There are other translations of that verse that don't preclude the trinity. "Most English Bibles include a footnote to express alternative translations, as this is a difficult passage among Hebrew scholars. Options include “The LORD our God is one Lord,” “The LORD is our God, the LORD is one,” and “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” In all the options, the focus is on the idea of one God. The doctrine of one God was a stark contrast to the theologies of the cultures surrounding the Israelites. Other religious systems, including that of the Egyptians, served a wide variety of gods and goddesses. The worship of only one God made the faith of the Hebrews unique in the ancient world." The trinity can be found as early as Genesis, "Let US make man in OUR image." Sorry, lots of Jews did accept that. Jews for Jesus has been around since 32AD, give or take a few years. He was rejected, as predicted in the OT. "The stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and it is marvelous in our eyes." You mean things that atheists and liberal apostate Christians 'know' are wrong? Mountains probably came after the flood, which is why we see sea fossils on the tops of the highest mountains. Look, IF God exists, and you can't prove He doesn't, miracles are no big deal. Two deviants marrying is a human construct. For all of recorded human history marriage has been between men and women.
My statement was present tense, yours was not. And I doubt even when you were growing up the leadership of your church would have said all others are going to hell, the Southern Baptists certainly do not say that today. In June I attended the conference of the Anglican Church of North America, one of the plenary speakers was Russell Moore, who has held many high level positions with the Southern Baptist church, including as Executive Editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.
How did that atheist morality work out in the Soviet Gulag? Atheism wasn't the sole reason for those crimes, but it was a necessary one. Atheist morality in the West is often just parasitism off the Judeo/Christian roots of the society they live in.
About as well as it worked for most of Judeo-Christian history. Not well. Every crime they committed has also been committed by theists. Your argument is objectively wrong. Also objectively false.
It is objectively true that there were about 100,000,000 victims of atheistic communism, nowhere near that figure from 'Christians', who if they did kill, were acting contrary to Christ's teachings. He harmed nobody. In the entire history of the Spanish Inquisition about 20,000 died over centuries. Stalin alone was killing twice that per week at one point. We disagree. There are no Western style human rights in Islam, Hinduism, or atheistic Communism. Even Europe's most prominent philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, an atheist, acknowledges the huge debt that human rights, democracy, and equality today owe to the biblical worldview: "Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and a social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of current challenges of a post-national constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." The postmodern atheistic thinker Jacques Derida made the same kind of affirmation about the Christian faith: "Today the cornerstone of international law is the sacred, what is sacred in humanity. You should not kill. You should not be responsible for a crime against the sacredness, this sacredness of man as your neighbor.....made by God or by God made man....In that sense, the concept of crime against humanity is a Christian concept and I think there would be no such thing in the law today without the Christian heritage, the Abrahamic heritage, the Biblical heritage." Want more? One Chinese scholar representing one of China's premier academic research organizations the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences told a group of foreign visitors: "One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the preeminence of the West all over the world. In the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this." The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights created just after WWII affirms the "inherent dignity" and "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard documented how the chief movers behind this document were primarily church coalition and individual Christian leaders who worked closely with some Jewish rabbis. In fact, some Iranian mullahs have specifically rejected this document as alien to their culture. Princeton human rights scholar Max Stackhouse makes clear: "Intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that what passes as 'secular', 'Western' principles of basis human rights developed nowhere else than out of key strands of the biblically rooted religion."
Much of those were due to bad central planning/starvation. And there is no math in which theists have killed fewer people over the course of their history. The Spanish Inquisition is one example, but hardly the only one. As far as killing be "contrary to Christ's teachings," if you've read the Bible, you know it is far more complicated than that. The God of the Bible regularly commands murder and slaughters people himself. You can't pretend God doesn't matter to Christianity. And Christians agree that at least *some* of the Laws should still be in force, such as "thought shalt not steal," but they disagree about *which* of those Laws should still be in force. And all of those Laws were praised by Jesus, even the ones that commanded murder. Until the secularizing influence of the Enlightment, Christians generally agreed, for example, that blasphemy and other religious crimes should be punishable by death. Due to higher populations and the technology to conduct such mass killing. Regardless of what Jurgen believes, the concepts of justice and love were not invented by Christians. And if you are pushing a book that justifies killing nonbelievers, it is ludicrious to pretend that same book is responsible for human rights. The only things you need for morality are morality and compassion. None of those require your religion. So let's stop there, because the Bible has no problem with killing as long as you are killing the right people. What he "thinks" doesn't matter. More? All you are doing is quoting people who agree with you. That's not evidence of anything. And yet still no argument supporting this conclusion. Just statements from more people who agree with you but provide no reasoning. You are aware that most secularists also acknowledge that we are all members of the same human family, right? You don't need Jesus for that. Darwin does just fine. I can also start listing off other religions that teach we are all part of the same human family if you want . . . but it is going to take a while. It is almost all of them throughout history. And the Christian world's dedication to this concept before the secularizing influence of the Enlightenment is highly questionable. As for "inherent dignity," Christian thought waffles on that one and it sure isn't a very popular thought among Reformed folks who teach exactly the opposite about human nature. Nor is it a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept. You can easily find it among the writings of pre-Christian pagans like Aristotle and the Stoics. Or chat up any Mahayana Buddhist.
