated. In the Hebrew text it can be translated either a young maiden or literally as a 'virgin.' In the Greek text, as in Luke, where Mary asks, "How can this be since I am a virgin?" Both the word and the context drive an interpretation of a literal virgin.

4) Nowhere in the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is His mother or brothers mentioned.

There are a couple of things I skipped in the post because while I've studied some of the issues, I can't recall the exact conclusion right now. However, of the four things I mentioned, three are blatently wrong and one, when fleshed out, is easily explained.

Your post really does nothing in terms of the argument of historical veracity.

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 05:40 PM
Stuff like this makes me :shake: as well:

1) Luke's account of Jesus' birth speaks of the travel. The Matthew account doesn't mention it, but it doesn't mention that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem either.

2) Concerning the geneologies, there is a difference, yes. A couple explanations. The one I favor and think fits well with the evidence is that one is biological (Luke) and one is royal (Matthew).

3) "Virgin" was not mistranslated. In the Hebrew text it can be translated either a young maiden or literally as a 'virgin.' In the Greek text, as in Luke, where Mary asks, "How can this be since I am a virgin?" Both the word and the context drive an interpretation of a literal virgin.

4) Nowhere in the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is His mother or brothers mentioned.

There are a couple of things I skipped in the post because while I've studied some of the issues, I can't recall the exact conclusion right now. However, of the four things I mentioned, three are blatently wrong and one, when fleshed out, is easily explained.

Your post really does nothing in terms of the argument of historical veracity.

1. You are right, Matthew version mentions nothing about travel. Nothing about managers, donkey rides or anything. Matthew tells us that Mary gets pregnant, Mary has a baby, and the wisemen come to visit Jesus at thier house in Bethlehem. The fact that the writers of Matthew do not mention travel is the key to reading this scripture.

2. That is a good explination, and widely used. It still doesn't link Jesus to David. It links Joseph to David, but David was in no way related to Jesus, and everybody knew that. Even the Priest told Jesus "We are not the ones born of fornication". If Jesus was to be a descendant of David it would have had to of been through Mary.

3. The word that is used in Isaiah was used Almah. Almah was translated to the Greek word parthenos. Almah in the OT is not used to describe a virgin. See Prov 30:19 about the fornicating woman refered to as an Almah. The Hebrew word for virgin is Betula, and is used as such in the OT. Furthermore, the child savior Isaiah is speaking about was born a short time later, in Isaiah 8:34.

4. Mark 3:20-21 I was wrong about it taking place with Lazarus, but his family definately thought he had lost his mind.

These post do nothing to prove what historically happened, but they do prove what historically did not and could not have happened.

Electric
08-12-2005, 06:36 PM
Please share.

Why? So you can make fun of something that was good?

No, I don't think so. Have your fun, doubt what happened without facts, it's worked for you so far.

HolyHandgernade
08-12-2005, 06:40 PM
The majority of the theists that I personally know, don't fit the mold that you just describe.

Oh and I find this laughable... the last paragraph essentially reads: "Their view point is more subjective, mine is more objective." Yeah... let's just keep those presuppositions of yours hidden away nice and tidy in a locked closet shall we... :shake:

Generalities never fit specificities, there are always shades of gray, but someone of your consciousness level should have been able to determine that and not be so easily offended if you can claim to be as objective as your response.

-HH

Electric
08-12-2005, 06:42 PM
When are you going to have another meltdown? This is really dry.

I'm not, if you feel the need for one, by all means have at it. All of my points have been achieved.

Prince22
08-12-2005, 07:04 PM
Oh ye of little faith. I feel sorry for some of you all.

The Pedestrian
08-12-2005, 07:10 PM
The world's gonna end in 2028? That sucks,I don't retire till 2031.

Based on the 2000 years thing, 2028 is perhaps the best bet. The scholars say he was born in what we know as 4 BC due to a miscalculation when the year system was created, and he supposedly died at the age of 32. If Jesus meant he would return 2000 years after his death, that would be 2028. I myself have doubts about it happening, but if it can be proven that the miracles really took place....

Electric
08-12-2005, 08:45 PM
Based on the 2000 years thing, 2028 is perhaps the best bet. The scholars say he was born in what we know as 4 BC due to a miscalculation when the year system was created, and he supposedly died at the age of 32. If Jesus meant he would return 2000 years after his death, that would be 2028. I myself have doubts about it happening, but if it can be proven that the miracles really took place....

How about explaining your 2000 year thing. Time is something we are bound by on earth. There is no reference for time in God's realm that I can see.

The Pedestrian
08-12-2005, 09:16 PM
How about explaining your 2000 year thing. Time is something we are bound by on earth. There is no reference for time in God's realm that I can see.

If God had been the one to say it, then I would agree with your position; however, Jesus mentioned this to his followers in a way they would understand and after a system of time was established.


And FWIW, due to the misconception that AD means "after death", there had been some people worried about his return being in the year 2000.

KC Kings
08-12-2005, 09:19 PM
Based on the 2000 years thing, 2028 is perhaps the best bet. The scholars say he was born in what we know as 4 BC due to a miscalculation when the year system was created, and he supposedly died at the age of 32. If Jesus meant he would return 2000 years after his death, that would be 2028. I myself have doubts about it happening, but if it can be proven that the miracles really took place....

Based on what 2000 years thing? There have been plenty of self proclaimed prophets and fortune tellers that have attempted to to predict the rapture.

In order to believe that Jesus will come back in the rapture, one must first believe in Jesus. Jesus said himself that even he didn't know when the events were going to take place. If the son of God and savior of man kind doesn't know when is going to return, then how does anyone else claiming to be a Christian think that they have it figured out?

As far as miracles taking place, they would not change your mind if they haven't already. Miracles take place all of the time, and people that believe in God say that God is the reason why they happened, and people that don't believe say it was a fluke or coincidence. Realize that Jesus was a Jew, but was completely against the ways that the Jews were living because it was not God like. The story of the good Samaritan is always told as if the point of the story was to be like the Samaritan who were known as bad people but he did the right thing. The point of the story is not as much to be like the Samaritan, but to NOT be like the Jewish Priest. They left the guy alone and walked to other side of the road because the guy was bloody and half dead. Death was religously unpure, so these Priest that they were being Godly and doing the right thing by leaving the guy alone. A lot of Jesus' stories deal with unpure people and subjects; the dead, leapers, women in general and the woman who had been menstruating for 7 years that only had to touch his cloak. Not to mention he ate and feasted with these people, Gentiles, women, children, tax collectors, etc... There was a Jewish prayer back in Jesus' day where the Men would praise God because they were not woman or children. Ready for the point???

When unpure people such as leapers were that unpure they were banished from the public. The only way they would be allowed to come back would be if a Priest decided that they were pure again. Jesus undermined te Priest's authority and allowed these people to again join the general public. A lot of Jesus's miracles were not physical miracles in the way that we think of them. He did raise the dead and cause the blind to see, but those things happen now days as well and are blown off as flukes. This Irish guy, and I think he is the head of religous studies at DuPaul, John Dominic Crossan has a lot of good stuff about the purity system and how Jesus fought against it.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 11:10 PM
Which is very intersting because if simplicity was the goal a lot of the Bible would be believed as Theologically true but historically inaccurate.
................
................
Some think it is simpler to say, "I am not supposed to be able to make sense out of it, I just believe it is true". I think it is simpler to read the words that were written, study those words, and not worry about long standing traditions may be in the way of the truth.

You make my point exactly, over complicated.
Do you think that the Bible was written so that only a few can understand it? Bull Feathers!
Now the deeper stuff in the Bible, yes it does take more information to appreciate it or relate it, but no way that the average Joe couldnt read and understand the Bible with a simple mind.
The literal interpretations that you speak of are different than just understanding context, understanding the message or relating a historical accurcy. Most people can easily discern symbolism or parrables, thats why Jesus spoke in that way many many times.

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 11:12 PM
Truthfully, I have no doubt that the Bible is a strong historic document on lots of things like cities, everyday life, rulers, etc. Given the culture of the times, though, I must say that I question the miracles and other things, and I definitely wonder about some of the Old Testament books. Who wrote Genesis, for example?

Now this has tweeked my curiosity. Why would this make you wonder?

Halfcan
08-12-2005, 11:23 PM
Good one Rain man. I am glad someone else has a sense of humor. This bible thumping is giving me a headache..Need to go over to the hot chick thread.
Hello this is a football site, not Jerry Falwell!!

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 11:32 PM
I'd be more than happy to hear what you have to say on the subject if it is that simple.

For a simple example:
It wasn't long ago when many historical and religious scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who washed his hands but yet ordered Jesus' to death. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea." This is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. It is interesting as well that there have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate.

See how simple that is yet it is a very powerful testament to the "historical" accuracy of the Bible.
:D

Taco John
08-12-2005, 11:41 PM
That right there is funny......I dont care who you are.

Talk about context abuse. Man, now thats reaching!
It never seizes to amaze me that those who actually know very little bible accuracy, seem to speak loudest.



Whatever... It always amazes me at how little most Christians know about what is actually in the Bible...

Reincarnation HAD to happen to fulfill the prophecy of Elijah returning to herald the messiah...

(Matthew 11:13-14) - "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come."

Straight out of Christ's mouths to the apostles ears... John the Baptist was Elijah who was prophecied to return. That HAD to happen in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

If it WASN'T Elijah, then the Jews got it right, and Jesus wasn't the Messiah. That prophecy is the fundamental split between the Jewish perspective and the Christian perspective. Elijah returned as prophecied, but not in the form expected. The Jews are still waiting for Elijah to return... But Christ himself said it... John the Baptist was Elijah, who was to come.

Reincarnation is real.

Taco John
08-12-2005, 11:45 PM
It's quite simple really... Did Jesus lie about John the Baptist being the return of Elijah, thus fulfilling the prophecy? Or was he telling the truth?

I advance that Christ was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was telling the truth.

"he himself is Elijah, who was to come."

C-Mac
08-12-2005, 11:57 PM
Whatever... It always amazes me at how little most Christians know about what is actually in the Bible...

Reincarnation HAD to happen to fulfill the prophecy of Elijah returning to herald the messiah...

(Matthew 11:13-14) - "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come."

Straight out of Christ's mouths to the apostles ears... John the Baptist was Elijah who was prophecied to return. That HAD to happen in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

If it WASN'T Elijah, then the Jews got it right, and Jesus wasn't the Messiah. That prophecy is the fundamental split between the Jewish perspective and the Christian perspective. Elijah returned as prophecied, but not in the form expected. The Jews are still waiting for Elijah to return... But Christ himself said it... John the Baptist was Elijah, who was to come.
Reincarnation is real.

It amazes me too, but then again, I'm not your normal guy claiming to understand the bible. I'll just say that I have done my homework and I'm not intimdated by anyone here. If you sincerely want to really know how it is that what your trying to apply is incorrect, feel free to PM me. I'm always willing to share my "opinion free" information and then let the reader discern it on their own.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 12:03 AM
I don't want to be preached to via PMs. If you have something to say, it can be said in public. I would be most interested in hearing your warped explanations on why Jesus was wrong and in fact you are right. I've heard them before from others like you, but it's always good to get them again.

I imagine it has something to do with taking the context here and applying it against context somewhere else... House of cards theology, rather than just taking what it says and interpreting it against its own context.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 12:10 AM
I probably shouldn't be so caustic, but I get frustrated when someone tries telling me how I know very little bible accuracy while completely ignoring the overiding prophetical context involved and the historical implications of that context, while favoring their boxed up and packaged context that doesn't make any sense (and in fact invalidates the prophecy which makes the whole "Messiah" thing work).

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:15 AM
I don't want to be preached to via PMs. If you have something to say, it can be said in public. I would be most interested in hearing your warped explanations on why Jesus was wrong and in fact you are right. I've heard them before from others like you, but it's always good to get them again.

