Can Christianity really be considered a Monotheistic Religion?

[doubledown]

I ask this because I was flipping through channels and I saw a TV evagalist preaching how all the good things in your life are gifts from "god" and all the bad times were sent by Satan to try to get you to question "god"

It would seem like, even if Christians wont admit that Satan is a god, they give him god-like powers. So in essence you have the "good god" vs "evil god" which is a very common theme in many polytheistic religions.

[DFG]

Assuming God and Satan do exist, I don't think Satan has all the powers God has, such as being omnicient(sp?).

He may have the power to control bad things happening, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is a God.

[roamingstorm]

is is definitely monotheistic, if your not sure behind the story of lucifer, he was a high angel who was jealous of gods powers, he was cast out of heaven along with his followers, so he is a fallen angel, and his domain is earth, where he has powers, and tries to decieve people away from god to his views, odd that i know this and im not christian

[Jeffery]

What RS nsaid.


Satan is not a God, but one of the original Angels.


The question is: Where did angels come from?

[h()()t]

The question is who made God.

[DFG]

If anyone.

[Jeffery]

A true faithful is not allowed to ask that questions, and those without faith don;t need to.

[DFG]

It's called "faith"? I thought it was called "being afraid you'll be proven wrong".

[doubledown]

Right I guess by mythological definition, Satan is not a god...however, Christians seem to confer him god-like powers, the power greater than humans to make us sin and all that right? So if not truly by defintion, then at least he would be considered a quasi-god.
But it all boils down to the conflict of god vs Satan....i.e. good god vs evil god

[DFG]

But it all boils down to the conflict of god vs Satan....i.e. good god vs evil god

No it doesn't.

Satan (assuming he exists) isn't a god, so there is no evil god.

So it's good god vs evil being.

[Kyir]

were did "god" come from if he exists i mean a being of infinate power just poped into existance


heh i just read w()()t's post soooooooo

[roamingstorm]

Right I guess by mythological definition, Satan is not a god...however, Christians seem to confer him god-like powers, the power greater than humans to make us sin and all that right? So if not truly by defintion, then at least he would be considered a quasi-god.
But it all boils down to the conflict of god vs Satan....i.e. good god vs evil god


he does not have the power to make us sin, only the power to tempt us

[Jeffery]

Also, according to biblical teachings, Satan does not make you sin, just as God does not make you not sin.

[Shiny Flors]

The evangelist was partly mistaken or you quoted him out of context.

All good things are gifts from God. Bad times are allowed by God to happen to people but God is in control of everything that happens. Satan only has as much power as God allows him to have.

Im not saying Satan doesn't have powers but they are restricted by God and he can only use them as much as God lets him.

[Kyir]

if god is so "pure" and "holy" why does he let satan exist, i tihnk its some evil scheem to make peopel think he solevees everything and worship him even if he causes it

[doubledown]

By Christian definition Satan is not a good, but by just about all other mythological definitions, he has power greater than humans which make him god-like.

And he cannot make us sin as put by Kyir, but can trick us much like the Norse God Loki, or the Native American God Coyote...he is also similar to the Roman God Hades in that he is the guardian for corrupted souls.

What I am saying is that the Christian myth of Satan puts him as almost god-like in his powers so there is this idea of good vs evil....similar in many polytheistic religions....

[Jeffery]

And yet, God has supreme power. So while you may be implying a godlike ability to Satan, that is your own impression, not that which is described in the Bible.

[Shiny Flors]

Satan does not guard fallen souls, Satan is on earth, hell is not. God puts people's souls in hell.
I can tempt someone too but does that give me god-like powers. Satan just happens to be better at it than anyone else, hence the name Great Deciever.

[roamingstorm]

what kyir is taking my credit, no i said the thing about him tempting us

[Spit_101]

The question is who made God.No one. God was here forever. He is the reason we exist. He dosen't need us. But he wanted to make human life. Satan was an angel that rejected God. And was sent to hell. He has no powers at all compared to God. But he tries to trick people with temptation.

[Cephas]

One of King David's great mistakes might serve to illustrate: At one point, he numbered Israel. In one text, it states that God prompted him to do this; in another, it is Satan who is blamed, and in a confession, David blames himself. Since God is omnipotent, nothing can happen except that He allow it, therefore you could attribute it to Him as a secondary cause. However, while God allowed it, it was Satan who directly tempted David, and thus he is blamed as well. Ultimately though, David had control over his actions, the Bible teaches that while God is sovereign, we have responsibility as well, and if our actions are dictated by others, we can't be responsible for them. In the end, it was David's fault, and it was because of him (not God, and not Satan), that Israel was punished.

Christianity is, strictly speaking, not a religion, but I suppose that is an argument for another time. While Satan is a very powerful being, with an important office in the universe, he is nowhere near God. In the end times, it won't even be God that casts him out of heaven, but Michael (another angelic being) and his crew.

[Al Caponeoni]

One of King David's great mistakes might serve to illustrate: At one point, he numbered Israel. In one text, it states that God prompted him to do this; in another, it is Satan who is blamed, and in a confession, David blames himself. Since God is omnipotent, nothing can happen except that He allow it, therefore you could attribute it to Him as a secondary cause. However, while God allowed it, it was Satan who directly tempted David, and thus he is blamed as well. Ultimately though, David had control over his actions, the Bible teaches that while God is sovereign, we have responsibility as well, and if our actions are dictated by others, we can't be responsible for them. In the end, it was David's fault, and it was because of him (not God, and not Satan), that Israel was punished.

Christianity is, strictly speaking, not a religion, but I suppose that is an argument for another time. While Satan is a very powerful being, with an important office in the universe, he is nowhere near God. In the end times, it won't even be God that casts him out of heaven, but Michael (another angelic being) and his crew.


AHHH! Everyone should take this over the the debate thread! Or can a mod splice the two?

Garh.

[Terps rock]

were did "god" come from if he exists i mean a being of infinate power just poped into existance


heh i just read w()()t's post soooooooo

Big band duh come on Kyir stop sleepin in science

[Office_Shredder]

no, the big bang did not create god.

I'm quite confident on this ;)

[Terps rock]

wow, u too slept through science i said big band, you guys needs a better ebumacatin

[Al Caponeoni]

AHHH! Everyone should take this over the the debate thread! Or can a mod splice the two?

Garh.

*Has seizure*

Ahh!!

Listen, all of the debate will be in one spot. . . .

AHGJKAL:JFK:

*Seizure #2*

[Office_Shredder]

If anything, Christianity would be polytheistic because both Christ and his father are gods

[DFG]

If anything, Christianity would be polytheistic because both Christ and his father are gods

Aren't they supposed to be the same person?

I mean, like, Christ was God taking on human form, or something.

[BoBo The Fool]

If anything, Christianity would be polytheistic because both Christ and his father are gods

dammit! i wanted to say that!

Many people have called christianity's monotheism into question, not because of Satan, but because of the holy trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit can all be considered seperate gods.

