The Bible

I said, "if you think that it is POSSIBLE that works WITHOUT faith is the only way to salvation,
don't you think that Jesus would've been more explicit about it?" What you say in the below quote confirms that you think it.

Again, why are you ONLY concerned with what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount?

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

What do you think Jesus meant by "righteousness?"

You mean those who DO NOT know Jesus DO NOT get in? As per 25:12?

Is it possible that Sola Fide is the only way to do what Jesus teaches, to his satisfaction?

Different how? Its not as if Mark says that he was conceived by normal means! It just doesn't mention the virgin birth.

What's your point?

You mean in the earlier manuscript?

What do you mean he doesn't "HAVE" one? You mean he doesn't even refer to the resurrection?

Paul says that Jesus is "subordinate to The Father?"

 

common sense my friend, I could ask how did you not know that? blinded by belief?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34:14&version=KJV

seems to be pretty clear the creators of the bible wanted people to believe God was a jealous God to me

 

QUOTE="chris155au, post: 1070142155, member: 74987"]Do you believe that you are 100% archaeologically correct? Do you believe that there are no alternatives from people like Christian archaeologists? I'm sure that you have heard the other side refute your belief. Even just on the Hittites, do you not realise that there is an argument that Biblical Hitties are not the same people as the Hitties which came later?



JUST Joseph?



If we are taught that he was crucified in 33CE then don't we also have to say that he was born in 0BCE?
If we INSTEAD say that he was born around 5BCE then don't we ALSO have to say that he was crucified in 38CE?



What's the problem with taking RELIGIOUS influences from former religions?



What evidence are you using to determine this?[/QUOTE]


Even just on the Hittites, do you not realise that there is an argument that Biblical Hitties are not the same people as the Hitties which came later?

There has only ever been one Hittite nation. You're talking about the Haati who were 'conquered' by the Hittites. And neither nation ever ruled the area in which Abraham is supposed to have bought his/Sarah's tomb from the Hittites.. The was ruled by the Egyptians

JUST Joseph? Of course. Mary and Jesus had gone home to Nazareth.

If we are taught that he was crucified in 33CE then don't we also have to say that he was born in 0BCE?
If we INSTEAD say that he was born around 5BCE then don't we ALSO have to say that he was crucified in 38CE?

Of course. But not knowing when we cannot judge who is right Was Jesus Paul's 'Pascal Lamb' (1 Corinthinas 5) or simply a human sacrifice on the altar of religious hypocrisy by the Sanhedrin. Scholars now believe that the Passover meal was simply a friendship meal. All the indications from the Gospels and Jewish ritual point to that. The Pascal Lamb must be slain on the day before Passover. As Passover day stsrted as soon as the sun went down - as with any Jewish day - there was not time to fulfil the ritual for a Passover meal. Neither was there any meat (lamb) offered at the meal - which is essential for Passover. If we don't know the year, we don't know the day of the Passover. It varies with the calender - as does Christian Easter.

What's the problem with taking RELIGIOUS influences from former religions?

Nothing - if you agree with Islams right to use the Jewish OT to influence others. Or the other religions around around. Nothing - as long as you make it clear these are not your god's instructions or influences. Nothing - if you admit your god comes from another religious belief. Nothing if - Welll hardly anything, anyway.

What evidence are you using to determine this?

The Bible stories. I've already told you.

 

1) of course it is possible - and who knows how explicit Jesus was - given the limited amount of information we have on Jesus - which was the point of going into the history.

2) The conversation started on the basis of contradiction between Jesus of Matt and Sola Fide. The point of giving the history was to illustrate that the author's perspective on Jesus in Matt/Mark is different than in Luke and different from John.

The Christians listening to the Sermon on the Mount did not have Luke and John. The Christians after the death of Jesus did not have Luke or John. The Christians at the time of Mark - had only the writings of Mark for at least 20 years - It is postulated that some material that was used by the author of Matt existed prior to the writing of Matt. This author then compiled these writings and spliced them into the Gospel of Mark.