I imagine it has something to do with taking the context here and applying it against context somewhere else... House of cards theology, rather than just taking what it says and interpreting it against its own context.

I dont preach, but I do share knowledge, ask anyone here. I know you haven't ran into me yet, because I require that logic, fact and reason be used before I will even clock in. I can easily apply the same to with this "House of cards" game. It is a fact that Jesus and the apostles, ect. all quoted from the Old Testament many many times, so with your reasoning, you can accuse them also of dancing around the scriptures or using the "House of cards thoelogy" to make a point.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 12:17 AM
Not at all. Like I said. I believe Christ when he said John the Baptist was, himself, Elijah returned in the flesh.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 12:20 AM
By the way... Revelations 20:1-6 is also a great verse to support my argument in favor of scriptural reincarnation...

Boyceofsummer
08-13-2005, 12:34 AM
A significant find. And speaking of great archeological finds, I love the gochiefs avatar. Great memories that year.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:43 AM
By the way... Revelations 20:1-6 is also a great verse to support my argument in favor of scriptural reincarnation...
I saw the word "resurrection" within those scriptures, but cannot see what ever it is you see as "reincarnation" support.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 01:19 AM
Not at all. Like I said. I believe Christ when he said John the Baptist was, himself, Elijah returned in the flesh.

So that I understand you correctly, you believe that Jesus is suggesting that John the Baptist was a resurrected Elijah?

Taco John
08-13-2005, 02:51 AM
So that I understand you correctly, you believe that Jesus is suggesting that John the Baptist was a resurrected Elijah?

No. That's not what I believe at all. The only statement of belief that I've made with regards to this is that I believe Christ when he claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah.

Resurrected? Elijah never officially died, but rather ascended to heaven "in a chariot of fire." Your trap word, "resurrected," infers bringing back to life in the same body. It's clear that didn't happen, as John the Baptist was born of a man and a woman... I don't believe Christ claimed that John the Baptist was a resurrected Elijah. I'm certain I never made that claim...

What Christ *did* say was that John the Baptist *was* Elijah, who was prophecied to come.

The only thing that I'm saying is that I believe Jesus was in authority to know.

Again, this is where the big rift between Christianity and Judaism stems from. Judaism is still waiting for the return of Elijah, the forerunner to the Messiah. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and thus that all the prophecies foretelling his arrival have been fulfilled. In order for that to be true, the prophecy of Malachi 4:5 would have to be fulfilled. That's why the disciples were asking Jesus "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matt 11:2).

Christ's answer? It's me. I'm the one about whom it was written that God said "I will send my messenger ahead of you..." "And if you are willing to accept it, John IS Elijah, who was prophecied to come."

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"John IS Elijah."

"If you are willing to accept it."

(and thusly "I (Jesus) am the Messiah")

It's a key point, because if you're not willing to accept it, then how can you accept that Jesus is the Messiah? The prophecy would still be open and left for fulfillment. The Jews didn't buy it, and thus they are still waiting for the forerunner, apparently to come down in a chariot of fire. Hell, John himself didn't buy it and completely denied that he was Elijah. Never the less, THE authority here has to be deferred to Jesus, ESPECIALLY if you believe him to be the Messiah. Jesus said "John IS Elijah."

I guess it's possible to quibble about what the definition of the word "is" is.

I'll leave that to you. Can you make an argument in which Jesus's statement that John IS Elijah really means something other than John IS Elijah?

Electric
08-13-2005, 06:35 AM
Reincarnation is real.

Enlighten us with your rational for that again!! I'm sure you read somewhere in the National Enquirer that it is real, but do you have something more substantial to PROVE your claim?

Electric
08-13-2005, 06:40 AM
No. That's not what I believe at all. The only statement of belief that I've made with regards to this is that I believe Christ when he claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah.

Resurrected? Elijah never officially died, but rather ascended to heaven "in a chariot of fire." Your trap word, "resurrected," infers bringing back to life in the same body. It's clear that didn't happen, as John the Baptist was born of a man and a woman... I don't believe Christ claimed that John the Baptist was a resurrected Elijah. I'm certain I never made that claim...

What Christ *did* say was that John the Baptist *was* Elijah, who was prophecied to come.

The only thing that I'm saying is that I believe Jesus was in authority to know.

Again, this is where the big rift between Christianity and Judaism stems from. Judaism is still waiting for the return of Elijah, the forerunner to the Messiah. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and thus that all the prophecies foretelling his arrival have been fulfilled. In order for that to be true, the prophecy of Malachi 4:5 would have to be fulfilled. That's why the disciples were asking Jesus "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matt 11:2).

Christ's answer? It's me. I'm the one about whom it was written that God said "I will send my messenger ahead of you..." "And if you are willing to accept it, John IS Elijah, who was prophecied to come."

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"John IS Elijah."

"If you are willing to accept it."

(and thusly "I (Jesus) am the Messiah")

It's a key point, because if you're not willing to accept it, then how can you accept that Jesus is the Messiah? The prophecy would still be open and left for fulfillment. The Jews didn't buy it, and thus they are still waiting for the forerunner, apparently to come down in a chariot of fire. Hell, John himself didn't buy it and completely denied that he was Elijah. Never the less, THE authority here has to be deferred to Jesus, ESPECIALLY if you believe him to be the Messiah. Jesus said "John IS Elijah."

I guess it's possible to quibble about what the definition of the word "is" is.

I'll leave that to you. Can you make an argument in which Jesus's statement that John IS Elijah really means something other than John IS Elijah?

You attepmt to prove to us that you are right with your assumptions and interpetation of the Bible. Do you have any theologians that back up your belief? How about Billy Graham, does he agree with your point? How about any of the other "major players" in today's religious circles, can you get any of them to validate your claims?

patteeu
08-13-2005, 08:44 AM
For a simple example:
It wasn't long ago when many historical and religious scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who washed his hands but yet ordered Jesus' to death. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea." This is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. It is interesting as well that there have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate.

See how simple that is yet it is a very powerful testament to the "historical" accuracy of the Bible.
:D

It is simple, and I thank you for sharing it. It isn't really that powerful though because as far as I know, no one denies that some people, places, and events mentioned in the bible either literally happened or happened in a way that provides a kernal of truth to a mythical description. But that says nothing about the more important aspect of the Bible, which is whether or not it is the true word of God.

I think you would agree that there are a ton of fictional books that use historically accurate people, places, and events as a backdrop for a completely fabricated story. To the extent that you are just arguing that the Bible is partially historically accurate, I don't think many would disagree (I know I wouldn't). To the extent you are arguing that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, we are far from being able to verify that. To the extent that you are arguing that the historical accuracy of many people, places, and events referenced in the bible gives much weight to the notion that the Bible is the true word of God, you are leaving the realm of rationality and entering the realm of faith.

patteeu
08-13-2005, 08:56 AM
This thread is getting better. *popcorn*

Electric
08-13-2005, 09:03 AM
This thread is getting better. *popcorn*

If you have anything factual and worthwhile to add, by all means go for it.

patteeu
08-13-2005, 09:36 AM
If you have anything factual and worthwhile to add, by all means go for it.

I'm content to watch the fireworks, but thanks for the invitation. How about telling us about those miracles?

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 09:45 AM
For a simple example:
It wasn't long ago when many historical and religious scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who washed his hands but yet ordered Jesus' to death. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea." This is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. It is interesting as well that there have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate.

See how simple that is yet it is a very powerful testament to the "historical" accuracy of the Bible.
:D

From one of my Deist boards:

Christians for all their assertions that there was a historical Jesus have consistently failed to provide any historical evidence to support it. Apart from the gospels, which were all written after the fact and which fail to corroborate each other except on the most superficial level, there is little to go by. The actual contemporaries of a historical Jesus, Philo of Alexandria and Justin of Tiberius never make any reference to Jesus or any of the events of his life: no killing of children by Herod, no miracle man, no miracles, no mystery teacher, no empty tomb, not mid-day darkness --nothing. Irrespective of this reality, certain passages of questionable origin are held up as evidence by Christians, but a careful examination of those passages show that they were written also after the so-called fact and at best can only be held up as evidence of Christians, not a Christ. It cannot be overstressed that Christians have forged many documents and interpolated many works to suit their own purposes.

This particular essay is concerned with the assertion by Christians that the following passage in a work of Tacitus was not an interpolation, but a historical record. A superficial reading of the passage does seem to indicate that there was a historical Jesus, but when this passage is tested in the light of Reason and Reasonable questions, its problems become apparent very quickly. To begin with, it is important to understand who Tacitus was. Cornelius Tacitus was born around 57 CE, and died around 115 CE. He was Consul in 97 and governor of Asia in 112-113. More importantly, he was a historian who wrote several major works on Roman history. A passage held up by Christians and credited to Tacitus is as follows:

The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus
Book 15.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom
the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

The elements of this passage are:
1) Nero wants to pass the blame for a fire on a group, "hated for their abominations" called Christians.
2) The founder of the religion was called "Christ".
3) This "Christ" was executed a procurator named Pontius Pilatus.
4) The religion was started in Judaea; followed by some negative comments.

Problems with the passage:
1) There is no solid evidence that Nero blamed any group for the fire in question.
2) There is no evidence that a group called "Christians" were well known in Rome during Nero's time.
3) There is no mention of any "Jesus" in the passage.
4) There is the problem of calling Pilate "procurator"; according to
archaeological finds in Judaea, Pilate's actual title was "Prefect".
5) The name "Pilate" is referred to as if the reader was aware of the man.
6) This passage was quoted by no churchman until the 15th century CE,
and not a single church father makes even the slightest reference to it. The Annuals itself was only published in the 15th century by Christians.

In history, no topic is beyond questioning, and if a claim is made that such and such an author wrote a passage, then those making the claim need to reply in detail to the questions raised by critics of the idea. If a claim cannot stand the light of Reason, then it follows that such claim is questionable if not flawed. Almost all ancient works that come down to us have been edited and interpolated by people with some ideological ax to grind. For example, Marco Polo's "Travels" have been so seriously interpolated that it is impossible to figure out what his original looked like.

The best evidence of forgery and interpolation for the above passage
is the issue of Pilate. The author uses the name as if the reader would recognize it; but how reasonable is it to assume that the name would be recognized by a nonChristian? There is no reason to believe a Pagan Roman living more than half a century after Pilate's time would recognize the name of a minor governor in an unimportant province; afterall, Pilate was not Elvis. But a Christian would recognize it in an instant, which is in itself suspicious. There is also the problem with getting Pilate's title wrong. To understand the importance of this it is necessary to look at a little history.

In the early Roman Republic, certain officers administered the affairs of state. Senior were the two Consuls and two Praetors; the former were of greater importance, and the latter were largely involved in judicial matters. As the empire grew, there was a need for more officers, but the Constitution did not allow for it. To get around this difficulty, a solution was found by creating subordinate positions with the prefix "pro-". For example, a "Proconsul" exercised the powers of Consul without being Consul. These proconsuls and propraetors were sent to rule over the provinces, taking orders from the elected Consuls, Praetors, and Senate. With the rise of the empire and the position of Imperator [emperor] called "princeps", under Augustus Caesar, the provinces were divided between the Senate and the Emperor. The Senatorial provinces continued to be
administered as before by Proconsuls and Propraetors, but new offices
were created for the imperial provinces under the control of the emperor and his agents. These offices were appointed and called "Prefect" and "Legate"; the former held broad powers over administration, justice, and the military, and were positioned in strategic provinces, while the latter held limited powers over the same fields in provinces more peaceful and less important. Over time, the empire became more pressed for tax revenues, so the emperor Trajan [98-117CE], probably the greatest of all emperors, created new offices of state called "Curators", they were sent to deal with administrative and fiscal problems in the empire. The need to have better control over the imperial estates [a major source of revenue]
and taxation led to the creation of the office of Procurator. Procurators in large numbers were sent out into the provinces to either administer the emperors estates, or to see to the collection and expenditure of revenue in their respective districts; unlike Curators, Procurators were assigned for long terms to specific places. Each province, both senatorial or imperial, had procurators looking over the emperors interests and seeing to the fiscal efficiency of their estates or districts. A procurator was merely a
fiscal agent, and not involved in the judicial or military affairs of a province.