However, since the father, son and holy spirit are all one entity, i.e. God, christianity is still considered by most to be monotheistic. The tricky thing is how God can be both the father of christ, while at the same time God is also the father, son and holy spirit. God is both the father and all three.

[Jeffery]

Incest.
How else is the father also the son?

[Office_Shredder]

Ever hear the song "I'm my own Grandpa"?

[theAdmiralty]

great movie.....

[drakonfire]

okay, first, where did God come from?

"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

yeah, thats not enough for non-believers, but its enough for me, God just is, not was, He wasnt made, He just IS, the great I AM


satan: one of the original angels as stated, went by the name lucifer, he was the most beatiful angel of them all, but he got prideful, things went south and God proved that he was still in control, banished lucifer, now satan... and has to satans powers, the Bible clearly states he is the prince of this world, since its so messed, been poluted by the sin and such, he gets it in the end, but those who believe get a new heaven, and a new earth, free of pain, strife, misery, loss and all things (for lack of a better term) not kewl

where did the angels come from? hmm, good quesiton, God created them i do believe... i dont have Bible references to back this though, *sigh* this is what happens when your raised in the church and you dont read your Bible enough :(

as to God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they are one, its called the Holy Trinity, it is just one of those things you have to accept

"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

[BoBo The Fool]

why is it that it is so easy for christians to accept that God has always existed, yet for everything else, they need to find out whay created it.

Christians often ask me where i think matter/energy came from. When i tell them that i believe that matter/energy has always existed, they smirk and give me some condescending, yet completely irrational reply.

[Duffman]

Did you know the only differece between a religion and a cult is whether they pay tax or not.

[truffleshfl]

So if Christians' didn't pay taxes their religion would be a cult?

[BoBo The Fool]

the difference between a religion and a cult is public acceptance, nothing more.

[Cephas]

why is it that it is so easy for christians to accept that God has always existed, yet for everything else, they need to find out whay created it.

Christians often ask me where i think matter/energy came from. When i tell them that i believe that matter/energy has always existed, they smirk and give me some condescending, yet completely irrational reply.
"to find out whay created it." :confused:

Try English, and you might get a response... :D
So if Christians' didn't pay taxes their religion would be a cult?
To this: If a Christian avoids taxes, he is not following Christ, who rendered unto Caesar what was Caesars. A Christian should pay taxes.

[Jeffery]

Most churches are tax exempt.

[The Prophet]

Churches are non-profit organizations, therefore tax exempt. Christians should pay taxes.

God created matter/energy.

Satan has angelic powers not god powers. Satan is a fallen angel.

[drakonfire]

why is it that it is so easy for christians to accept that God has always existed, yet for everything else, they need to find out whay created it.

Christians often ask me where i think matter/energy came from. When i tell them that i believe that matter/energy has always existed, they smirk and give me some condescending, yet completely irrational reply.

i'm gonna assume you meant "what created it"? well christians shouldnt need to ask what created anything, since God created everything... so i'm gonna guess you meant something else by that sentance...


as to asking you where matter/energy came from, they're probably hoping your a "logical" person who believes in one of the accepted theories about times beginning, such as the big bang, or evolution, or whatnot... and if you do, they probably think they know every last hole for those theories and will shoot down your belief... why they feel the need to do this i dont know, i used to as well, but ya know, never once did i ever see someone convinced of something other than what they believed over a internet forum unless they wanted to be convinced... the smirk and condescending reply, my apologies, some "christians" are just jerks, *shrugs* not much you can do

[S_K_O_F]

A true faithful is not allowed to ask that questions, and those without faith don;t need to.

Jesus actually answers this question in the bible.

He says, "I am!"

meaning that He always was...and always will be

This question can be turned around and asked

How was it possible that an explosion created the universe when there was nothing there originally to create the explosion or the matter from it?

neither belief system can give an answer to these quesions...we are here now, and somehow we came to be...but what was there before that which created all that we know?

This is not an answerable question...we will never know the answer to either

if a God truly exists then perhaps He will let this be known to us when we are in His kingdom

but evolution will never give us an answer to how something was created from nothing

[S_K_O_F]

"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

it is believed in many circles that "the Word" is actually referring to Jesus

meaning that Jesus was there in the beginning with God and that Jesus was God

[drakonfire]

it is believed in many circles that "the Word" is actually referring to Jesus

meaning that Jesus was there in the beginning with God and that Jesus was God

thats why i used it a second time in reference to the monotheistic question

[old_man_killer]

Right I guess by mythological definition, Satan is not a god...however, Christians seem to confer him god-like powers, the power greater than humans to make us sin and all that right? So if not truly by defintion, then at least he would be considered a quasi-god.
But it all boils down to the conflict of god vs Satan....i.e. good god vs evil god

That is a popular myth, that the Devil "Makes" you sin. The truth is that he can and does put temptation in your way, but only you can make yourself sin. The Devil has no real physical powers over the elements or matter. Nor can he forse anyone into being evil. He is not a God or even a quasi-god. There is only one God, and one Son of God and one Holy Spirit. Thank you.

[old_man_killer]

How was it possible that an explosion created the universe when there was nothing there originally to create the explosion or the matter from it?



Big Bang Theory = God said "Make it so" and BANG it happened!

[Office_Shredder]

Jesus actually answers this question in the bible.

He says, "I am!"

meaning that He always was...and always will be

This question can be turned around and asked

How was it possible that an explosion created the universe when there was nothing there originally to create the explosion or the matter from it?

neither belief system can give an answer to these quesions...we are here now, and somehow we came to be...but what was there before that which created all that we know?

This is not an answerable question...we will never know the answer to either

if a God truly exists then perhaps He will let this be known to us when we are in His kingdom

but evolution will never give us an answer to how something was created from nothing

The big bang theory never states there was nothing in the universe... it simply states that all the matter was reeaaaaally compact.

[FuzzOnFire]

if god is so "pure" and "holy" why does he let satan exist, i tihnk its some evil scheem to make peopel think he solevees everything and worship him even if he causes it
God allows Satan to exist to give us the free will to chose God over sin. That is the reason He created us: So we would chose to love Him.
okay, first, where did God come from?
"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

yeah, thats not enough for non-believers, but its enough for me, God just is, not was, He wasnt made, He just IS, the great I AM
It is not good enough to simply have blind faith. Faith must be tested and what you believe must have evidence or it is not worth believing.
satan: one of the original angels as stated, went by the name lucifer, he was the most beatiful angel of them all, but he got prideful, things went south and God proved that he was still in control, banished lucifer, now satan... and has to satans powers, the Bible clearly states he is the prince of this world, since its so messed, been poluted by the sin and such, he gets it in the end, but those who believe get a new heaven, and a new earth, free of pain, strife, misery, loss and all things (for lack of a better term) not kewl
I agree with this but what most of the people in this thread have failed to see is that there is a difference between “a god” and “God”. The God that created the universe and Satan is “God”, but Satan, who has so-called “god-like” powers, is not “God” but may possibly be considered “a god” which is as irrelevant as that being a reason to call Christianity “polytheistic”.
where did the angels come from? hmm, good quesiton, God created them i do believe... i dont have Bible references to back this though, *sigh* this is what happens when your raised in the church and you dont read your Bible enough
Actually the bible says in Genesis 1:1 that “God created the heavens and the earth” and angels are included in heavens creation.
as to God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they are one, its called the Holy Trinity, it is just one of those things you have to accept
That is a cop-out answer. I believe that they are 3 parts of the same being, almost like 3 personalities. It is difficult to grasp but I suppose the best way to explain it is an analogy:
Take a banana for example. If you were to take apart a banana, you would see that there are 3 distinct sections inside. But they all go together to make 1 banana. 3 parts of 1 whole. It is the same with God. He has 3 parts but He is 1 whole.
why is it that it is so easy for christians to accept that God has always existed, yet for everything else, they need to find out whay created it.