For Judeo Christians - the Church of Jerusalem and its adherents - there was only Matt and Mark - and possibly some writings that were used by these authors that existed earlier. The writings of Paul existed but 1) these writings were not used by the Church of Jerusalem and 2) they do not know the historical Jesus.

Righteousness is following the teachings that Jesus. The teachings given in the sermon right after he makes that statement. Righteousness is doing the will of the Father - Obviously.

As I said previously - you need to discard your personal dogma and look at things from the perspective of a hearer of Jesus at that time to understand the Author's perspective.

Since I was talking about Sheep and Goats parable (starting on Matt 25:31) obviously I did not mean that. Those who do not know Jesus get in. Why are you talking about 25:12 since this passage does not say anything about those who do not know Jesus ?

Just because someone does not know Jesus, does not mean that Jesus does not know that person - Obviously. Jesus knows those who are prepared for the journey and those who are not. Those who are prepared for the journey are the ones that do the will of the Father.

Not if one views the Jesus of Matt as credible. Obviously it is possible - the Jesus of Matt could be completely made up. It is possible that every book in the NT is fiction.

Obviously the point is that the Authors conception from one book to another is different. The central idea that the Author of Mark is trying to get across is that Jesus is the messiah - the Son of God - having a divine nature.

If this Author knew of the divine Birth of Jesus "immaculate conception" it would be mindless stupidity to leave this out as it proves Jesus was divine. Perhaps the author was in fact a complete idiot - and you are welcome to believe that if you wish - as this is what you are suggesting.

In Mark Jesus receives divinity at his Baptism - and there is no "virgin birth".

The same is true in relation to the author of Mark not mentioning the proof of the resurrection - in a book whose purpose is to get people to believe in the promise of the resurrection after death. Obviously this author is unaware of the physical resurrection of Jesus.

All serious scholarship states that the long ending of Mark was not written by the author of Mark - that it was added much later.
This fact is so well established that some modern Bibles now put in a footnote to explain that the long ending was not in the original version of Mark.

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV

What is wrong with you ? Obviously Jesus refers to the promise of a resurrection in Mark. That is one of the main themes of the book.

Are you not able to figure out the difference between someone telling you about a resurrection - and that person actually showing up in the flesh after death ? Good Grief.

That was a typo - which you should have been able to figure out given the paragraph is talking about John but my bad regardless.

It should have read - While Jesus was preincarnate (divine prior to the virgin birth) and pre-existent - in John Jesus is still subordinate to the Father.

 

The Museum of the Bible has only a few. Most (15.000 approx) are in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem. Some in the Schoyen Manuscript collection in London and Oslo, The Jordan Museum, Jordan, and various other place have oddments. These are not disputed. And the Essenes were not ignorant goatherders. They were not just in the desert but in villages and towns in Palestine. Many were quite educated scribes although they practised sobriety and the simple life.

God revealed himself to the Egyptians (Ra) and the Nubians who accepted the Egyptians gods. What's to say 'god' has not revealed himself to aliens in other galaxies -,in a comparative way - depending on what form they may take. IF there is a god, anything is possible.

Me. I'm agnostic.

 

Of all materials things, I am most grateful for the bible. I would rather lose my sight, my hearing, my touch, taste and smell than I would be willing to lose what I've gained through the bible.

 

Who is saying that He DID write the NT?

Left what out?

 

Have you used the cure for leprosy found in Leviticus chapters 13 & 14?

 

So every archaeologist agrees with you? Do you believe that you are 100% archaeologically correct? Do you believe that there are no alternatives from people like Christian archaeologists? I'm sure that you have heard the other side refute your belief. You failed to respond to this in your last reply.

Aren't you assuming how long it took for the Kingdom to be divided and Herods sons installed?

And what would this demonstrate if true?

How does taking influences from another religion mean that the Christian God comes from that religion?

You didn't talk about Jesus in 2 places 200 miles apart at the same time.

 

John says that Jesus is "subordinate to The Father?

 

I'm sure that you have heard the other side refute your belief. You failed to respond to this in your last reply.