Now carefully look at this part of the passage: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, ...." This particular part of the passage is revealing, Tacitus was one of Trajan's governors and knew how provincial administration functioned; he would have known that there were no Procurators in Tiberius' time. Christians attempt to get around this with one of their classic subterfuges, which is to claim that Tacitus was using a contemporary title for a past figure. This assertion is baseless, Tacitus was a governor himself and knew that not only were there no procurators prior to the creation of the title "Curator" in
Trajan's time, and he would have known that procurators did not have
authority to judge, much less execute people. The most a procurator could do was have someone charged and dragged before either the Proconsul, Propraetor, Prefect, or Legate and put on trial. Pilate could not have been a Procurator, that office would only be invented at least 62 years after Pilate's time. So who wrote the passage? The answer is a Christian forged it trying to make it appear that there was historical evidence for Jesus. Archaeology proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Pilate was a Prefect, logic shows that the office of Procurator could not have existed before the office of Curator came into existence, and history shows that the office of Curator did not exist before the time of Trajan. The conclusion is that the passage is a forgery interpolated into the Annals in order to make it appear that Tacitus wrote about a historical Jesus.

A related issue:
Christians have been maintaining for centuries that Pilate was a Procurator. This error even finds itself found in many translations of the Bible. The truth of the matter is that Pilate was not a procurator, no matter how much Christians would like him to be, and was in effect a Prefect with the powers of live and death over the provincials he ruled. In an effort to try and give credibility to the Tacitus passage, Christians repeatedly state that Tacitus had access to Roman records and that therefore his testimony is historically valid. If so, then he would have got the title correct. Tacitus
proves nothing about Jesus even if penned by the great historian; for
he was writing decades after the fact about events he never witnessed. He would have been recording urban legends and not history in the regards of a cult.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 10:42 AM
No. That's not what I believe at all. The only statement of belief that I've made with regards to this is that I believe Christ when he claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah.

I'll leave that to you. Can you make an argument in which Jesus's statement that John IS Elijah really means something other than John IS Elijah?

In John 1:21-25 John the Baptist in his own words flat denied actually being Elijah and in Luke 1:17 his father is told that "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children....to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. So it not unreasonable to assess that he is likend to Elijah in his actions, just as Jesus had done. He is the the one the prophesy spoke of "crying out of the wilderness".

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 11:01 AM
From one of my Deist boards:

Christians for all their assertions......
blah blah blah
...that there was a historical Jesus
blah blah blah
...have consistently failedto provide any historical evidence to support it.
blah
blah
blah


Sorry, but dont you think keeping it simple is to everyones advantage?
I'm sure all would also prefer your thoughts and not someone elses cut and pasted garblygook. Like I said before, there are those that dont believe the Holocaust happened either and I'm sure you could paste a page of garblygook argue to it also.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 11:04 AM
Why is the silence of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 BCE) so important regarding an historical Jesus?

He was a Jew born before the Christian era but who dies long after Christ's purported death. His works included a history of the Jews and discussed the very period when Christ was supposedly alive. A quote from turn of the century historian Remsburg:

He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place - when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into in heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed tthe doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of the multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw him not.

Philo was active not only in Judea but the Mediterranean as well and was not some secluded scholar. He pleaded the case of Judaism to Rome and may have traveled to Palestine as well. He wrote about Essenes and the Theraptues. But he never mentions Jesus. He wrote extensively about the Word/Logos, using the term some 1300 times in his writings, as well as developing other concepts that eventually made their way into Christianity. Philo's Word was the "first-begotten Son" as well as the Sun and Wisdom, or Sophia. Jerome called him one of the "Church Fathers" for his "contributions". One would think that if a Jew went around, attracting the multitudes claiming to be the Word made flesh while performing many miracles, it would have intrigued Philo to no end.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 11:11 AM
Sorry, but dont you think keeping it simple is to everyones advantage?
I'm sure all would also prefer your thoughts and not someone elses cut and pasted garblygook. Like I said before, there are those that dont believe the Holocaust happened either and I'm sure you could paste a page of garblygook argue to it also.

Well, since we discuss these things my thoughts are intermingled into it. My belief, simply stated, is that there is no reliable historical evidence for an historical Jesus. I have no problen with viewing Christ and the gospel story as allegory with Christ representing an archetype of spiritual transformation, a more contemplative or gnostic Christianity, but verifying something historically involves a particular method of objectivity, and most apologists simply do not have such. They start out assuming it is true and then highlight fragments of what they consider proof to fit their preconception.

Hmmm, not unlike the Iraqi WMD case for going to war.

-HH

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 11:14 AM
It is simple, and I thank you for sharing it. It isn't really that powerful though because as far as I know, no one denies that some people, places, and events mentioned in the bible either literally happened or happened in a way that provides a kernal of truth to a mythical description. But that says nothing about the more important aspect of the Bible, which is whether or not it is the true word of God.

Yes you are correct, but isn't a sip of water when your thirtsy, far better than a bucket dumped on you? I think that its important that you build a a solid foundation first, before taking the next step. I guess you noticed HolyHandgrenades post, so not everyone agrees with facts.

I think you would agree that there are a ton of fictional books that use historically accurate people, places, and events as a backdrop for a completely fabricated story. To the extent that you are just arguing that the Bible is partially historically accurate, I don't think many would disagree (I know I wouldn't). To the extent you are arguing that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, we are far from being able to verify that. To the extent that you are arguing that the historical accuracy of many people, places, and events referenced in the bible gives much weight to the notion that the Bible is the true word of God, you are leaving the realm of rationality and entering the realm of faith.

Yes but those books werent written 4000 years ago either, but none the less, the author has historical credibilty because of it. If the bible was not foundationally historically accurate, then would not this discussion would be futile. Real (non blind) faith can only be achieved if its based upon certain realities.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 11:19 AM
Well, since we discuss these things my thoughts are intermingled into it. My belief, simply stated, is that there is no reliable historical evidence for an historical Jesus. I have no problen with viewing Christ and the gospel story as allegory with Christ representing an archetype of spiritual transformation, a more contemplative or gnostic Christianity, but verifying something historically involves a particular method of objectivity, and most apologists simply do not have such. They start out assuming it is true and then highlight fragments of what they consider proof to fit their preconception.

Hmmm, not unlike the Iraqi WMD case for going to war.

-HH

You know I used to think the same way but what fictious person, not alone a real person, would have had the power and influence to base a calendar upon them?

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 11:29 AM
You know I used to think the same way but what fictious person, not alone a real person, would have had the power and influence to base a calendar upon them?

There is a difference between a cultural belief and an historical record. The calendar was not changed until the sixth century to approximate the supposed birth of Christ. I am not saying Christianity hasn't had an influence, a profound influence, on Western culture. But I think there is very little evidence to support the historicity of the Gospel story. The Church had as much political motives as supposed spiritual motives for indoctrinating the culture into its obedience. Immersing various cultures into a single belief involves modifying all aspects of life so that one is constantly reminded of its presence.

-HH

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 11:38 AM
There is a difference between a cultural belief and an historical record. The calendar was not changed until the sixth century to approximate the supposed birth of Christ. I am not saying Christianity hasn't had an influence, a profound influence, on Western culture. But I think there is very little evidence to support the historicity of the Gospel story. The Church had as much political motives as supposed spiritual motives for indoctrinating the culture into its obedience. Immersing various cultures into a single belief involves modifying all aspects of life so that one is constantly reminded of its presence.
-HH
Dont get me started on religions hypocrital political bloody history, but sorry, the point still is strong regardless. No other man has affected history in the manner that this Jesus(Yeshua) did. This to me give credence to him, before one even researches the facts behind him.

Rain Man
08-13-2005, 11:45 AM
Why? So you can make fun of something that was good?

No, I don't think so. Have your fun, doubt what happened without facts, it's worked for you so far.


WWJD? I think he'd tell me about the miracles. Otherwise, he's just another carpenter.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 11:46 AM
Dont get me started on religions hypocrital political bloody history, but sorry, the point still is strong regardless. No other man has affected history in the manner that this Jesus(Yeshua) did. This to me give credence to him, before one even researches the facts behind him.

All right, I won't get you started, but your faith in this speculation only confirms the influence of a religion, not the man itself, or the events related in the Gospel. Just recognize the method is not historical, it is a belief based on cultural influence. History must be corroborated to be considered authentic.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 11:46 AM
In John 1:21-25 John the Baptist in his own words flat denied actually being Elijah and in Luke 1:17 his father is told that "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children....to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. So it not unreasonable to assess that he is likend to Elijah in his actions, just as Jesus had done. He is the the one the prophesy spoke of "crying out of the wilderness".



And yet Jesus said "John IS Elijah."

What's the definition of "is" anyway?


Who is in the position to know... John or Jesus?

Rain Man
08-13-2005, 11:48 AM
Now this has tweeked my curiosity. Why would this make you wonder?


I'm not a Bible scholar in any way, shape, or form. Is it a well-known fact who wrote Genesis? I'm truly curious.

And I wonder because Genesis kind of lays the foundation for the rest of the book.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 11:52 AM
Genesis is a compilation of at least two different sources of early literature. The author is unknown although ascribed to Moses.

-HH

chop
08-13-2005, 11:55 AM
Genesis is a compilation of at least two different sources of early literature. The author is unknown although ascribed to Moses.

-HH

Who are you? You only show up when there is a religious topic. Do you post under another name?

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 12:02 PM
Who are you? You only show up when there is a religious topic. Do you post under another name?

No. I just post infrequently and come to the board to get the Chiefs updates I can't get here in California. My interests are in philosophy, religion, and theology and so I enjoy entering into those discussions. I don't have much football insight, so I let the masters in that area inform me. :)

-HH

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:03 PM
And yet Jesus said "John IS Elijah."
What's the definition of "is" anyway?
Who is in the position to know... John or Jesus?

How could you say that John wouldnt know, do you not know who you are?
Why could Jesus not be referring to prophecy since thats what encompasses his statements when he was dealing with the hypocritical religious leaders? Why not call a spade a spade?

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:12 PM
All right, I won't get you started, but your faith in this speculation only confirms the influence of a religion, not the man itself, or the events related in the Gospel. Just recognize the method is not historical, it is a belief based on cultural influence. History must be corroborated to be considered authentic.

No, I was looking at it objectively. You tell me a man that has that much historical influence or even a book for that matter.
Can you deny the historical accounts of these Jesus followers being feed to lions, ect. I cant see anyone who does a little homework couldnt determine some things have a ring of truth to them. If proven factual, even the Jewish religious leaders that walked and talked with this man Jesus, wouldnt believe who he was.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:26 PM
I'm not a Bible scholar in any way, shape, or form. Is it a well-known fact who wrote Genesis? I'm truly curious.

And I wonder because Genesis kind of lays the foundation for the rest of the book.



The writing of Genesis is traditionally credited to Moses, a Hebrew who lived some 3,500 years ago. Genesis is a pivitol book because if critics can prove it wrong then the rest of the bible can be discredited. But if he didnt, would that really matter? It is interesting though that Jesus quoted from Genesis all the time as if it were factual credible book and even said “If you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me". Jesus interestingly is even referred to as "the last Adam".