Christians often ask me where i think matter/energy came from. When i tell them that i believe that matter/energy has always existed, they smirk and give me some condescending, yet completely irrational reply.
I am sorry for your experiences with irrational Christians. I find it bothersome myself when I here a Christian say, “that’s just the way it is and you have to believe it.” Like I said before, I believe faith needs evidence. Not necessarily undeniable proof, but evidence none-the-less.
What you fail to see here is that God created time itself, therefore he is not held back by the constraints of time. What I mean is that the earth was created with a beginning because it was created within the rules of time. The rules of time (saying that something must have a beginning) do not apply to God because He created time. Therefore He does not need a beginning. He always was because he created the ability to have a past tense. So technically where God is, the terms “was”, “is”, and “will be”, have no distinction.
were did "god" come from if he exists i mean a being of infinate power just poped into existance
Big band duh come on Kyir stop sleepin in science
That is just rediculous. Most scientists don't even believe that the Big Bang was the very beginning. Why should anyone believe that the Big Bang created God?

Well, I hope that helped clear up a few things.
Please feel free to ask me any other theological questions.

[Jeffery]

God is a banana.

That is actually one of the silliest, simple, and best analogies I have ever heard.

[FuzzOnFire]

God is a banana.

That is actually one of the silliest, simple, and best analogies I have ever heard.
lol
Thank you. Although I didn't come up with it myself.

[Scroll Lock]

I didn't read all this, however...

1) God
-A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
-The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2) A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5) A powerful ruler or despot.


So the part i read was based around the question of satan. Definition 1A says satan is not a god, while definition 2 says he is. Why did i even bother posting? Oh wait!! In christianity satan isn't considered a god even according to definition 2. I love these definitions. Maybe im looking at this wrong, i quit.

[FuzzOnFire]

Actually, I am a christian, and I believe that by definition 2 Satan is a "god".
But you are correct in saying, by definition 1A that Satan is not "God".
You are not really looking at it wrong, but it is quite a trivial matter.

[Jeffery]

You are confusing a common definition of "a god" in a techinical sense with "The God" in the biblical sense.

[FuzzOnFire]

You are confusing a common definition of "a god" in a techinical sense with "The God" in the biblical sense.
You are referring to Scroll Lock and not me, right?

[Jeffery]

GARRR

Yes.
I like the SMF notification when there is a new reply while you are writing a reply.

[Cephas]

That is a cop-out answer. I believe that they are 3 parts of the same being, almost like 3 personalities. It is difficult to grasp but I suppose the best way to explain it is an analogy:
Take a banana for example. If you were to take apart a banana, you would see that there are 3 distinct sections inside. But they all go together to make 1 banana. 3 parts of 1 whole. It is the same with God. He has 3 parts but He is 1 whole.
An interesting thought, but I am not inclined to agree with you. I never see any Person of the Trinity stating that they are 1/3 of God. I would not reduce any of them to anything less than God, and that includes fractions. Where it becomes difficult for people to get their minds around is where I say that there is a Whole, but each part of the Whole is also Whole.

[Office_Shredder]

like dividing infinite by three.

[Jeffery]

Yes, and the fact that it is hard to grasp outlines God as being almost beyond human comprehension.

Discussing God is like Discussing the 4th demension. You can define and explain all you want, but it is just outside the grasp of anyone trying to comprehend it.
The 1/3 of the whole but yet the whole is the same as the diagram showing what the shadow of the 4th demension is. It is an example man can understand, but is not a complete rxplanation because there is no complete explanation.

[roamingstorm]

this is the way i see it, the devil is a fallen angel, he was a rebel against god, and he was jealous of gods omniscient powers, so he led a battle of rebels against god, and god cast him into the lake of fire and brimstone, which was then named hell. and since earth has been his domain where he tempts man, and continues his rebellion

[FuzzOnFire]

this is the way i see it, the devil is a fallen angel, he was a rebel against god, and he was jealous of gods omniscient powers, so he led a battle of rebels against god, and god cast him into the lake of fire and brimstone, which was then named hell. and since earth has been his domain where he tempts man, and continues his rebellion
Actually, God has not yet cast Satan into the lake of fire. In Revelation, it specifies that this will happen in the future, after the tribulation and before Christ's millenial reign. Untill then, his domain is here on earth.

Cephas
Each of those pieces of banana are 100% banana. They are not 2/3 something other than a banana. If you want to get technical you could say that it implies that each part of God is 1/3 God, but that was not the point I was trying to make. I do agree that each 1/3 of God is 100% God.
Otherwise, there is always a point where the analogy breaks down, for instance, the fact that there are many bananas does not mean that there are many Gods. That would be a point where the analogy is no longer accurate. So there is always a way to make me sound wrong.... Not that I think that's what you were trying to do. I'm just trying to prevent some future random flaming from ignorant people.

[BoBo The Fool]

My understanding of the big bang, is that it is not the begining of the universe/time/existence/anything, but it is an anomoly (sp??) in which the known laws of physics start to break down. It is often seen as the begining of everything, because it is not possible to know what existed before the big bang.

I believe that matter/energy must have existed in some form before the big bang, because i dont think that something can come from nothing, and i dont believe that God created a damn thing.

EDIT-- isn't the 4th dimension time? I thought it was fairly easy to grasp...

[FuzzOnFire]

My understanding of the big bang, is that it is not the begining of the universe/time/existence/anything, but it is an anomoly (sp??) in which the known laws of physics start to break down. It is often seen as the begining of everything, because it is not possible to know what existed before the big bang.

I believe that matter/energy must have existed in some form before the big bang, because i dont think that something can come from nothing, and i dont believe that God created a damn thing.