I stand by my post. The Haati are often mistaken for the Hittites. That's why many documents refer to the 'Haati's' when the Hittites had actually taken over. It's simply because the Haati's had been around for centuries and other nations still referred to the land as 'Haati' land.

Aren't you assuming how long it took for the Kingdom to be divided and Herods sons installed?

No. Just using common sense and knowledge of the times. Herod must have survived some time after the birth of Jesus because, we are told, he ordered the death of all boys up to the age of 2 years. If it had been within 40 days of the birth why 2 years and not newborn babies? According to Luke Joseph and family returned to Nazareth after Mary's ritual cleansing from the birth. That was 40 days after the birth. Yet Matthew says they were in Egypt till Herod died. Of course the Massacre of the Innocents is just another 'prophecy' from the OT which has niothing to do with Jesus. Such a Massacre would have brought down Rome hard on Herod. He was already not popular in Rome. He survived only because of all he had done for Rome in the past.

.When Herods current wife E'Mailed Rome to report the death of her husband, do you think it was a matter of Rome telling the 3 remaining sons to split their father's kingdom between. them. Rome had to sort this out. It wasn't up to the 3 sons who were not exactly friends with each other. One actually uses favours in Rome to have the other reprimanded.

And what would this demonstrate if true?

Paul uses Jesus as the Paschal Lamb by using bread and wine. The Paschal feast included lamb and wine as the Passover - when the angel of death passed over and those who had sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the lintels were saved. Bread represented the manna during the journey. Now Did Paul have an influence on the Gospel writers who read his Letter to the Corinthians or did the disciples influence Paul in their conversations with him.

How does taking influences from another religion mean that the Christian God comes from that religion?

If you take influences from other religions doesn't that rather lessen your gods authority.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to study Gods word, always remembering it was influenced by ancient religions.

 

Check out "Exodusatterns of Evidence" .. suggest the events in the Bible occurred just as stated. They found the Hebrew town in Eygpt, it had a palace and an empty tomb with a statue of a Hebrew dressed n multi colored robes..among other discoveries.. there are many more of course.. even including Egyptian texts describing the Biblical Plagues on Egypt. Put altogether.. the evidence is very compelling.

 

Religion has a lot to offer in the way of solace, hope, feeinngs of purpose, basis for morality, etc.

And, that has nothing to do with whether there actually exists a god or supernatural pesence of ANY kind.

 

Religion is a process. Religion is the process wherein doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing new and old ideas. I do not participate in religion.
Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing new and old ideas. I am scientific, even about my faith.

 

There is nothing remotely scientific about the supernatural.

If there were, then it wouldn't BE supernatural.

But as I said, the benefits of religious faith ARE real and they come regardless of whether there even IS a supernatural.

 

What makes it a Hebrew town? We know there were other towns populated by other peoples of similar race. In the time of Jesus there were 10 cities filled by Greeks. The whole middle east was full of tribes that spoke the same language, with different dialects. Hebrew language is one of those. . What makes the man in multicoloured robes 'Hebrew' and not a Canaanite? Canaan was ruled by Egypt so there was a crossover between Egyptian and Canaanite culture and religion. I suggest that this book writer would have accepted what I say if he had not had the Bible in his mind. And if the Hebrews were downtrodden slaves, how was he so well dressed. The Egyptian plagues were caused by the Nile drying up. That's seen by the sequence of events. Down the millenia it had happened more than once.
The Biblical numbers given at the exodus meant that the Hebrews could only exist in the wilderness by a series of 'miracles'. And I don't accept miracles..

 

So. you're naturalist? You don't believe that anything actually exists that is not material, spatial and temporal? Do you believe that things actually exist that are "unnatural"?

 

I'm just saying that the value of religion to humans on earth is the same whether or not there is a supernatural. Religion conveys a sense of purpose, of comfort, of community, of morality, etc.

What I happen to believe doesn't affect that.

 

You wrote that "there is nothing remoting scientific about the supernatural." I didn't write that. You did. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but to write that "I'm just saying" when you did indeed "say" more than that.
That's shame because that was the only interesting portion of your post. See you down the line.