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 12:37 PM
No, I was looking at it objectively. You tell me a man that has that much historical influence or even a book for that matter.
Can you deny the historical accounts of these Jesus followers being feed to lions, ect. I cant see anyone who does a little homework couldnt determine some things have a ring of truth to them. If proven factual, even the Jewish religious leaders that walked and talked with this man Jesus, wouldnt believe who he was.

Christians were not the only people fed to lions, nor have they been the only religious sect to die for their faith. Instead of pointing to beliefs in a theology, why not point me towards something that passes historical muster. Physcical evidence? Non-Biblical sources? This was one of the best documented times in history. You make statements you call proof, yet fail to back them up with references outside of a text that is claiming itself as its own authority. I've done a little homework, go ahead and point me towards what you consider definitive.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 12:39 PM
The writing of Genesis is traditionally credited to Moses, a Hebrew who lived some 3,500 years ago. Genesis is a pivitol book because if critics can prove it wrong then the rest of the bible can be discredited. But if he didnt, would that really matter? It is interesting though that Jesus quoted from Genesis all the time as if it were factual credible book and even said “If you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me". Jesus interestingly is even referred to as "the last Adam".


Would contradictory statements within the text count as "being proved wrong"?

-HH

Rain Man
08-13-2005, 12:41 PM
Ah. Thanks for the Genesis authorship notes. I didn't know if there was a belief that God wrote it or something.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 12:42 PM
Ah. Thanks for the Genesis authorship notes. I didn't know if there was a belief that God wrote it or something.

It is believed that God was dictating to Moses, for at least parts of it, and maybe for the parts after which Moses hd already died as well.

-HH

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:51 PM
Christians were not the only people fed to lions, nor have they been the only religious sect to die for their faith. Instead of pointing to beliefs in a theology, why not point me towards something that passes historical muster. Physcical evidence? Non-Biblical sources? This was one of the best documented times in history. You make statements you call proof, yet fail to back them up with references outside of a text that is claiming itself as its own authority. I've done a little homework, go ahead and point me towards what you consider definitive.
-HH

So your admitting that its a fact that Christians(people who followed Jesus) were fed to lions, but this documented historical fact is not considered physical evidence? Your also admitting that fact that Jesus influenced the calendar we use, but this fact is not considered credible evidence either? Of coarse I'm not saying a person should believe Jesus existed based soley on these points, but hey, they are very logical and valid pieces to a evidence puzzle. You cannot disprove these facts you can only disbelieve them.
.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:53 PM
Would contradictory statements within the text count as "being proved wrong"?

-HH

If there was such a thing, why yes.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 12:55 PM
Ah. Thanks for the Genesis authorship notes. I didn't know if there was a belief that God wrote it or something.

Is that a trick comment?

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 01:02 PM
So your admitting that its a fact that Christians(people who followed Jesus) were fed to lions, but this documented historical fact is not considered physical evidence?

Do you know these people actually met Jesus and were therefore followers of him or are you speculating that because they called themselves Christians it proves an actual Christ? What is the time period you are referring to? What are the Roman records?

Your also admitting that fact that Jesus influenced the calendar we use, but this fact is not considered credible evidence either?

How could Jesus influence a calendar after his death? The calendar was influenced by the Church theology, you are conflating two separate issues.

Of coarse I'm not saying a person should believe Jesus existed based soley on these points, but hey, they are very logical and valid pieces to a evidence puzzle. You cannot disprove these facts you can only disbelieve them.

These are not facts to Jesus' historicity, they are examples of Christianity's influence. If your point is that the existence of a popular religion naturally begets a god-man founder, then we also have to accept Mithra, Zoroaster, Prometheus, Dyonisius, Buddah, Krishna, Horus, and a host of others were also real people with as legitimate a claim to being the son of God as Jesus did.

-HH

Rain Man
08-13-2005, 01:09 PM
Is that a trick comment?


No. Am I missing something?

I thought there were some religions that believe that their God wrote their holy book and left it in a cave or something. Given the content of Genesis, it seemed like a reasonable scenario, so I didn't know if that was the hypothesis.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 01:15 PM
If there was such a thing, why yes.

Well, in the first chapter of Genesis the order of Creation goes like this:

1. Light
2. Separates waters of heaven and earth
3. Dry land, vegetation, trees and plants
4. Sun, moon, and stars
5. great sea monsters and winged birds
6. cattle and animals, then man and woman

Starting in 2:4, however, we get this order:

1. man is created first
2. Garden of Eden
3. beasts and birds
4. woman

Now, I have seen many apolgetics for these obviously contradictory orders. I was just curious which one you subscribe to?

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 01:16 PM
No. Am I missing something?

I thought there were some religions that believe that their God wrote their holy book and left it in a cave or something. Given the content of Genesis, it seemed like a reasonable scenario, so I didn't know if that was the hypothesis.

That's the Quran.

-HH

Taco John
08-13-2005, 01:37 PM
How could you say that John wouldnt know, do you not know who you are?


Who is the authority? John or Jesus?

I don't know why John didn't know. My guess is that he wasn't carrying around the physical memories of Elijah, and thus had no way of knowing. I do know that when people get organ transplants, they often also get memory transplants, suggeting that the physical body acts as storage. The body is a miraculous thing.

Nevertheless, why John didn't know is irrelevant when you figure that THE AUTHORITY himself said "John IS Elijah."



Why could Jesus not be referring to prophecy since thats what encompasses his statements when he was dealing with the hypocritical religious leaders? Why not call a spade a spade?


I'm not sure what you are saying here, but what I do know is that it doesn't get around Jesus's statement that "John IS Elijah."

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 01:45 PM
No. Am I missing something?
I thought there were some religions that believe that their God wrote their holy book and left it in a cave or something. Given the content of Genesis, it seemed like a reasonable scenario, so I didn't know if that was the hypothesis.

No sorry, I just thought that there was maybe an issue with Moses being directed by God to write it.......carry on.
:D

stevieray
08-13-2005, 01:53 PM
How could you say that John wouldnt know, do you not know who you are?
Why could Jesus not be referring to prophecy since thats what encompasses his statements when he was dealing with the hypocritical religious leaders? Why not call a spade a spade?

Jesus' comparison of John to Elijah stems from similiar backgrounds. In IIRC, in Luke, it's stated that Elijah was the baptist who had to come first. And because John was so similar, he was often referred to as the second Elijah. It has nothing to do with reincarnation.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 01:54 PM
Who is the authority? John or Jesus?
I don't know why John didn't know. My guess is that he wasn't carrying around the physical memories of Elijah, and thus had no way of knowing. I do know that when people get organ transplants, they often also get memory transplants, suggeting that the physical body acts as storage. The body is a miraculous thing. "

...and you dont see this as reaching?

Nevertheless, why John didn't know is irrelevant when you figure that THE AUTHORITY himself said "John IS Elijah."
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but what I do know is that it doesn't get around Jesus's statement that "John IS Elijah."

Here's a breakdowm of what I'm saying. About 450 years after Elijah’s time, Malachi prophesied that Elijah the prophet would appear “before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of the Lord” (Mal 4:5,*6) The Jews of Jesus’ day were in expectation of Elijah’s coming to fulfill this prophecy. (Mt 17:10) Some thought that Jesus was Elijah. (Mt 16:14) John the Baptizer, who wore a hair garment and a leather girdle around his loins as did Elijah(2Ki 1:8), denied that he actually was Elijah in person. (Mt 3:4; Joh 1:21) The angel had not told John’s father Zechariah that John would be Elijah, but that he would have “Elijah’s spirit and power .*.*. to get ready for the Lord a prepared people.” (Lu 1:17) Jesus indicated that John did that work but was not recognized by the Jews. (Mt 17:11-13) After John’s death a visionary appearance of Elijah along with Moses occurred at Jesus’ transfiguration, indicating that there was something yet to take place as represented by the work that Elijah had done.—Mr 9:1-8.

Hydrae
08-13-2005, 02:16 PM
I just want to say thank you to those participating in this thread. It has stayed reasonable and informative and a thoroughly interesting read. :thumb:

Taco John
08-13-2005, 02:20 PM
...and you dont see this as reaching?


Abosultely not.

"John IS Elijah."

That's what Jesus said. "John IS Elijah."

It takes a lot of context mining to get around those three simple words, "John IS Elijah." And even then, you have to provide verses to CONTRADICT what Jesus said... "Let him with ears hear... John IS Elijah... If you are willing to accept it."

How is it a reach to say that John IS Elijah, when that is EXACTLY what Jesus said?

So let me ask you this... Do you believe Jesus or not?

Taco John
08-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Jesus' comparison of John to Elijah stems from similiar backgrounds. In IIRC, in Luke, it's stated that Elijah was the baptist who had to come first. And because John was so similar, he was often referred to as the second Elijah. It has nothing to do with reincarnation.



Wrong. Jesus didn't say "John has a similar background to Elijah."

He said "John IS Elijah."

What is the definition of "is" anyway?

patteeu
08-13-2005, 03:31 PM
Who are you? You only show up when there is a religious topic. Do you post under another name?

I've seen him/her post on other, non-religious matters.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 03:50 PM
Wrong. Jesus didn't say "John has a similar background to Elijah."

He said "John IS Elijah."

What is the definition of "is" anyway?

Jesus also said that "Peter you are a rock".
Jesus didnt say he was similar to a rock, he said he was a rock, so you then you also conclude that he indeed was a piece of stone, yes?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2005, 04:07 PM
Jesus also said that "Peter you are a rock".
Jesus didnt say he was similar to a rock, he said he was a rock, so you then you also conclude that he indeed was a piece of stone, yes?


I'm sure there is a cult somewhere that believes Peter was a "rock", and a member will be along shortly to dispute it with you. ROFL

Electric
08-13-2005, 04:14 PM
WWJD? I think he'd tell me about the miracles. Otherwise, he's just another carpenter.

I'm a poor judge of character, so I don't tell people that I judge to be of poor character things that they will surely twist into something it's not.

Find your own miracles and then come talk to me.

Rain Man
08-13-2005, 04:17 PM
I'm a poor judge of character, so I don't tell people that I judge to be of poor character things that they will surely twist into something it's not.

Find your own miracles and then come talk to me.


If you're a poor judge of character, then shouldn't the people that you judge to be poor character be the very ones that you should trust?

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 05:30 PM
I'm sure there is a cult somewhere that believes Peter was a "rock", and a member will be along shortly to dispute it with you. ROFL

I dont mean any disrespect to our discussion, but that right there is funny...I dont care who you are.
ROFL

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 05:38 PM
I just want to say thank you to those participating in this thread. It has stayed reasonable and informative and a thoroughly interesting read. :thumb:

I lived in Jerusalem for over 6 months. Never would have guessed that would you? Went on many an archelogical dig. Found it very interesting to all of a sudden uncover something that hadn't seen the light of day for 2000 years.

Talked with many a devout believers on both sides, very learned men. You guys don't know chit compared to those dudes and they admit to not knowing WTF really occured way back when.....

In the final analysis almost all religions its all about faith. You have faith that this is really the way it happened. You have faith in your belief system. And thats good enough for you and your family.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 05:50 PM
Genesis is a compilation of at least two different sources of early literature. The author is unknown although ascribed to Moses.
-HH

How can you state with such authority that the author is "unknown"?
The fact is, there are some 200 references to Moses in 27 of the later Bible books. Moses’ writership has never been questioned by the Jews. The Christian Greek Scriptures make frequent mention of Moses as the writer of “the law,” the crowning testimony being that of Jesus Christ. Moses wrote at God's direct command and under His inspiration.—Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Josh. 8:31; Dan. 9:13; Luke 24:27,*44. I had mentioned earlier that Jesus himself attributed the writing to Moses. So as far as within the biblical circles, there is no doubt who wrote the book of Genesis.
Isn't only proper that those within the bible circle have the first right of claim to who its writers and authorship are?