EDIT-- isn't the 4th dimension time? I thought it was fairly easy to grasp...
You are not quite correct about not being able to know what was before the Big Bang. First of all the Big Bang supposedly happened when a white hole, which held all the matter in the universe, exploded. So technically the white hole came before the Big Bang. But technicalities aside, many scientists now have hope that the String-theory/M-theory explains what caused the Big Bang. I don't really agree with it and its fairly in depth, so I won't explain this unless you really want me to. A theory I do agree with is one by Dr. Russel Humphrey which I like to call the "God Bang Theory". Here's an overview of that theory, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

[imagination]

my 2 cents are this ... humans will never be able to find a begining. we made a higher being to be the start but what was b4 that ... did that higher being grow up and if so what made it and so on and so forth. at the moment im an agnostic. i dont particularly (sp?) like the christian or any religion based off the bible for many of my own reason but my main two are the old testament was made to be many stories to give a moral, i think what happened was many off the stories were and still are taken literal. the new testament has many many changes of wording from latin to english and the old was hebrew to english. one thing i just learned was one of the profecies (im a bad speller)was jesus' mother was supposed to be a virgin (i knew this part) but did you know that in hebrew virgin means pure so she just had to be pure of religion or heart not what we consider today a virgin. other things are walking on water ... jesus has been proven to have been a real person and as the bible states he walked on the beach quite often ... well you see what im saying. right now im just sparking a debate so dont take any of this personally, i just want to see what peoples oppinions are on this part too.

[Hugh Junit]

why is it that it is so easy for christians to accept that God has always existed, yet for everything else, they need to find out whay created it.

Christians often ask me where i think matter/energy came from. When i tell them that i believe that matter/energy has always existed, they smirk and give me some condescending, yet completely irrational reply.



I have to quote this, BoBo.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and insightfull posts that I've read on this topic. I just didn't want to see it swept under the rug.
The entire point of debating this issue is for ( hopefully ) intelligent people to discuss their heart-felt beliefs of the unknown.
BoBo raises an interesting question.....and a stark contradiction.
I'm all ears.

[imagination]

i think i touched on this in the first part of my post ... the reason christians or any religion thinks that their higher being has always been is because they are enlightened :-)

[S_K_O_F]

The big bang theory never states there was nothing in the universe... it simply states that all the matter was reeaaaaally compact.

yes I know

which makes me ask the question...where did the compact matter come from?

[S_K_O_F]

God is a banana.

That is actually one of the silliest, simple, and best analogies I have ever heard.

I actually prefer the egg analogy

[S_K_O_F]

Yes, and the fact that it is hard to grasp outlines God as being almost beyond human comprehension.

Discussing God is like Discussing the 4th demension. You can define and explain all you want, but it is just outside the grasp of anyone trying to comprehend it.
The 1/3 of the whole but yet the whole is the same as the diagram showing what the shadow of the 4th demension is. It is an example man can understand, but is not a complete rxplanation because there is no complete explanation.

are you referring to the 5th dimension...because I think the 4th dimension is time

according to physics anyway...something in a certain spot...xyz...at a certain time

the really hard one to grasp is that God himself lives outside of all dimensions

meaning He is not restricted by position or time, since He created them...giving Him His omnipresence

also...we
(humans)
are capable of understanding that which we are surrounded by...everything we know to exist
my question is...was time itself created by the big bang also...i would like to hear a good explanation of how that came about...but we can't understand what anything was like before the big bang because we are incapable of experiencing it

I choose to go the direction of something that I believe I can experience
and that is God's involvement with my life...I choose to believe that a higher power who lives outside of my comprehension is in control...and not random chance

our own concept of time has us thinking that God actually has an age...when in fact, it is quite possible that God just is...

[Hugh Junit]

I actually prefer the egg anally

That's your own business, amigo. I want no part of it.

Payback for misquoting me on the Banff thread.
It's been a long time...but I never forget. :cool:

[FuzzOnFire]

I have to quote this, BoBo.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and insightfull posts that I've read on this topic. I just didn't want to see it swept under the rug.
The entire point of debating this issue is for ( hopefully ) intelligent people to discuss their heart-felt beliefs of the unknown.
BoBo raises an interesting question.....and a stark contradiction.
I'm all ears.
Maybe you missed this part of my earlier post Hugh, so I'll post it again.

Quote:
why is it that it is so easy for christians to accept that God has always existed, yet for everything else, they need to find out whay created it.

Christians often ask me where i think matter/energy came from. When i tell them that i believe that matter/energy has always existed, they smirk and give me some condescending, yet completely irrational reply.


I am sorry for your experiences with irrational Christians. I find it bothersome myself when I here a Christian say, “that’s just the way it is and you have to believe it.” Like I said before, I believe faith needs evidence. Not necessarily undeniable proof, but evidence none-the-less.
What you fail to see here is that God created time itself, therefore he is not held back by the constraints of time. What I mean is that the earth was created with a beginning because it was created within the rules of time. The rules of time (saying that something must have a beginning) do not apply to God because He created time. Therefore He does not need a beginning. He always was because he created the ability to have a past tense. So technically where God is, the terms “was”, “is”, and “will be”, have no distinction.

__________________________________________________ __

Imagination,
Let me try to respond to your comments one at a time...

humans will never be able to find a begining. we made a higher being to be the start but what was b4 that ... did that higher being grow up and if so what made it and so on and so forth.
Read what I wrote to Hugh Junit.

i dont particularly (sp?) like the christian or any religion based off the bible for many of my own reason but my main two are the old testament was made to be many stories to give a moral, i think what happened was many off the stories were and still are taken literal.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but I'll assume you are trying to say that the stories in the old testament are ficticious. Actually, the bible has been proven to be historically accurate by thousands of archeological finds. Plus there has never been an archeologocal find that has contradicted anything the bible has said. If you don't believe me, read "A Case For Christ" and "A Case For Faith" by Lee Strobel. They both lay out all the evidence to prove that the bible is accurate and they give sources for their information too. I could give some examples but that would take too long.

the new testament has many many changes of wording from latin to english and the old was hebrew to english.
Actually the new testament was not written in Latin, and it is not translated from Latin. It was written in Greek and Aramaic (which is a form of Greek), but yes the old testament was written in Hebrew.

one thing i just learned was one of the profecies (im a bad speller)was jesus' mother was supposed to be a virgin (i knew this part) but did you know that in hebrew virgin means pure so she just had to be pure of religion or heart not what we consider today a virgin.
Sorry, wrong again. The bible says in more than one place that Jesus' mother would have never lain with a man before giving birth to Him. It also talks about her being a virgin, which may or may not refer to being pure of heart, but if it does, she would have had to "lay" with someone she was not married to, which would not have been a pure of heart thing to do.

other things are walking on water ... jesus has been proven to have been a real person and as the bible states he walked on the beach quite often ... well you see what im saying.
No I don't know what you are saying. The bible does say that Jesus walked on the beach, but it also clearly says he walked on water.

Imagination, next time get your facts straight and try to write in comprehensable English.

[S_K_O_F]

Like I said before, I believe faith needs evidence. Not necessarily undeniable proof, but evidence none-the-less.



actually...faith(by definition) requires no evidence

if faith was backed by evidence then it is no longer faith, but is knowledge...

[FuzzOnFire]

actually...faith(by definition) requires no evidence

if faith was backed by evidence then it is no longer faith, but is knowledge...
I totally disagree. If you believe in something but you have no idea why, then that won't be a very strong belief. And if you want to say that faith is different than belief, then you just arguing with my symantics(or is it syntax... w/ever).

EDIT: Let me just say it this way...
If you have faith in something but you have no idea why, then that won't be a very strong faith.