I know Got questions answer. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. There was no difficulty for Jewish readers. The idea of the Trinity in Genesis is just wishful thinking. Genesis was written by scribes in the 7th century. They were just following earlier creation stories. How about ' An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga' created the Sumerians' Enlil said to An, Enki and Nihursanga 'Let us create man in our own image' so they created the Sumerians. When the gods created mankind, They appointed death for mankind, Kept eternal life in their own hands. So, Gilgamesh, let your stomach be full, Day and night enjoy yourself in every way, Every day arrange for pleasures. Day and night, dance and play, Wear fresh clothes. Keep your head washed, bathe in water, Appreciate the child who holds your hand, Let your wife enjoy herself in your lap. (Meisner Tablet) Sorry, lots of Jews did accept that. Jews for Jesus has been around since 32AD, give or take a few years. You always get some converts, Jews as a whole did not accept Jesus. Why do you think Paul had so much trouble throughout his life. Paul was the instigator of Christianity, using Jesus in relation to the OT. "The stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and it is marvelous in our eyes Nothing to do with Jesus but the rebuilding of Solomons temple. It's, as usual, a verse taken completely out of context. The Gospel writers do this regularly. The architects of the Temple building project had a dilemma. The stones of the new Temple were being fitted together. A precious stone was rescued from the rock pile left from the destruction of Solomon’s Temple. The architects thought that this stone would not be a perfect fit to make the precise right angles to bind the two walls. This beautiful gold Jerusalem stone was pulled out and cast aside. The priests, who were more mindful of the intricacies and traditions of the Temple, overruled the builders, though. They believed this was the right place for this special stone. No other stone could fashion the walls together but this stone. It has become “the head stone of the corner.” You mean things that atheists and liberal apostate Christians 'know' are wrong? No. Things that are wrong,and which only literalists won't accept. Mountains probably came after the flood, which is why we see sea fossils on the tops of the highest mountains REALLY? That means the flood was some millions of years ago.Long before man appeared on the earth. Ooops, that can't be. The flood killed most people. Over millions of years the techtonic plates have moved continents and forced seabeds above water. The Indian continent is still moving North on a techtonic plate as it has done for eaons. The Himalayas, once under water, are still moving - upwards and north. Do you ignore all science? Look, IF God exists, and you can't prove He doesn't, miracles are no big deal. Reverse that.
You have no way of knowing that but it is interesting how so many ancient cultures have a flood tradition. This proves what? As they rejected all OT prophets sent by God. Because as John Calvin said, it is impossible to truly preach the Gospel without instantly enraging the world. We see that on this forum. Nonsense, other than their audiences there was no difference, Paul claimed to be inspired by Jesus in his writings. The Church agreed. Liberal Christians see miracles as allegorical or impossible. How do they get past Genesis 1? There's a reason such churches are dying while Bible believing ones are thriving. Miracles shouldn't be dismissed in advance as incredible. Miracles are improbable, which is why we use the word 'miracle', but improbable events can and do happen, and the same is true of miracles. My faith and reason tell me God created the universe, and I'm not particularly interested in the details.
You ever looked into when I was in business school , there's 9 million Presbyterians in Korea of 11 million-ish protestants, 9 million catholics, and theres only 40 million. They say its sort of a prosperity gospel outlook, like many are guilty of. Lee Myung Bak called Korea the land of God, plus he cleaned up the Han river I think. They blamed him for Buddhist temple property destruction with the iconoclasm extremism, Basically. I mean who are all of us anyway, uninterested? That makes with less than 1 mill for Scotland, USA, Nigeria, East Africa, probably india, theres more above a mill at mexico, brazil, then really, that'd be the holy Grail of ecumenical activity nobody cares about.