Count Alex's Wins
08-13-2005, 05:57 PM
You have faith in your belief system. And thats good enough for you and your family.

What?

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 05:59 PM
I lived in Jerusalem for over 6 months. Never would have guessed that would you? Went on many an archelogical dig. Found it very interesting to all of a sudden uncover something that hadn't seen the light of day for 2000 years.
Talked with many a devout believers on both sides, very learned men. You guys don't know chit compared to those dudes and they admit to not knowing WTF really occured way back when......

Simply not true.

In the final analysis almost all religions its all about faith. You have faith that this is really the way it happened. You have faith in your belief system. And thats good enough for you and your family.

Blind faith with no foundation, is really not faith at all.
Faith built upon a foundation of tested certain realities is really the only way real faith can be built.

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 06:02 PM
What?
http://www.forumspile.com/Understand-Bill_and_Ted.jpg

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 06:04 PM
Simply not true.



Blind faith with no foundation, is really not faith at all.
Faith built upon a foundation of tested certain realities is really the only way real faith can be built.

Whats not true?

Did I say anything about Blind faith? I'm talking about the same faith you are

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 06:14 PM
How can you state with such authority that the author is "unknown"?
The fact is, there are some 200 references to Moses in 27 of the later Bible books. Moses’ writership has never been questioned by the Jews. The Christian Greek Scriptures make frequent mention of Moses as the writer of “the law,” the crowning testimony being that of Jesus Christ. Moses wrote at God's direct command and under His inspiration.—Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Josh. 8:31; Dan. 9:13; Luke 24:27,*44. I had mentioned earlier that Jesus himself attributed the writing to Moses. So as far as within the biblical circles, there is no doubt who wrote the book of Genesis.
Isn't only proper that those within the bible circle have the first right of claim to who its writers and authorship are?

I don't work under the same assumptions you do. You assume the text is historical and then use circular logic to say it is so because its in the text. I don't believe the major characters of the Bible are historical anymore than Jason and the Argonauts, Hercules, and Perseus were to the Greeks. There is absolutely no way to verify Moses, and if he was a real person, that he was the author. Those are the assumptions based on FAITH. Historical method is not supposed to verify on faith.

There are a number of books out there (written by Christians and Jews) that ponder who wrote them. In fact, the most popular, Who Wrote The Bible addresses that very question. I read many different sources, both pro and con, and the pro side almost always resorts to faith in the assumption these are historical records. Not until Kings do I believe that we are approaching anything historical in the Old Testament, and then only in regards to lineage. I could paste articles by Jewish scholars claiming this same thing, but I understand how you hate such tactics.

-HH

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 06:17 PM
Whats not true?

Did I say anything about Blind faith? I'm talking about the same faith you are

Sorry, but I've seen a lot of educated idiots that call themselves experts.

My faith cant be the same, because you claim there are no "real" realities to build your faith upon.
My faith in anything must have certain degree of tangible realities.

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 06:22 PM
Sorry, but I've seen a lot of educated idiots that call themselves experts.

My faith cant be the same, because you claim there are no "real" realities to build your faith upon.
My faith in anything must have certain degree of tangible realities.
Whats "Real"? Something you can see? taste? Smell yourself? Been there done that with conversations like in this thread. No offense but I'm not interested in reliving those days again.

patteeu
08-13-2005, 06:22 PM
How could you say that John wouldnt know, do you not know who you are?
Why could Jesus not be referring to prophecy since thats what encompasses his statements when he was dealing with the hypocritical religious leaders? Why not call a spade a spade?

If we assume for the moment that you are reincarnated, why do you not know about your past lives? If we assume that John was a mortal like you and Jesus was an all knowing God, why would it not make sense that Jesus might know that John was Elijah reincarnated but that John himself didn't know?

I'm not saying Taco's right, but he's making a more reasonable argument than you are giving him credit for, IMO.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 06:33 PM
I don't work under the same assumptions you do. You assume the text is historical and then use circular logic to say it is so because its in the text. I don't believe the major characters of the Bible are historical anymore than Jason and the Argonauts, Hercules, and Perseus were to the Greeks. There is absolutely no way to verify Moses, and if he was a real person, that he was the author. Those are the assumptions based on FAITH. Historical method is not supposed to verify on faith.

I assume that text that was written and recorded thousands of years ago, that proves it historical accuracy many times over, can be viewed as a credible historical book. There is no way you cannot verify that Moses wasnt real either, those are assumptions based simply upon human opinion.

There are a number of books out there (written by Christians and Jews) that ponder who wrote them. In fact, the most popular, Who Wrote The Bible addresses that very question. I read many different sources, both pro and con, and the pro side almost always resorts to faith in the assumption these are historical records. Not until Kings do I believe that we are approaching anything historical in the Old Testament, and then only in regards to lineage. I could paste articles by Jewish scholars claiming this same thing, but I understand how you hate such tactics.
-HH

I dont necessarily hate the tactics, I just dont always respect them because they are lenghty and are usually very shallow most of the time.
Luke 3:23-38 describes the complete linage from Jesus back to Adam, why stop in the middle?
I could quote Jewish scholars that discount Jesus existance too, but do you think they are correct just becuse they are "scholars"?

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 06:40 PM
If we assume for the moment that you are reincarnated, why do you not know about your past lives? If we assume that John was a mortal like you and Jesus was an all knowing God, why would it not make sense that Jesus might know that John was Elijah reincarnated but that John himself didn't know?

I'm not saying Taco's right, but he's making a more reasonable argument than you are giving him credit for, IMO.

Not that he was rerincarnated, but you could even liken it to Jesus himself, for until he was older and baptized he didnt posess or have all of his past knowledge.
But I havent even touched on the Bibles view of death and reincarnation yet, thats a whole different can of worms. I was just trying to reason and explain this issue of Jesus calling John, Elijah.

Count Alex's Wins
08-13-2005, 06:40 PM
http://www.forumspile.com/Understand-Bill_and_Ted.jpg

Seriously. What's "good enough" for you, may not be good enough for "your family."

Saul Good
08-13-2005, 06:45 PM
Yes, you've got a grip on something that many people can't even fathom. That's likely. :rolleyes:

Patteeu, I'm a little disappointed in your posts here. I've found you to be one of the most thoughtful posters on CP, but you're way off the mark on this one.

Are you really trying to make the argument that ordinary people don't have a grip on things that you can't even fathom? I don't know what you do for a living, but I would be willing to wager everything I own that there is at least one concept on this list that you can't even begin to explain:

How a carburetor works
What the dragon's point was in Beowulf
Hypnosis
Sickle cell anemia
Vin Diesel as a sex symbol
Cold fusion
Where a woman's piss exits her body
Broncos fans

I would also submit that Mormons would settle for your simply learning how to spell their faith correctly.

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 06:50 PM
Seriously. What's "good enough" for you, may not be good enough for "your family."

You speak the truth ole wise one but I was speaking more of the cliche family. Hubby/Wife/Kids. They "usually" believe close to the same and attend the same church etc etc.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 06:53 PM
Whats "Real"? Something you can see? taste? Smell yourself? Been there done that with conversations like in this thread. No offense but I'm not interested in reliving those days again.

Your confused or confusing.
Lets say I'm walking in the woods and I look down and see a certain paw print left in the ground, then I see certain hair colors around it and close by it, and I also smell a certain odor.
I could definitely say that I have faith, built upon realities, that there had been a skunk there, without ever actually seeing it.

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 06:56 PM
Your confused or confusing.
Lets say I'm walking in the woods and I look down and see a certain paw print left in the ground, then I see certain hair colors around it and close by it, and I also smell a certain odor.
I could definitely say that I have faith, built upon realities, that there had been a skunk there, without ever actually seeing it.

I'm always confused. Whats your point? :p

Sorry guys to have stopped in on this thread. I'm exiting now. No harm no foul. As you were gentelmen.:grouphug:

Saul Good
08-13-2005, 06:59 PM
Sorry, but I've seen a lot of educated idiots that call themselves experts.

My faith cant be the same, because you claim there are no "real" realities to build your faith upon.
My faith in anything must have certain degree of tangible realities.

Do you have faith in gravity? It can't be proven. It can't even be measured. It can't be scientifically explained. All we can do is observe it's effect. I, for one, have faith in its existence in spite of my inability to prove it.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 07:01 PM
I'm always confused. Whats your point? :p

Sorry guys to have stopped in on this thread. I'm exiting now. No harm no foul. As you were gentelmen.:grouphug:

Sorry, I always like to use logic and reason.
Didn't mean to run you off......but I have a feeling you will be lurking.
:D

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 07:07 PM
Do you have faith in gravity? It can't be proven. It can't even be measured. It can't be scientifically explained. All we can do is observe it's effect. I, for one, have faith in its existence in spite of my inability to prove it.

All we can do is observe it's effect....but it cant be proven? It cant be measured....what?
So your suggesting that just because a scientist cant explain something, means it isnt proven? Do you really want to go there?

Electric
08-13-2005, 07:26 PM
If you're a poor judge of character, then shouldn't the people that you judge to be poor character be the very ones that you should trust?

Who knows? But then again, who cares?

I liked the homless cart better. Just needed some stuff in it.

Calcountry
08-13-2005, 07:26 PM
http://www.forumspile.com/Understand-Bill_and_Ted.jpgO.K. so Keanu Reeves went on to have a movie career, but dude, what about the other guy in the pic, did he accomplish anything?

Saul Good
08-13-2005, 07:26 PM
All we can do is observe it's effect....but it cant be proven? It cant be measured....what?
So your suggesting that just because a scientist cant explain something, means it isnt proven? Do you really want to go there?

I'm actually suggesting exactly that (at least in a scientific sense). There is no proof that gravity exists. Look it up on a scientific discussion board. I suppose "proof" is in the eye of the beholder, though. If your definition of proof is that you can start with an effect and work backwards from there to necessarily deduce the cause, congratulations, you've proven that gravity exists and people of faith have proven that God exists.
Gravity is like time. We assume that it exists because we can measure effects to which we attribute it. I can reason that the moon creates light because I can measure the resulting brightness. That's not proof, though.
I perceive that gravity exists. I perceive that God exists. I perceive that time exists. I use the same rationale for determining that all three exist. I can't prove that any of them exist per se, but I can make educated guesses.

Gravity: Objects with large masses are hard to seperate. When I've jumped up, I've always come back down. I attribute this to the existence of gravity.

God: I've never seen organization come from disorganization unless acted upon by a sentient being. The universe is infinitely organized. I attribute this to the existence of God.

Time: My watch only goes one direction. I, along with everything around me, get older at a constant rate. I attribute this to the existence of time.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 07:30 PM
Jesus also said that "Peter you are a rock".
Jesus didnt say he was similar to a rock, he said he was a rock, so you then you also conclude that he indeed was a piece of stone, yes?



Now who's the one doing the context raping?

Electric
08-13-2005, 07:31 PM
Arguing religion on this board is like taking a knife to a gun fight. Too many opinions, not enough facts.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 07:32 PM
Arguing religion on this board is like taking a knife to a gun fight. Too many opinions, not enough facts.



You're not very good at metaphores...

Saul Good
08-13-2005, 07:35 PM
You're not very good at metaphores...

What do you mean? He's as good at metaphores as cats are at coffee.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 07:37 PM
A bird in the hand is like a cat on a hot tin roof...

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 07:41 PM
I assume that text that was written and recorded thousands of years ago, that proves it historical accuracy many times over, can be viewed as a credible historical book. There is no way you cannot verify that Moses wasnt real either, those are assumptions based simply upon human opinion.