[S_K_O_F]

I totally disagree. If you believe in something but you have no idea why, then that won't be a very strong belief. And if you want to say that faith is different than belief, then you just arguing with my symantics(or is it syntax... w/ever).

EDIT: Let me just say it this way...
If you have faith in something but you have no idea why, then that won't be a very strong faith.


ok...i have a question

assuming big bang happened...did time exist outside the small speck of compressed everything?
time is the one key to one belief or another...
what existed before the big bang besides the speck that exploded...something else had to exist...obviously it is beyond our understanding, but is it really that hard to fathom that something else was there?
regardless of what the "something else" was...do we really believe that outside of the speck of matter that exploded was null?
I believe that something "was" before that which we can currently comprehend. because "null" is not something that can ever be achieved in anything...even in computer programming, the null that is achieved is actually "junk" signals that are unreadable <- not comprehendable

it is logical to think that something existed outside of known comprehension...
but just because we cannot comprehend it, does not mean that it does not exist

Logic also leads me to believe that that something has to have some effect on what we can comprehend...

[Hugh Junit]

I am sorry for your experiences with irrational Christians.

To be honest , I am a Christian. I always have been.
I'm not overbearing, I NEVER thump the Bible and I know ( with all my heart ) that I am no better than anyone else. For me, it's really about being a good man.
I try to do the best for the people who rely on me. The people I love.
It's also about acknowledging that love. Letting myself feel it and embracing it.
I have a good life and an awesome family. I thank God for that, every night, in my own way.

[S_K_O_F]

I thank God for that, every night, in my own way.
bottoms up!
;)

[Hugh Junit]

bottoms up!
;)


Cheers, amigo! :cool:

[FuzzOnFire]

ok...i have a question

assuming big bang happened...did time exist outside the small speck of compressed everything?
time is the one key to one belief or another...
what existed before the big bang besides the speck that exploded...something else had to exist...obviously it is beyond our understanding, but is it really that hard to fathom that something else was there?
regardless of what the "something else" was...do we really believe that outside of the speck of matter that exploded was null?
I believe that something "was" before that which we can currently comprehend. because "null" is not something that can ever be achieved in anything...even in computer programming, the null that is achieved is actually "junk" signals that are unreadable <- not comprehendable

it is logical to think that something existed outside of known comprehension...
but just because we cannot comprehend it, does not mean that it does not exist

Logic also leads me to believe that that something has to have some effect on what we can comprehend...
I don't believe in the Big Bang, but most scientists agree that the Big Bang had to have a cause. And for there to be a cause, there needs to be something to make that cause. Hense the now popular string/M theory. But they do believe that the Big Bang was constrained by time. But outside that event is a different story... according to Einstein, time is proportional to gravity, therefore since the white hole that the Big Bang comes from had an emense amount of gravity, it would make sense that there was some form of time existing outside of the white hole, and since gravity reduces exponentially there is technically no point where time would sease to exist outside of this white hole. This is just what I can think up of right now, don't quote me on it though, as I said before I don't believe in the Big Bang, I'm just trying to look at it through the perspective of someone who does.

[S_K_O_F]

I'm just trying to look at it through the perspective of someone who does.

as am I...and I have tried and tried and tried ever since I was capable of truly understanding what I was taught of the Big Bang

and I am increasingly convinced that "something" existed outside of all of it

(by "something", I mean a "higher power")

[Warcow]

But why do you believe it was a higher power outside all of it? and when you say higher power, do you mean an entity, or merely a force of somekind?

*EDIT* I believe in the big bang, but I believe there is something to it we are incapable of understanding, my biggest problem is why so many people try to put a name to it, or explain it, when it is compeltely inexplicable.

[FuzzOnFire]

To be honest , I am a Christian. I always have been.
I'm not overbearing, I NEVER thump the Bible and I know ( with all my heart ) that I am no better than anyone else. For me, it's really about being a good man.
I try to do the best for the people who rely on me. The people I love.
It's also about acknowledging that love. Letting myself feel it and embracing it.
I have a good life and an awesome family. I thank God for that, every night, in my own way.
Well for me it's not about being a good man, because I know there's no way I can do that on my own, it's about relying on Christ to help me try. For me, it's all about my relationship with a God who, through Christ's ultimate sacrifice, can overlook my sins. It's not enough for me to be a good person. It's not even possible. I have to believe that Christ's sacrifice was good enough to take the place of my deserved punishment.

That's what Christianity is to me.

Sidenote: Isn't it interesting that Christianity is the only religion (that I know of) that in order to achieve the best after-life it doesn't matter how good you are, and it only matters if you have a relationship with the Creator?

[FuzzOnFire]

But why do you believe it was a higher power outside all of it? and when you say higher power, do you mean an entity, or merely a force of somekind?

*EDIT* I believe in the big bang, but I believe there is something to it we are incapable of understanding, my biggest problem is why so many people try to put a name to it, or explain it, when it is compeltely inexplicable.
I'm fairly certain that SKOF is talking about an entity. And it makes more sense to me that an intelligent designer created the earth than it does for a Big Bang to occur which has no cause at all.

[Warcow]

I'm fairly certain that SKOF is talking about an entity. And it makes more sense to me that an intelligent designer created the earth than it does for a Big Bang to occur which has no cause at all.

I didn't say there was no cause, I said that my belief is that the cause is at this point, inexplicable, but trying to explain it by giving it the name "God" and making it in to an entity makes just as little sense as everything else.

[FuzzOnFire]

I didn't say there was no cause, I said that my belief is that the cause is at this point, inexplicable, but trying to explain it by giving it the name "God" and making it in to an entity makes just as little sense as everything else.
How does it make more sense to believe in something that is "compeltely inexplicable" as opposed to someone who is partially inexplicable?

[Warcow]

Explicable through what? Through a handful of hints and a guy that lived 2000 years ago? Through sources that never once mentioned a big bang? Or anything even remotely close it?

[FuzzOnFire]

Explicable through what? Through a handful of hints and a guy that lived 2000 years ago? Through sources that never once mentioned a big bang? Or anything even remotely close it?
He can be explained as a being, who is not constrained by the dimensions that we are, who has great power and therefore is able to create the universe as we know it.
And what does it matter if He isn't explained by sources that have never mentioned the Big Bang, if the Big Bang does not exist (which you will likely believe, if you believe that God does exist)?

EDIT: I'm going to bed, I will continue this discusion in the morning.

[The Prophet]

one thing i just learned was one of the profecies (im a bad speller)was jesus' mother was supposed to be a virgin (i knew this part) but did you know that in hebrew virgin means pure so she just had to be pure of religion or heart not what we consider today a virgin.

The reference you are speaking of is with the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14). The Hebrew word he used was almah, which does translate to a girl being of marriageable age. Important thing to remember is that Jewish woman of her age was presumed to have never had intercourse.

In the New Testament when the word virgin, the Greek translation is parthenos. Parthenos means a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man.

[old_man_killer]

are you referring to the 5th dimension......

What does a 60's singing group have to do with this?