 

Yes, I'm not very interested in debating whether there is a supernatural.

We don't have ANY way of gathering evidence on that, so it's just your belief and my belief.

We have to learn to accommodate that, because it isn't something that will be resolved.

So, I'm adding to the party by suggesting that I don't have any opposition to your understanding that religion is a help or is otherwise important to you. I accept that.

 

Trevor, you are going to pan what you haven't even seen? It's a documentary and it's at least interesting and easy to sit through, watch it first then come critique it.

 

I'm asking in general, not specifically regarding the Hittites. AGAIN, do you believe that you are 100% archaeologically correct? Do you believe that there are no
alternatives from people like Christian archaeologists? This question appears to be making you uncomfortable because you keep avoiding responding to it.

"E'Mailed?"

What point are you trying to make with the Passover?

Wouldn't make it easier to relate to the people of the time?

 

I do not participate in religion. I have little regard for it. I did not approach the supernatural via religion. It is exactly my observations and understandings of the natural that leaves me to believe that the supernatural must exist.

In short -
Anything subject to change is subject; it is contingent in its being.
Matter-space-time is contingent in its being.
If contingent being exists, necessary being must exist.
Necessary being must be metaphysical, meta-spatial and meta-temporal, in other words,
immaterial, spiritual and eternal.

 

I know.

But, i don't find that to be demanding of a belief in a supernatural.

I think sharing a view of the supernatural can not be allowed as a prerequisit to working together toward an ever improving civilization.

 

This question appears to be making you uncomfortable because you keep avoiding responding to it.

Pot calling the Kettle black. You've avoided my questions posts in the past. on the pretext of not understanding.

Archaeology is the study of ancient times in 'digging up' the past. It has importance in agreeing with events in the Bible, and proving they didn't happen as recorded. It can never be 100% accurate without knowing the conditions of the time. For instance, it can prove the walls of Jericho fell down, and when. The conditions of the ruins and the area - earthquake area - and the fact that the walls had fallen before, plus had since been affected by earthquakes which had shaken the area indicate a natural occurence.
In many some cases the Bible is proved true, but that is to be expected. The scribes who wrote the Bible had oral history to rely on dating back to about 1000BCE.

In the case of Abraham, the scribes call Abraham - a Hebrew. As he came from Sumeria he certainly wouldn't a Hebrew. He would be a Sumerian or Akkadian - depending on when the Akkadians took over. They continue to call the Patriarchs 'Hebrews'. Why? They are creating an origin which the Jews lacked. Their history dated back to a tribal king named David. They used places and events that were known to them. Do you think they didn't know about Egypt and its history, its cities etc. They had been neighbours with the Egyptians, and ruled by the Egyptians for centuries. They had used the Nile Delta for feeding and watering their flocks and for food when famine occurred in Palestine. They incorporated this in the story of Jacob and Joseph. Famine occurred in Palestine when the rains failed there and to the North in Jordan etc. Egypt was reliant on rains 3000 miles to the south in mountains in Africa. Without those the Nile dried up - and it happened 'often' in the course of centuries. Without these Egypt would not have existed as a mighty civilisation. Even today it is reliant on the same rains - alleviated by control with the Aswam Dam.

The 400 year absence from the story - Hebrews in Egypt - gives them the chance to create a nation who then miraculously survive.an escape, have a fantastic journey across a desert and reach their final destination - Palestine. Unfortunately that 400 years in Egypt ruins the 2 Genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

Regardless of the mistakes the scribes made - it's still a good story

"E'Mailed?"

Sarcasm. You seem to think in terms of the 21st century. It's believed that the Jews got away with the stoning of Stephen during the changeover of rulers in Jerusalem.

What point are you trying to make with the Passover?

Paul is misusing Jewish scripture This ties in with your last question. If you are using influences from other religions to create your own doesn't that smack of plagiarsm. What are your adherents expected to believe. A Mish mash of truths and no direction from your 'god'
u