I dont necessarily hate the tactics, I just dont always respect them because they are lenghty and are usually very shallow most of the time.
Luke 3:23-38 describes the complete linage from Jesus back to Adam, why stop in the middle?
I could quote Jewish scholars that discount Jesus existance too, but do you think they are correct just becuse they are "scholars"?

Just because it is old deosn't mean it is historically acurate and that accuracy is very much in question. One has to remember, most people set out to prove the Bible true first, not to be objective and really question the historical veracity. That is a method of culture. I am not claiming my position is true, only that neither of them are. Since such cannot be determined, the Bible can only be taken on faith. With faith, one can claim it is historical, but one has to be cogniznt of the fact that wants one makes that claim it is incumbent upon them to prove its authenticty via the method of historical enquiry. Otherwise, it is just hearsy.

There are two conflicting lineages of Jesus. Just about any Jew will tell you, the apologetics for this contradiction always fail because kingship is only determined through the male line. I think the absence of Jesus of the Gospels in the Jewish literature of the time is telling of him being more mythological than historical. I don't care what people want to believe as a matter of faith, but when the claim is it is historical, they have to back it up with evidence other than the very book whose credibility is in question.

-HH

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 07:47 PM
Now who's the one doing the context raping?

If I believed that Peter was a rock, then that would be me.
You know many who believe in an uncomprehendable trinity(Jesus was God, God was Jesus). Those that try to support the trinity doctrine, often quote Jesus when he said "The father and I are one". If you read this as it is written without context, you could make the argument that Jesus was saying that he and the father are one person. The only problem with this is that farther down in the scriptures he stated "Just as the father and I are one, the apostles and I are one". This brings a whole different light to it doesnt it? Jesus was simply stating that they were of same mind. Just like when Jesus figuratively and comparingly stated that "John is (the) Elijah" that the prophets spoke about.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 07:54 PM
Just because it is old deosn't mean it is historically acurate and that accuracy is very much in question. One has to remember, most people set out to prove the Bible true first, not to be objective and really question the historical veracity. That is a method of culture. I am not claiming my position is true, only that neither of them are. Since such cannot be determined, the Bible can only be taken on faith. With faith, one can claim it is historical, but one has to be cogniznt of the fact that wants one makes that claim it is incumbent upon them to prove its authenticty via the method of historical enquiry. Otherwise, it is just hearsy.

I'm not sure how you make it thru a day.
Did you copy and paste this, or is this actually how you reason?
See post #196

There are two conflicting lineages of Jesus. Just about any Jew will tell you, the apologetics for this contradiction always fail because kingship is only determined through the male line. I think the absence of Jesus of the Gospels in the Jewish literature of the time is telling of him being more mythological than historical. I don't care what people want to believe as a matter of faith, but when the claim is it is historical, they have to back it up with evidence other than the very book whose credibility is in question.-HH

Do you really know what you just posted?
Your saying there is NO historically bible linked evidence...what???

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 08:03 PM
Your confused or confusing.
Lets say I'm walking in the woods and I look down and see a certain paw print left in the ground, then I see certain hair colors around it and close by it, and I also smell a certain odor.
I could definitely say that I have faith, built upon realities, that there had been a skunk there, without ever actually seeing it.

OK, I'll go back here, but I don't think this proves what you think it does. You are using your method of recall to associate sense perception to determine a likelyhood. That has nothing to do with an historical method. Historical method is an intellectual science, not a first hand account.

By the way, I get through the day quite nicely, thanks for ad hominen.

If you want to take the extreme position of what I wrote, that is up to you. What I am saying, is that the events and major characters that really hold the most meaning for people who believe it are mythology, not historical. You try to use incredulity as a means of of proof. "Everybody knows..." This isn't the historical method.

-HH

BigRedChief
08-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Your right C-Mac it is much more fun lurking. :)

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 08:09 PM
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/index.html

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus'
ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of
the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of
Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's
genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law
of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no
genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament,
which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no
verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that
Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal
connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the
throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male
line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the
right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are
exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding
the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27
and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of
physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could
claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and
his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship
if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God
chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1
Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the
messianic office.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 08:19 PM
OK, I'll go back here, but I don't think this proves what you think it does. You are using your method of recall to associate sense perception to determine a likelyhood. That has nothing to do with an historical method. Historical method is an intellectual science, not a first hand account.
Then by this reasoning, basically you have concluded there really is nothing that is tangible historical evidence. That is why I asked if you made it thru the day, when you give credence to nothing.

By the way, I get through the day quite nicely, thanks for ad hominen.If you want to take the extreme position of what I wrote, that is up to you. What I am saying, is that the events and major characters that really hold the most meaning for people who believe it are mythology, not historical. You try to use incredulity as a means of of proof. "Everybody knows..." This isn't the historical method.
-HH
I was only discussing biblical history with you, it is you that continues to go past that and again thats the problem. Historical facts was my first stepping stone, for its easy to conclude that I wouldnt have gotten anywhere going backwards.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 08:22 PM
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/index.html

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus'
ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of
the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of
Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's
genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law
of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no
genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament,
which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no
verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that
Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal
connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the
throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male
line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the
right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are
exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding
the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27
and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of
physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could
claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and
his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship
if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God
chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1
Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the
messianic office.

ROFL
Do you really have a clue if what you just cut and pasted, is in anyway accurate or not?

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 08:44 PM
I'm actually suggesting exactly that (at least in a scientific sense). There is no proof that gravity exists. Look it up on a scientific discussion board. I suppose "proof" is in the eye of the beholder, though. If your definition of proof is that you can start with an effect and work backwards from there to necessarily deduce the cause, congratulations, you've proven that gravity exists and people of faith have proven that God exists.
Gravity is like time. We assume that it exists because we can measure effects to which we attribute it. I can reason that the moon creates light because I can measure the resulting brightness. That's not proof, though.
I perceive that gravity exists. I perceive that God exists. I perceive that time exists. I use the same rationale for determining that all three exist. I can't prove that any of them exist per se, but I can make educated guesses.

Gravity: Objects with large masses are hard to seperate. When I've jumped up, I've always come back down. I attribute this to the existence of gravity.

God: I've never seen organization come from disorganization unless acted upon by a sentient being. The universe is infinitely organized. I attribute this to the existence of God.

Time: My watch only goes one direction. I, along with everything around me, get older at a constant rate. I attribute this to the existence of time.

I dont disgree with many of your valid assertions(with the exception of comparing gravity to time), but just to simplify:
No we cant see it, but air moves the leaves therefore it's existance is proved without a scientest.
No we cant see it, but gravity keeps us on the ground, it's existance is proved without a scientest.
No we cant see it, but natural gas burns therefore it's existance is proved without a scientest.
What I dont understand is how exactly this is viewed as backward thinking. This is just simple reasoning and logical thinking.

Saul Good
08-13-2005, 09:03 PM
I dont disgree with many of your valid assertions(with the exception of comparing gravity to time), but just to simplify:
No we cant see it, but air moves the leaves therefore it's existance is proved without a scientest.
No we cant see it, but gravity keeps us on the ground, it's existance is proved without a scientest.
No we cant see it, but natural gas burns therefore it's existance is proved without a scientest.
What I dont understand is how exactly this is viewed as backward thinking. This is just simple reasoning and logical thinking.

You're using circular reasoning for all of these points. (And you're wrong about gravity in that there are many plausible theories about what gravity may actually be. For an interesting read, look up Einstein's hypothesis comparing objects in space to a bowling ball sitting on a mattress.)

I could say that the leaves move and create wind. That doesn't make it so. Air can be measured. It is tangible. It has physical attributes such as pressure, temperature, weight, and an atomic composition. That's how we can prove that it exists scientifically. The same can be said for natural gas.
Gravity, on the other hand, has no more physical properties than God. We simply assume it to exist because we can't explain its effects, and we can predict it's properties with a high degree of accuracy.
If I say that order doesn't come from disorder without being acted upon by a sentient being, you can't give me any more examples to disprove me than I can give you examples of times that I've thrown a brick in the air only to watch it float away completely unaffected by the force of gravity.
Neither of us can use the scientific method to prove the existence of the object of our faiths, yours being gravity, mine being God. It becomes a matter of proving a negative. I'll keep throwing bricks in the air waiting for them to float away while you keep watching junkyards get hit by tornados and waiting for a Boeing 747 to be created out of randomly swirling debris. First one to prove the other wrong wins.

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 09:31 PM
Then by this reasoning, basically you have concluded there really is nothing that is tangible historical evidence. That is why I asked if you made it thru the day, when you give credence to nothing.


I was only discussing biblical history with you, it is you that continues to go past that and again thats the problem. Historical facts was my first stepping stone, for its easy to conclude that I wouldnt have gotten anywhere going backwards.

As to your first assertion, there is plenty people use to verify things historical such as coins, corroborating sources, contemporary mentionings, etc.

I understand now, you are not asserting it is historically acurate, you are just interpreting history within the presented context of the Bible, like the appendixes to the Lord Of The Rings, is Middle Earth history. Never mind then, I misunderstood what you were trying to put forward.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-13-2005, 09:34 PM
ROFL
Do you really have a clue if what you just cut and pasted, is in anyway accurate or not?

It depends on who you would accept as an authority, I suppose. This is from Jewish thinktank, so I am prepared to be inclined it is more accuate than not.

-HH

Taco John
08-13-2005, 10:37 PM
If I believed that Peter was a rock, then that would be me.
You know many who believe in an uncomprehendable trinity(Jesus was God, God was Jesus). Those that try to support the trinity doctrine, often quote Jesus when he said "The father and I are one". If you read this as it is written without context, you could make the argument that Jesus was saying that he and the father are one person. The only problem with this is that farther down in the scriptures he stated "Just as the father and I are one, the apostles and I are one". This brings a whole different light to it doesnt it? Jesus was simply stating that they were of same mind. Just like when Jesus figuratively and comparingly stated that "John is (the) Elijah" that the prophets spoke about.



Don't you find that an incredible reach? You're twisting in the wind while doing nothing to validate your argument or put what Christ said into the larger prophetical context.

Jesus WASN'T stating that they were of the same mind. That's preposterous. There is nothing in the bible, both english translations, or even the direct Greek that would even suggest that. Quit adding to the Bible. It's dishonest.

"John IS Elijah... If you are willing to accept it."

It's clear Christ knew that some wouldn't be willing to accept it.

But nonetheless, he was very clear: John IS Elijah.

Just because you aren't willing to accept it doesn't mean it's not true. It's clear what Christ was saying... It's crystal clear: John IS Elijah. No amount of spin on the Trinity, or squiggling will change those three simple words.

Taco John
08-13-2005, 10:42 PM
Say it: "I'm not willing to accept it."

Count Alex's Wins
08-13-2005, 10:44 PM
Say it: "I'm not willing to accept it."

http://yodasdatapad.com/livingroom/funstuff/downloads/avatars/obi_28.jpg

stevieray
08-13-2005, 10:57 PM
John was not a ressurected Elijah, he took on Elijah's PROPHETIC role---Boldly confronting sin and pointing people to God.

C-Mac
08-13-2005, 11:56 PM
You're using circular reasoning for all of these points. (And you're wrong about gravity in that there are many plausible theories about what gravity may actually be. For an interesting read, look up Einstein's hypothesis comparing objects in space to a bowling ball sitting on a mattress.)

I could say that the leaves move and create wind. That doesn't make it so. Air can be measured. It is tangible. It has physical attributes such as pressure, temperature, weight, and an atomic composition. That's how we can prove that it exists scientifically. The same can be said for natural gas.
Gravity, on the other hand, has no more physical properties than God. We simply assume it to exist because we can't explain its effects, and we can predict it's properties with a high degree of accuracy.
If I say that order doesn't come from disorder without being acted upon by a sentient being, you can't give me any more examples to disprove me than I can give you examples of times that I've thrown a brick in the air only to watch it float away completely unaffected by the force of gravity.
Neither of us can use the scientific method to prove the existence of the object of our faiths, yours being gravity, mine being God. It becomes a matter of proving a negative. I'll keep throwing bricks in the air waiting for them to float away while you keep watching junkyards get hit by tornados and waiting for a Boeing 747 to be created out of randomly swirling debris. First one to prove the other wrong wins.