As far as the Big Bang therory goes, it has now been challenged and pretty much disproved. For a Big Bang therory to be true, all the planets, stars and galaxy's have to be moving away from a central poit, which is what has been thought for many years. But recent advancements with space borne telescopes have shown that all the heavenly bodys are moving in various directions and at various speeds. Some are in fact heading towards each other. So one of two possibilities exist:
a) multiple big bangs or
b) we have absolutely no clue what has or is happening in outer space.

As for me and my house, we will follow the LORD.

[FuzzOnFire]

As for me and my house, we will follow the LORD.
Amen to that!
;)

[Kyo]

The question is who made God.
My parents did, because I am God.

[max2k106]

you clearly aren't, prove it!!! :D

[BoBo The Fool]

I choose to go the direction of something that I believe I can experience and that is God's involvement with my life...I choose to believe that a higher power who lives outside of my comprehension is in control...and not random chance

I think this is the central difference between theists and atheists. Theists choose believe in something that sounds nice and comforting, while atheists have no choice in the matter. Atheists don't 'choose' to be atheists in the way that so many theists choose to believe in God. Atheists simply look at the evidence in the world and cannot see anything that resembles God.

and about the whole 'virgin' thing, i was told that in those days the word (or whatever it was translated from) simply meant that the woman had not had children before. So Jesus was born of the virgin because he was the first born. I woud also think that back in those days, if a woman did not have a child, it would be assumed that she had not had any sex. This seems to agree (more or less) with what you guys have been saying, which is that basically it was no 'miracle' that christ was born of a virgin mother.

How does it make more sense to believe in something that is "compeltely inexplicable" as opposed to someone who is partially inexplicable?

It makes so much more sense to believe in something completely inexplicable. Considering the subject matter, i.e. the beginnings of everything, does it make sense that we would understand it?

And i suppose this is the second main difference between athiests and theists. Theists believe that the creator of the universe had to be a personal, conscious entity. They cannot comprehend how something without a soul/mind could have created all of this. Hate to break it to you guys, but sh|t happens, and it doesn't always need to be started by someone with a mind.

[Walrus]

sorry if this is directly on topic, but this is a religion thread so i thought better to post here than somewhere else.
a little thought popped into my head earlier today :

If satan convinces someone to kill another man, or commit some crime, because it is right. Such that the man genuinely feels he is doing a good thing, should that man go to hell for it? I say this because surely if he believes that he is doing good, then he isnt the one who should be blamed, but satan for decieving him.

[Jeffery]

No, the man is blamed for being deceived. Ignorance is never an excuse, in the eye of God or the law.
It doesn't matter if you THINK you are right, it depends whether or not you are.

[drakonfire]

eve *thought* she was doing right, or at least something okay, in the beginning, when satan convinced her to do exactly what God had said not to, God did punish her and adam, so what jeff said is true, thats just a biblical example to back it up, IMO

[FuzzOnFire]

Theists choose believe in something that sounds nice and comforting, while atheists have no choice in the matter..... Atheists simply look at the evidence in the world and cannot see anything that resembles God.
I believe that the evidence shows that God does exist, so does that mean that I have no choice in being a theist?

and about the whole 'virgin' thing, i was told that in those days the word (or whatever it was translated from) simply meant that the woman had not had children before. So Jesus was born of the virgin because he was the first born. I woud also think that back in those days, if a woman did not have a child, it would be assumed that she had not had any sex. This seems to agree (more or less) with what you guys have been saying, which is that basically it was no 'miracle' that christ was born of a virgin mother.
Actually as a practicing Jew, Mary lived at home with her father, and was never away from him long enough to have sex, so he could be a witness to the fact that Mary was a virgin. Her father would never have allowed her to to have sex before marriage, because then she would, by Hebrew law, have to be stoned. Plus there is the fact that the bible says that she was "highly favored" by God so she therefore had to have been a virgin. If Mary wasn't a virgin, you might as well throw the bible away because that is extremely contradictory to what the bible teaches and there wouldn't be any reason to believe any of the bible at all.
sorry if this is directly on topic, but this is a religion thread so i thought better to post here than somewhere else.
a little thought popped into my head earlier today :

If satan convinces someone to kill another man, or commit some crime, because it is right. Such that the man genuinely feels he is doing a good thing, should that man go to hell for it? I say this because surely if he believes that he is doing good, then he isnt the one who should be blamed, but satan for decieving him.
(Disclamer= this is just what I believe, take it for what you will...)
First of all, unless he accepted Christ as his savior, he is already going to Hell, so it doesn't make a difference. You can't be "sent" to hell for any one thing. Either you are a sinner and deserve Hell, or you accept the gift of Christ's sacrifice as a replacement for your punishment and you go to Heaven. No sin is big enough that Jesus can't take the place for it. Even murder, whether or not "the devil made me do it." As soon as that acceptance of Christ is made, your sins are covered. 2nd Corinthians 5:17 says "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

No, the man is blamed for being deceived. Ignorance is never an excuse, in the eye of God or the law.
It doesn't matter if you THINK you are right, it depends whether or not you are.
I beg to differ. Unless you distinguish ignorant from innocent, the Bible makes it clear that those who are innocent in God's eyes (small children/mentally handicapped etc.) will not be held accountable for their actions. Also, much of what Jesus taught was that the letter of the law was not as important as the purpose of the law. However, being decieved is not an excuse either. Eve was decieved, yet she was held accountable for eating the forbidden fruit. The difference is that she knew it was wrong to begin with, and she allowed herself to be convinced otherwise.

[The Prophet]

and about the whole 'virgin' thing, i was told that in those days the word (or whatever it was translated from) simply meant that the woman had not had children before. So Jesus was born of the virgin because he was the first born. I woud also think that back in those days, if a woman did not have a child, it would be assumed that she had not had any sex. This seems to agree (more or less) with what you guys have been saying, which is that basically it was no 'miracle' that christ was born of a virgin mother.

I already told you what Virgin" meant according to the Greek and Hebrew translations. It was absolutely a miracle and none except all the atheist have said that it wasn't.

Joseph knew she hadn't been sexual active so he was scared to take her into public, because people would think she sined against him. If you also look at the wording of the geneolgy in Matthew 1, you will find that everyone was "begat" by someone. The only one that wasn't begat was Jesus. It says, "Joseph was the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus".

It was a miracle and one day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess He is Lord.

[Northwind]

I already told you what Virgin" meant according to the Greek and Hebrew translations. It was absolutely a miracle and none except all the atheist have said that it wasn't.
I have a small quibble with this. Any _non-Christian_ would say that it wasn't a miracle. There are many more possibilities out there than Christianity and atheism. In fact, the majority of the people in the world are non-Christian and non-atheists. Let's not forget about them.

[The Prophet]

I didn't mean in the world but strictly to the forums. Most here have said they are atheist or agnostic.

[S_K_O_F]

I have a small quibble with this. Any _non-Christian_ would say that it wasn't a miracle. There are many more possibilities out there than Christianity and atheism. In fact, the majority of the people in the world are non-Christian and non-atheists. Let's not forget about them.