I'm sure that makes the victims feel good. The Ukrainian famine was deliberate by Stalin. Complete bunk, Dinesh D'Souza estimates in his essay 'The Exaggerated Crimes of Christianity' atheists are ahead by 100 to 1. That was about 20,000 over centuries, the Salem witch trials were fewer than 25, compared to 100 million by atheist regimes, and counting. Not really, this was settled 2,000 years ago, see Galatians, where the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws were made obsolete. The name NT means New Covenant. Context is everything. Jesus harmed nobody, nor did He tell anyone else to, the OT was aimed at the OT theocracy of Israel which doesn't exist. Cite? Where did Jesus say to do that? The Enlightenment itself was shaped by the Protestant Reformation. Key figures such as Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Rousseau, Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton had a Calvinist education or family background. Even the US Constitution and Bill or Rights are modeled on previous colonial compacts using theological and biblical terms, way before social contract theorists Hobbs and Locke. Interesting also how prominent 'enlightened' and 'secular' voices today who denounce religion as dangerous will themselves advocate violence against traditional religionists. Sam Harris calls for a nuclear first-strike that could kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day but which may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe, in his words. Christopher Hitchens said much the same, that the 'enemies of civilization should be beaten and killed and defeated, and I don't make any apology for it.' Starvation in death camps was new technology? Argue with your fellow atheists. What if Hitler's morality and compassion led him to exterminate Jews? Stalin to get rid of landowners? Both thought they were doing so for the good of society. And a dead universe doesn't care about such moral conversations, it is simply might makes right, at least according to Darwin's book on the 'favored races'. Agreed, and equally true of the US government. Christianity isn't a pacifist religion, and the Bible never says 'Don't kill' except in bad translations. There was lots of reasoning, I respect such atheists for their honesty. You mean the secularists that killed 100,000,000 by atheist communist regimes? Atheism wasn't the sole reason for those crimes, but it was a necessary one. It was a logical outcome in an environment where there were no eternal moral standards or rewards and punishments, where man is a cosmic accident of no more intrinsic value than a dog. There is certainly truth in other religions and world views, not surprising since God said he put His truth on our hearts. Romans says, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law” — meaning the law of Moses. “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Romans 2:15). My position is that where they and Christianity and the differ they are wrong and Christianity is right, and that only Christianity reveals God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. In a sense, I have more liberal view of other religions than you, thinking they have some truth while you must believe the very thing that has mattered most to most societies in human history is all wrong, at least when it comes to the miracles.
Great job! As a former fundy Baptist, now atheist, I agree with all of the above. There is no substitute for Christianity when it comes to a free, just, and moral society.
Of course devastating floods occurred all over the world. Thats the way god crteated the world. A danger for mankind. The piece from the Epic of Gilgamesh comes long before the Bible was written. As with the other myths, the Jews adapted them. There's no evidence that the OT prophets prophesied Jesus. Most are simple take out of the context in which they were written in the OT. Actually Paul was more inspired by Greek philosophers using their philosophies and words continually. The Church agreed to many things, some of which they are going back on now with modern knowledge and science. Miracles? What is a miracle? There are many things we can't explain. That doesn't make them a miracle.
Why are there so many flood 'myths'? The fact there are other flood accounts supports the Biblical one. Who is Isaiah 53 talking about? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=ESV For example, who was 'pierced' for our transgressions long before crucifixion was known? The late Dr. D. James Kennedy once read this chapter to a Jewish man and asked him who it was talking about. He replied, Jesus of course, and was shocked to hear it came from his own scripture. Such as? If you can't explain them, shouldn't the God hypothesis be on the table?
The floods all over the world are not the Bible flood. Noahs 'mountains covered' is scientifically impossible. Don't ypu know anything about hydrology? Isaiah 53 https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html Chrisrtianity has simply used the OT for its own purposes Greek philosophers and Paul. Remember Gamaliel also taught Greek Philosophy to his students. I'm not going through it all.. https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/ Why should God be the hypothesis of things we don't understand? 100 years ago we didn't understand many things which are quite natural now.
Yet earlier Jewish interpretations of this chapter DID describe it as applying to the Messiah, explained by other Jewish people here: https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v02-n05/the-rabbis-dilemma-a-look-at-isaiah-53/ The suffering servant/Messiah is described as sinless, so how could it be Israel, who was in a constant cycle of apostasy in the OT? He is also described as a separate entity from Israel. How could Israel suffer and pay for it's own sins? Clever how they arranged those hundreds of OT prophecies. Yes, Paul was all things to all men in his preaching efforts. It was only logical for him to use Greek allusions to his gentile audiences, unlike Jesus to His Jewish audiences. How did the first non-life become life, unaided? What set off the Big Bang?