I will have to give it to you guys, you are very circularly entertaining. You out to check some of Steven Hawkings stuff.
Sorry but life and logic doesnt need to be so complicted to me.

C-Mac
08-14-2005, 12:02 AM
Say it: "I'm not willing to accept it."

My scriptual knowledge, logic and reasoning forbid me to accept that John the Baptist was a reincarnated Elijah, since the word reincarnation nor its teaching if found anywhere within the Bible.
Can you show me any other examples, discussions or proofs of reincarnation in the Bible?

C-Mac
08-14-2005, 12:16 AM
As to your first assertion, there is plenty people use to verify things historical such as coins, corroborating sources, contemporary mentionings, etc.

I understand now, you are not asserting it is historically acurate, you are just interpreting history within the presented context of the Bible, like the appendixes to the Lord Of The Rings, is Middle Earth history. Never mind then, I misunderstood what you were trying to put forward.
-HH

When ever you have to dissect such a simple to understand word as "historical", then it tells me you are intimidated in some manner. You make it appear that if its also found in the Bible, then it cant be "real" history. If you were at teacher and I were your student I would ask to be transfered to an art class or something, because everything I used to think was "historical" is now completely muddied or just the opposite. I used to think so simple, that history was just things that happened in the past and were recorded.

patteeu
08-14-2005, 12:59 AM
Patteeu, I'm a little disappointed in your posts here. I've found you to be one of the most thoughtful posters on CP, but you're way off the mark on this one.

Are you really trying to make the argument that ordinary people don't have a grip on things that you can't even fathom? I don't know what you do for a living, but I would be willing to wager everything I own that there is at least one concept on this list that you can't even begin to explain:

How a carburetor works
What the dragon's point was in Beowulf
Hypnosis
Sickle cell anemia
Vin Diesel as a sex symbol
Cold fusion
Where a woman's piss exits her body
Broncos fans

I would also submit that Mormons would settle for your simply learning how to spell their faith correctly.

First of all, that particular post was aimed at one specific person for whom I don't have a whole lot of respect, not for ordinary people. Second of all, I suspect that I could fathom all of the above if I chose to make it my purpose to do so. They are not unfathomable mysteries that are beyond me or any other ordinary person. Nor is "faith" which, IIRC, was the actual subject being discussed.

And finally, thanks for your spelling tip, but I doubt that Mormons want you speaking for them any more than they want me speaking for them. If you are actually a Mormon, what I'd rather have is an answer to what you'd prefer to be called.

What makes me think that what you are really disappointed by is that I took a mild swipe at someone who has a faith that you share and you took it personally instead of recognizing that I wasn't criticizing faith or the faithful in general? I stand by that comment completely. I don't think believers have any secret knowledge about faith that I can't fathom and it would take a lot to convince me that Electric, in particular, understands anything that is beyond me.

But it doesn't matter whether I'm right about that or not. You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong about my post, but I can live with it if you are disappointed. In general, and specifically in this thread, I find your posts interesting and entertaining.

Taco John
08-14-2005, 01:11 AM
My scriptual knowledge, logic and reasoning forbid me to accept that John the Baptist was a reincarnated Elijah, since the word reincarnation nor its teaching if found anywhere within the Bible.
Can you show me any other examples, discussions or proofs of reincarnation in the Bible?


I would say your scriptural perspective forbids you. I doubt very much that logic and reasoning come into play here given how much you squirm to accept what Christ himself said. Logic and reasoning accept the word "is" for what it "is." Logic and reasoning don't quibble over the definition of is, and then scramble to find context that takes that simple word out of Christ's mouth.

Nevertheless... I accept that you do not accept what Christ said, simply as it is written.

The word "reincarnation" is not in there... Correct. I find the word unimportant so much as the concept.

Christ said "John IS Elijah." That much is undisputed, and even indesputable. In every translation... In the original greek... It's abundantly clear... Christ said "John IS Elijah, if you are willing to accept it."

If you want to inspect the scripture in the original Greek, I welcome you... It's even more clear there, because the scripture says "John HIMSELF is Elijah." (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=mt+11:14&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en) Right there in the original Greek. John HIMSELF is Elijah. That's powerful right there. It leaves absolutely no room to squiggle and guess at the meaning. "If you are willing to accept it, John HIMSELF is Elijah." What could that mean other than what it says? John, himself, was Elijah. The return of Elijah, just as prophecied. It wasn't the Jews were expecting though, and like you, they argued that it wasn't the truth, and that the prophecy was unfulfilled.

You ask for another example of the concept of reincarnation in the Bible. Aside from this clear example, I give you Revelations 20:4-7

20:4 - Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

20:5 - The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.



The righteous souls are once again given life, while the unrighteous remain dead. Evil is rooted out at the soul level, and for 1000 years, only righteous souls are given entrance into this world. Then after a thousand years, the unrighteous souls are brought back into the mix, and given another shot.

The scripture is clear on everything except how these souls gain entrance into this world. This is where logic and reasoning take over. I know of only one way that a soul is given entrance into this world: birth.


If that's not enough, I give you Hebrews 11:35... This one, I'll admit is more controversial, because in order to accept it, you have to understand the greek word "Andastasis," which is the word that is translated today to mean "Ressurection," which people take to mean the ressurection of the soul in this body... The original body... Rather than in another shell (body).

Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

I would argue that the word "Anastasis" (Ressurection) could simply be interpreted to mean "brought to life again." I think there is a specific reason why it singled out women in this scripture... That reason being only women can give birth... But further in the verse, we see that some of the dead did not want to receive "Anastasis," instead wanting to wait for a better opportunity!

What a confusing verse unless applied with the concept of reincarnation. It clears up instantaneously once you accept that souls are given ressurection through rebirth.

go bowe
08-14-2005, 01:19 AM
* * *
. . .I don't think believers have any secret knowledge about faith that I can't fathom and it would take a lot to convince me that Electric, in particular, understands anything that is beyond me.
* * * .ROFL ROFL ROFL

tommykat
08-14-2005, 01:23 AM
John was not a ressurected Elijah, he took on Elijah's PROPHETIC role---Boldly confronting sin and pointing people to God.

:hmmm: Amazing no one as yet understands that...:thumb:

Taco John
08-14-2005, 03:19 AM
John was not a ressurected Elijah, he took on Elijah's PROPHETIC role---Boldly confronting sin and pointing people to God.



That depends on whether you accept what Jesus said or not.

Christ said "John himself is Elijah." He didn't say anything remotely close to what you are saying. That he took on a prophetic role... That doesn't even make any sense. To take on his prophetic role, he has to BE Elijah. That's the whole prophecy. You use the words "prophetic role" like he's playing a part in a play, and not actually fulfilling a centuries old prophecy.

You've got it wrong. Well, according to Jesus anyway.

John himself was Elijah.

Electric
08-14-2005, 07:08 AM
That depends on whether you accept what Jesus said or not.

Christ said "John himself is Elijah." He didn't say anything remotely close to what you are saying. That he took on a prophetic role... That doesn't even make any sense. To take on his prophetic role, he has to BE Elijah. That's the whole prophecy. You use the words "prophetic role" like he's playing a part in a play, and not actually fulfilling a centuries old prophecy.

You've got it wrong. Well, according to Jesus anyway.

John himself was Elijah.

Maybe you've already posted it, but what is your scripture reference for what you claim?

Electric
08-14-2005, 07:16 AM
First of all, that particular post was aimed at one specific person for whom I don't have a whole lot of respect, not for ordinary people. Second of all, I suspect that I could fathom all of the above if I chose to make it my purpose to do so. They are not unfathomable mysteries that are beyond me or any other ordinary person. Nor is "faith" which, IIRC, was the actual subject being discussed.

And finally, thanks for your spelling tip, but I doubt that Mormons want you speaking for them any more than they want me speaking for them. If you are actually a Mormon, what I'd rather have is an answer to what you'd prefer to be called.

What makes me think that what you are really disappointed by is that I took a mild swipe at someone who has a faith that you share and you took it personally instead of recognizing that I wasn't criticizing faith or the faithful in general? I stand by that comment completely. I don't think believers have any secret knowledge about faith that I can't fathom and it would take a lot to convince me that Electric, in particular, understands anything that is beyond me.

But it doesn't matter whether I'm right about that or not. You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong about my post, but I can live with it if you are disappointed. In general, and specifically in this thread, I find your posts interesting and entertaining.

My my my, aren't we full of ourselves! If you understood what was originally written you might have a basic idea of what was said. The fact that you overlooked the basic premise proves that you can't "fathom" the basis of faith. As for respect, if I had one tiddle of respect for you it would be amazing.

LEQ [patteeu] [0] mov [intelligence] [patteeu]

Electric
08-14-2005, 07:18 AM
You're not very good at metaphores...

You're not very good at discrete humor. "Why don't you make like a drum and leave"!

I'm sure you've seen the movie.

Now TJ, don't go away mad.........just go away!

HolyHandgernade
08-14-2005, 08:26 AM
When ever you have to dissect such a simple to understand word as "historical", then it tells me you are intimidated in some manner. You make it appear that if its also found in the Bible, then it cant be "real" history. If you were at teacher and I were your student I would ask to be transfered to an art class or something, because everything I used to think was "historical" is now completely muddied or just the opposite. I used to think so simple, that history was just things that happened in the past and were recorded.

I'm not quite sure where you get intimidated from, but you can take what you will from it. If I write a book, and it contains just my opinions, with nothing to back up my assertions, then according to your simplistic version of historical, it is considered authentic because it was recorded. If my book had been about the unicorns of Holland, under your interpretation, if it was old enough and recorded, it is now historical. To each his own I guess. Have fun in your art class.

-HH

stevieray
08-14-2005, 10:07 AM
That depends on whether you accept what Jesus said or not.

Christ said "John himself is Elijah." He didn't say anything remotely close to what you are saying. That he took on a prophetic role... That doesn't even make any sense. To take on his prophetic role, he has to BE Elijah. That's the whole prophecy. You use the words "prophetic role" like he's playing a part in a play, and not actually fulfilling a centuries old prophecy.

You've got it wrong. Well, according to Jesus anyway.

John himself was Elijah.


I know what verses in Matthew you are referring to.

You are mistaken. John did not need to be Elijah to fullfill the scripture.

Jesus also said.."Of ALL men ever born, NONE shines greater than John the Baptist..."

C-Mac
08-14-2005, 10:14 AM
I'm not quite sure where you get intimidated from, but you can take what you will from it. If I write a book, and it contains just my opinions, with nothing to back up my assertions, then according to your simplistic version of historical, it is considered authentic because it was recorded. If my book had been about the unicorns of Holland, under your interpretation, if it was old enough and recorded, it is now historical. To each his own I guess. Have fun in your art class.
-HH

Well in art class at least they understand what history is all about.
I really dont understand what is so complicated about seeing that the bible has been proven many times that it is a historically accurate book. I'm sure that 99% of those lurking here understand what I'm trying to convey to you. When a piece of evidence is found to substantiate what I'm saying, like for the simple example of the "Pontious Pilate" finding and the story of this thread, you decide to disguard it as non-historical or an insignificant piece of history. Its no secret that many archaeologists actually use the bible to try to find certain historical landmarks and civilizations. Scientists at NASA have even referenced the bible. Thats why I say you must be intimidated by something because its obvious that you must have a blinding issue with the bible, or religion, or God. So again all I'm saying is that findings like these, at least gives the bible "historical credibility" because it has been proven by these types of findings, to be "historically accurate". You can choose not to attribute historical accuracy to the Bible, but proven historical findings do and there is nothing you can do to the word "historical" or say, that can take that glaring credibilty away.