I agree with Northy here. While, nearly all religions recognize that Jesus did exist, Christians are the only ones who believe he fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah. of course, Muslims don't believe a Messiah was needed...and practitioners of Judaism are still waiting for Messiah.
what is even better, is that both Jews and Muslims trace their lineage back to Abram. Muslims come from the child born of the Egyptian handmaiden of Sarai whose name was Hagar. The child was named Ishmail, and Muhammed was a decendant of Ishmail.
The Jewish Nation stems from Abram's son, Isaac. Isaac was born after God changed Abram's name to Abraham (father of nations). Sarai's (Abram's wife) name was changed to Sarah. Isaac was the product of Abraham and Sarah.

That is the beginning of those two religions. Christianity then stems later from Judaism, after the death of Jesus, by those who believed He fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

just a little info...i dont remember what the point was now

[doubledown]

Hey because this thread was mentioned in the Intellectual Discussion Thread, I decided to bring it back up.

Lots more to say about the subject, but I thought I'd first bring this to the table.
10 commendments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Gods words stating without question, man should not kill one another.
But.....God also commands that any unfaithful wife and the man she was cheating with be taken to the edge of town and STONED TO DEATH.
Hmmm.....contradictory? Here is a link I dredged up with a little bit of that hypocrisy. http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/unfaithful.htm
Now, my challenge to all defenders of the faith, how do you explain this? What is the work-around to one of the "holiest laws," inscribed in stone?
Can anyone find anything on this link that is untrue or misrepresented?

(Aside) Jeff make the mistake about saying how the 4th dimension was incomprehensible, however I'm sure he feels he should have rather said the 5th or 6th dimensions as even Jr. High kids get the space-time relatity bit at the basic level. Now wrap your brain around this, scientists studying String Theory suggest there has to be at least 13 dimensions, not 12. 12 just wont do. How does one say with confidence 12 dimensions arent enough, but 13 are?

[Jeffery]

There is no commandment in the non-translated bible that says Thou Shalt Not Kill.
The term actually used is "murder"
The distinction between Kill and Murder being Murder is killing without due cause.

And I said the phsyical representation of the 4th dimension can not be seen, as it is a cube within a cube, wherein all sides are equal, including the distance between the outer and inner cube. I did not say the dimension itself is not thought to be understood by many.

[doubledown]

so I just want to make sure I understand this....
If one would find out his wife is cheating on him, he is under direct order to take her out and stone her to death, and not only is this not murder, but it is the holy thing to do?

[Jeffery]

Gotta love the old testament.

[Realist]

The OT is truly a fun book. Its great that a book that is so widely accepted and in some ways so influential is so ignored and so contradictory towards our modern views. Its beautiful the justifications modern religious thought makes against the greatness of the OT.

Who would think, looking at the modern conservative religious climate, that one of the most major religous books ever was so sexually obsessed, amoralistic, and obscure?

The NT and Koran are so drab in comparison, its a shame no one actually follows (or reads closely) the OT anymore.

[doubledown]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was told by a number of Christians that the bible is "god's word" and that even though it was penned by man, the meaning comes straight from god.
So in the bible, it cleary says god wants you to beat any unfaitful wife to death. To forgive her would be a sin.

[Realist]

You seemed to have missed the NT. Haven't you heard? The laws of the OT no longer apply anymore, all you have to worry about is having faith in Jesus. (And a bunch of other stuff if you're Catholic)

[The Cheat]

The bible is nothing but propaganda created by the church.

Yes I am a Christian.

[doubledown]

I would really like an honest christian to explain how even though god is all seeing so would know there would be a new testament that contradicts everything he previously said, and his words are timeless so that all christians of every age and time period should follow these tenements...you can pick and choose what out of the old testament to say you follow and what you can discard?

[Realist]

The Church didn't exist when the Bible was created.

The NT is also way too mystical to have been produced by such a spiritless establishment.

[Realist]

I would really like an honest christian to explain how even though god is all seeing so would know there would be a new testament that contradicts everything he previously said, and his words are timeless so that all christians of every age and time period should follow these tenements...you can pick and choose what out of the old testament to say you follow and what you can discard?

The short answer : Cognitive dissonance.

(though I'm not an honest Christian, so you can wait for one)

[Twelve]

I would really like an honest christian to explain how even though god is all seeing so would know there would be a new testament that contradicts everything he previously said, and his words are timeless so that all christians of every age and time period should follow these tenements...you can pick and choose what out of the old testament to say you follow and what you can discard?

Contradicts?

Alright.

Let's see if I can give a good analogy.

You are sick.

You call the doctor and he gives you a prescription.

You go to the drug store and, in exchange for the prescription, you get the drug that will cure you.

Do any of you smart guys get what I'm trying to say?

12

[Twelve]

Do any of you smart guys get what I'm trying to say?

12

Guess not. *shrugs*

Whoever gets this riddle accurately will receive a rep from me whenever they post for the rest of their lives.

12

[doubledown]

Contradicts?
You are sick.
You call the doctor and he gives you a prescription.
You go to the drug store and, in exchange for the prescription, you get the drug that will cure you.


But if the doctor knew everything and the prescription was supposed to be absolut law...

[Realist]

Why did God give such a complicated prescription when all he really needed to give was permission to get the drug?

[Twelve]

Good job...really.

The "prescription" was NEVER the absolute law. It was said clearly in the prescription, just like all prescriptions, that it would be exchanged for the real drug...

....Jesus Christ.

12

[Twelve]

Why did God give such a complicated prescription when all he really needed to give was permission to get the drug?

A complicated prescription simply matches a complicated problem.

As for the other aspect of your question...what do you mean exactly?

12

[Realist]

No, a complicated prescritption does nothing...a complicated drug is what you need. The only purpose of the prescription is to get the drug.

In clearer language, the OT has a whole lot of stuff...way too much stuff...to just reduce it to preparing the way for JC. Have you ever read it? Its a massive book. And there's nothing in it that at all suggests JC unless you're intentionally looking for it.

[Twelve]

No, a complicated prescritption does nothing...a complicated drug is what you need. The only purpose of the prescription is to get the drug.

In clearer language, the OT has a whole lot of stuff...way too much stuff...to just reduce it to preparing the way for JC. Have you ever read it? Its a massive book. And there's nothing in it that at all suggests JC unless you're intentionally looking for it.

God incarnate in the form of a man is complicated enough for any problem, methinks.

Of course I've read the OT...several times. Are you saying that there is no prophecy of the Messiah in the OT?

12

[doubledown]

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Doesnt that basically say "I'm done, keep your hands off this"

[Realist]

God incarnate in the form of a man is complicated enough for any problem, methinks.

I don't see how this answers the question.

Basically, the OT was a huge book existing thousands of years before the NT. How could its only purpose be to pave the way for the NT? Why not just give the NT in the first place?

Of course I've read the OT...several times. Are you saying that there is no prophecy of the Messiah in the OT?

Yep.

[The Cheat]

I don't see how this answers the question.

Basically, the OT was a huge book existing thousands of years before the NT. How could its only purpose be to pave the way for the NT? Why not just give the NT in the first place?