1 Corinthians 15: "12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
Oh dear, Dallas Theological Seminary was founded by Cyrus Scofield..the convicted felon.. It was strictly political to take over Protestantism and promote Christian Zionism. Not my opinion. You can read his life story anywhere.
The suffering servant is not a man, its a nation. The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”: “You are My servant, O Israel” (41: “You are My servant, Israel” (49:3) see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20 continue here: https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html Its not a trick.
Isaiah 53 https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html These references are all the individual opinions of various scholars. They do not form the view of mainstream Jews. You really need to read the Talmuds etc. How about the right to have intercourse with children over 3 years old. Talmudic Rabbis permitted this. The Talmuds are full of horrendous things no-one today would dream of today- even Jews. There are no hundreds of prophecies. Christianity has simply assumed them, out of context. Margot is right, Isaiah is all about Israel. Why, in a book so long, would one suddenly change the subject for 1 Chapter, and then go back to the original.In fact verse 2 continues the theme of the servant - Israel, Yes, Paul was all things to all men in his preaching efforts. It was only logical for him to use Greek allusions to his gentile audiences, unlike Jesus to His Jewish audiences. So, in fact, Paul simply taught Greek philosophy mixed with Judaism and added the preacher Jesus. Thus we get Christianity. In the same way, when you study Judaism you find a mixture of earlier beliefs with their own Jewish additions. How did the first non-life become life, unaided? What set off the Big Bang? Science has yet to find an answer. For all our knowledge there is a lot to learn, but we are learning as time goes on. Many theories exist. Which one, if any, is the correct one? Science has grown into Physics, into Quantum Physics. What is the next step. How did God come into existence? No don't tell me he has always been there. Where did he come from? Everything has a beginning and an ending except energy which 'simply' changes form.
I’m a Christian I believe in God. Just like politics though there are very little true Christians left. The message is clear to me and it guides you in your daily life. Acceptance, love, understanding, discipline, and yes final outcome is engraved in Christianity. The problem is religion has become yet another tool to create wealth. That is not the direction of Christianity should go unless it’s a wealth of knowledge and good. I appreciate atheist too who lead good lives. And if there was no afterlife I still like who I am. And I hope to be reincarnated as a trust fund baby then I will show you what true religion is in the guise of the ones screwing it up.
Christianity quite literally puts all of its eggs into a single basket, the basket of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the resurrection never occurred, then there is no Christianity. As to "Christian values", I would find importance in those values (Matthew 5-7 is a good example, among MANY many other examples throughout the Bible) regardless of the truth of Christianity.
Yes, the "sermon on the mount" has the 4 beatitudes relating to how we are to treat each other. But, Matthew 25:31-end indicates a higher bar - especially noted in verses 41 through 43. Treating others as we would want to be treated is passive in that it would seem to apply to those we interact with as we travel through life. But, Matthew makes it clear that is not sufficient.
ARDY: Your above conclusion regarding the motivation for religions within Christendom (eternal heavenly bliss vs. eternal hellfire torment) is true for most of those within the 40,000 denominations within Christendom. But let me inform you that there are Christians who do not buy into those false teachings. There is no scriptural support for the teaching that all good Christians go to heaven. Similarly, there is no scriptural support for literal hellfire torment. Alter2Ego
Matthew 25:40-46 kjv has Jesus telling his followers that there are reasons that they could be damned to eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. These have to do with whether the individual has sought out others in need and addressed their needs. It's certainly a powerful extension to the golden rule, as it is not passive - simply treating those normally encontered with love and understanding as one would hope to be treated is not sufficient. Anyway, that sure sounds like a declaration of the existence of hell, perhaps prepared for the devil, but inclusive of humans who fail at the above.
How does that square with Sirach 12:4-7? Sirach 12:4-7 (CEB) 4 Give to the pious, but don’t assist sinners. 5 Do good to the humble, but don’t give to the ungodly. Hold back your bread, and don’t give it to them, since by it they might gain power over you. You will encounter twice as much evil for all the good things that you have done for them. 6 The Most High also hated sinners, and he will repay the ungodly with punishment.[a] 7 Give to good people, and don’t assist sinners.