Saul Good
08-14-2005, 10:30 AM
Well in art class at least they understand what history is all about.
I really dont understand what is so complicated about seeing that the bible has been proven many times that it is a historically accurate book. I'm sure that 99% of those lurking here understand what I'm trying to convey to you. When a piece of evidence is found to substantiate what I'm saying, like for the simple example of the "Pontious Pilate" finding and the story of this thread, you decide to disguard it as non-historical or an insignificant piece of history. Its no secret that many archaeologists actually use the bible to try to find certain historical landmarks and civilizations. Scientists at NASA have even referenced the bible. Thats why I say you must be intimidated by something because its obvious that you must have a blinding issue with the bible, or religion, or God. So again all I'm saying is that findings like these, at least gives the bible "historical credibility" because it has been proven by these types of findings, to be "historically accurate". You can choose not to attribute historical accuracy to the Bible, but proven historical findings do and there is nothing you can do to the word "historical" or say, that can take that glaring credibilty away.

To truly understand the historical significance of the Bible, one must first understand the nature of recording history that existed at the time. There weren't printing presses or history textbooks. Historical events were passed along through word of mouth. The details weren't considered important so long as the point of the story wasn't lost. Tangible references, such as the pool of Siloam, tend to be verifiable, as it doesn't take a 100% accurate retelling of a story to remember what or where a landmark was. The meat and potatoes of the stories were told in parables. Maybe something was added. Maybe something was omitted. That the stories may not have been 100% according to Hoyle true as told, the events they spoke of still happened. There just weren't 24 hour cable news cameras following the newsmakers of the day around capturing these events for posterity. I would wager that, 2000 years after the fact, we still come closer to the truth when reading these stories than we get when CNN reports on a 2 day old story.

C-Mac
08-14-2005, 10:52 AM
To truly understand the historical significance of the Bible, one must first understand the nature of recording history that existed at the time.There weren't printing presses or history textbooks. Historical events were passed along through word of mouth.
What? I can see that your not aware how a lot of history had been recorded.
The details weren't considered important so long as the point of the story wasn't lost. Tangible references, such as the pool of Siloam, tend to be verifiable, as it doesn't take a 100% accurate retelling of a story to remember what or where a landmark was.
You have a weakness, you haven't read the Bible much have you? None the less, the bibles "historical credibility" is still valid.
The meat and potatoes of the stories were told in parables. Maybe something was added. Maybe something was omitted. That the stories may not have been 100% according to Hoyle true as told, the events they spoke of still happened.
Again, your showing your weakness, havent really studied the bible or bible history much have you? Maybe's dont apply if something is deemed "historically accurate".
There just weren't 24 hour cable news cameras following the newsmakers of the day around capturing these events for posterity. I would wager that, 2000 years after the fact, we still come closer to the truth when reading these stories than we get when CNN reports on a 2 day old story.
Well we can probably agree here.

HolyHandgernade
08-14-2005, 11:05 AM
Well in art class at least they understand what history is all about.
I really dont understand what is so complicated about seeing that the bible has been proven many times that it is a historically accurate book. I'm sure that 99% of those lurking here understand what I'm trying to convey to you. When a piece of evidence is found to substantiate what I'm saying, like for the simple example of the "Pontious Pilate" finding and the story of this thread, you decide to disguard it as non-historical or an insignificant piece of history. Its no secret that many archaeologists actually use the bible to try to find certain historical landmarks and civilizations. Scientists at NASA have even referenced the bible. Thats why I say you must be intimidated by something because its obvious that you must have a blinding issue with the bible, or religion, or God. So again all I'm saying is that findings like these, at least gives the bible "historical credibility" because it has been proven by these types of findings, to be "historically accurate". You can choose not to attribute historical accuracy to the Bible, but proven historical findings do and there is nothing you can do to the word "historical" or say, that can take that glaring credibilty away.


OK

-HH

Saul Good
08-14-2005, 11:16 AM
What? I can see that your not aware how a lot of history had been recorded.

You have a weakness, you haven't read the Bible much have you? None the less, the bibles "historical credibility" is still valid.

Again, your showing your weakness, havent really studied the bible or bible history much have you? Maybe's dont apply if something is deemed "historically accurate".

Well we can probably agree here.

Actually I've taken classes on the historical interpretation of the Bible and the contextual history of its authors. I've read it and studied it more than you know.

I'm more or less on your side here. The Bible is exceedingly accurate from a historic perspective, certainly as or more accurate than anything else written at the time. However, it has been handled by a lot of men with a lot of agendas over the years. Texts have been added, subtracted, translated, etc. over the millenia. That doesn't make it an inaccurate document from a historical sense. It just means that one must dig a little deeper to determine the author's original intent.

Compare the way history was passed to younger generations 2000 years ago to the way we learned about George Washington. He was a very honest man. He didn't really chop down that cherry tree, though.
He was a brave general who crossed the Potomac. He wasn't standing up in front of the boat draped in the American flag as you see him depicted in paintings.
The fact that the details of these stories aren't necessarily 100% accurate doesn't make the point of the stories historically inaccurate. He really was an honest man. He really did cross the Potomac. The story telling helps the audience really picture the event vividly, thus remembering the important historical event(s) that took place.

Just as there are multiple stories of creation ie. Adam and Eve vs. jars of clay, there are multiple versions of important historical events in more contemporary times. To get too hung up on the minutae of the stories is to miss the larger picture.

Taco John
08-14-2005, 11:17 AM
You are mistaken. John did not need to be Elijah to fullfill the scripture.


That's right. John did not *need* to be Elijah to fulfill the scripture. Elijah needed to return to fulfill the scripture. It just so happens that he did return... In the form of John the Baptist... Because, as Jesus said... John himself was Elijah.

Taco John
08-14-2005, 11:19 AM
Maybe you've already posted it, but what is your scripture reference for what you claim?


I'm not talking to you. You have nothing to offer an intellectual discussion.

stevieray
08-14-2005, 11:25 AM
That's right. John did not *need* to be Elijah to fulfill the scripture. Elijah needed to return to fulfill the scripture. It just so happens that he did return... In the form of John the Baptist... Because, as Jesus said... John himself was Elijah.

And water is wet.

Sorry. You said he was reincarnated... Youd have to die for this to be possible. Elijah didn't die. "Of ALL men born...."

they were both forerunners...only one came when the Kingdom began.

HolyHandgernade
08-14-2005, 11:30 AM
Well in art class at least they understand what history is all about.

argumentum ad hominem (personal attack). Can be illustrated by attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

I really dont understand what is so complicated about seeing that the bible has been proven many times that it is a historically accurate book.

argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty). Can be illustrated by the misuse of expert opinion or authority-based sources to try to suppress someone's opinion in argument, by implying that they dare not oppose the word of an authority on an issue.

I'm sure that 99% of those lurking here understand what I'm trying to convey to you.

argumentum ad populum (appeal to popular emotions). Can be illustrated by appealing to the audience for support; instead of providing a valid argument.

When a piece of evidence is found to substantiate what I'm saying, like for the simple example of the "Pontious Pilate" finding and the story of this thread, you decide to disguard it as non-historical or an insignificant piece of history.

argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty). Can be illustrated by the misuse of expert opinion or authority-based sources to try to suppress someone's opinion in argument, by implying that they dare not oppose the word of an authority on an issue.

Its no secret that many archaeologists actually use the bible to try to find certain historical landmarks and civilizations.

argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty). Can be illustrated by the misuse of expert opinion or authority-based sources to try to suppress someone's opinion in argument, by implying that they dare not oppose the word of an authority on an issue.

Scientists at NASA have even referenced the bible.

non-sequitur (does not follow). Can be demonstrated when an conclusion does not logically follow the premises.

Thats why I say you must be intimidated by something because its obvious that you must have a blinding issue with the bible, or religion, or God.

So again all I'm saying is that findings like these, at least gives the bible "historical credibility" because it has been proven by these types of findings, to be "historically accurate".

non-sequitur (does not follow). Can be demonstrated when an conclusion does not logically follow the premises.

You can choose not to attribute historical accuracy to the Bible, but proven historical findings do and there is nothing you can do to the word "historical" or say, that can take that glaring credibilty away.

argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force). Can be illustrated by using intimidation to gain acceptance of a conclusion; without giving proper or adequate argument for it.

But other than that, you are very persuasive.

-HH

Taco John
08-14-2005, 11:40 AM
And water is wet.

Sorry. You said he was reincarnated... Youd have to die for this to be possible. Elijah didn't die. "Of ALL men born...."

they were both forerunners...only one came when the Kingdom began.



Now you're just being silly... The truth is, all we know is that he asceneded into heaven. What happened past that is anybodys guess. What we *do* know, is that according to Jesus, Elijah returned, and John himself was John the Baptist.

Do you not see that you are taking stabs in the dark, while I'm using scripture, including the original Greek to back my claim? No only am I using the original Greek, but I'm using Jesus's words from the original Greek. And no matter how you try to "reason" out of it, you can't take the words "John himself is Elijah" out of Christ's mouth.

I understand your predicament, because I was where you are now at one point in time. But rather than be intellectually dishonest about what it says, I dropped my preconceived notions and started studying the greek and hebrew translations (thanks in large part to the Internet). It's hard to get around what it says in literal translation, and it also opens it up to show how modern words mistranslate its meaning in many areas.

Nevertheless, this much I am certain. Christ said "John himself is Elijah, if you are willing to accept it." Even he knew that it would be a challenging idea. And while I can't know for certain, I have faith that Christ was right, and accept it for what it is.

C-Mac
08-14-2005, 11:43 AM
But other than that, you are very persuasive.
-HH

Thank you, but please understand that if I impart enough knowledge that allows you to see that the Bible is historcally accurate and has some credibilty, it can only makes you a better educated person.
If I quote something, I can back it up. I just made the wrong assumption thinking you were already aware of such things and by looking at your responses, dont think those facts would matter to you anyway.

stevieray
08-14-2005, 11:46 AM
Now you're just being silly... The truth is, all we know is that he asceneded into heaven. What happened past that is anybodys guess. What we *do* know, is that according to Jesus, Elijah returned, and John himself was John the Baptist.

Do you not see that you are taking stabs in the dark, while I'm using scripture, including the original Greek to back my claim? No only am I using the original Greek, but I'm using Jesus's words from the original Greek. And no matter how you try to "reason" out of it, you can't take the words "John himself is Elijah" out of Christ's mouth.

I understand your predicament, because I was where you are now at one point in time. But rather than be intellectually dishonest about what it says, I dropped my preconceived notions and started studying the greek and hebrew translations (thanks in large part to the Internet). It's hard to get around what it says in literal translation, and it also opens it up to show how modern words mistranslate its meaning in many areas.

Nevertheless, this much I am certain. Christ said "John himself is Elijah, if you are willing to accept it." Even he knew that it would be a challenging idea. And while I can't know for certain, I have faith that Christ was right, and accept it for what it is.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think that Jesus meant that John was the Prophet many mistook for Elijah.

how can Elijah be reincarnated if he didn't die?

C-Mac
08-14-2005, 11:47 AM
Now you're just being silly... The truth is, all we know is that he asceneded into heaven. What happened past that is anybodys guess. What we *do* know, is that according to Jesus, Elijah returned, and John himself was John the Baptist.


Uh ohhh.....
John 3:12-13...If I have told YOU earthly things and yet YOU do not believe, how will YOU believe if I tell YOU heavenly things? Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.(Jesus)