Yep.


Sorry but that is wrong.

[Twelve]

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Doesnt that basically say "I'm done, keep your hands off this"

A prescription is neither added on or subtracted from...simply fulfilled when the drug comes along.

Just think of how deadly it would be if a sick person had a specific prescription to cure their problem, and someone came along and added or subtracted the ingredients on it. BIG problem.

12

[Twelve]

I don't see how this answers the question.

Basically, the OT was a huge book existing thousands of years before the NT. How could its only purpose be to pave the way for the NT? Why not just give the NT in the first place?



Well, the NT itself says that it was given so that people could be "aware" of the problemt that needed to be fixed...much like the prescription analogy.

A more simple reason is that the time of the Roman Empire was the perfect first opportunity for Jesus to walk the earth.

12

[doubledown]

So still using the analogy of the doctor/prescription

God the doctor, knowing already the cure for the illness still gives out medical advice that is very contradictory to the prescribed cure. He also does not give out this prescription for a hundred or so years.

[Realist]

Sorry but that is wrong.

What exactly is wrong?

[Twelve]

So still using the analogy of the doctor/prescription

God the doctor, knowing already the cure for the illness still gives out medical advice that is very contradictory to the prescribed cure. He also does not give out this prescription for a hundred or so years.

Still using the analogy because it works exactly.

Yep, according to the Bible, God knew that he would have to eventually give up His Son as soon as the world was created.

Once again, there is nothing contradictory about it...it was FULFILLED. Christ's sacrifice simply made those laws and rules on paper obsolete. Just like a drug makes the prescription obsolete...you can just throw the paper away, practically!

As for God's timing in bringing the Son, it was perfect timing seeing as how his's son's legacy has spread.

12

[Realist]

Well, the NT itself says that it was given so that people could be "aware" of the problemt that needed to be fixed...much like the prescription analogy.

Except the OT didn't only give the problem, it gave the answers. It actually gave answers without even giving the problem. (I suggest you stop using the prescription analogy, it merely complicates things).

[Dove]

Yep.

Isaiah 53, read the entire chapter.

I'll put a few select verses here for you. Warning: I believe that Jews are not allowed to read this because of their denial of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. Considering how this chapter describes the Messiah, it'd be hard to continue in that belief.

Isaiah 53:1-7 "1) Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2) For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 3) He is despised and rejected by men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4) Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5) But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6)All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7) He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth."

Sounds an aweful lot like Jesus Christ. The first and probably most obvious link is that "He" is capitalized continually throughout the passage. The second obvious link is what actually happened to Him. Affliction, pain, rejection by His own (Matthew 13:53-58, John 6:1-6, etc.), silence before his killers, the list goes on. The final, and most important obvious link (at least that I saw as I skimmed this passage) is that the Lord laid upon Him the iniquities of us all. Jesus' death for our sins was predicted long, LONG before Christ even took physical form as a human.

And there is much more prophecy found in the OT relating to the NT. It just takes a bit of studying to find it.

EDIT: Realist's "Yep" was to the statement that there was no OT prophecy which foretold Jesus of being the Messiah, or something along those lines.

[Twelve]

Except the OT didn't only give the problem, it gave the answers. It actually gave answers without even giving the problem. (I suggest you stop using the prescription analogy, it merely complicates things).

Since I'm talking to smart people, I'm not worried about complicating things. :)

The problem, or the sickness, is sin.

To further the prescription analogy, it's like when a doctor can give you temporary relief to ease a sickness until the drug is prepared, and then comes.

Like having a serious problem with your throat, and until you get the operation/drug/cure, you just have to keep sucking on losanges.

12

[Jeffery]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm


A whole list of OT prophecies that have been aclaimed to be the works of jesus later on.

[doubledown]

Sounds an aweful lot like Jesus Christ. The first and probably most obvious link is that "He" is capitalized continually throughout the passage. The second obvious link is what actually happened to Him. Affliction, pain, rejection by His own (Matthew 13:53-58, John 6:1-6, etc.), silence before his killers, the list goes on. The final, and most important obvious link (at least that I saw as I skimmed this passage) is that the Lord laid upon Him the iniquities of us all. Jesus' death for our sins was predicted long, LONG before Christ even took physical form as a human.



Also sounds a whole heck of a lot like what David Koresh went through.

[Twelve]

Also sounds a whole heck of a lot like what David Koresh went through.

HA!

Wow Dove, Jeffery.

12

[doubledown]

What I dont get is this prescription (belief in Jesus as your savior) DOES contradict the medical advice given before it (Animal sacrifice, stoning unfaitful wives, etc...)
That is like going to the doctor for a headache. He will eventually prescrib aspirin, but before that tell you to smash your head with a hammer.

Edit: A little research later and I find that 12 has one less sin to worry about,
I Cor. 11:14
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
And thats NT, not the OT which is explained as above as no longer revelant.

[Twelve]

What I dont get is this prescription (belief in Jesus as your savior) DOES contradict the medical advice given before it (Animal sacrifice, stoning unfaitful wives, etc...)
That is like going to the doctor for a headache. He will eventually prescrib aspirin, but before that tell you to smash your head with a hammer.

Well, the animal sacrifice is a perfect example of "temporary relief" of the sickness until the healing drug comes along. Perfect example.

As for stoning unfaithful wives, this is only one of many harsher laws in the Bible for women AND men which simply reflects the desert, wandering society of the ancient past.

It is no longer needed today simply because we have completely different societies. No contradictions...merely an adaption to society that is ALWAYS an issue in the Bible.

12

[Jeffery]

What everyone is failing to understand is that the OT was written to the times they were of. The inflections fo those writing it, and the society they lived in, is directly visible in the texts and what they say.
Now you guys are trying to apply 21st century logic to something that is part of a culture very few people will ever understand.

The OT is a book OF God written BY man. As such, it is as fallable as the men who wrote it.

[Twelve]

What everyone is failing to understand is that the OT was written to the times they were of. The inflections fo those writing it, and the society they lived in, is directly visible in the texts and what they say.
Now you guys are trying to apply 21st century logic to something that is part of a culture very few people will ever understand.

The OT is a book OF God written BY man. As such, it is as fallable as the men who wrote it.

First paragraph: YEAH!

Second paragraph: BOO.

*smiles at Jeff*

Ok. Off to GL I go to flawless Hatchet.

12

[Dove]

The OT is a book OF God written BY man. As such, it is as fallable as the men who wrote it.

Where then do you place II Timothy 2:16?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is protitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

If you believe that there is a possibility for fallacy in God's Word, then why shouldn't we simply discredit the entire canon of Scripture?

[Twelve]

Edit: A little research later and I find that 12 has one less sin to worry about,
I Cor. 11:14
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
And thats NT, not the OT which is explained as above as no longer revelant.

Lol. Funny.

But if you do some more research on the Corinthian culture and the context in which it was written, you would see why Paul wrote that.

Once again, a knowledge of the times and societies of the cultures behind these words is vital.

12

[drakonfire]

aight dd, let me take a crack at it, slightly different analogy

your walking through the amazon rainforest, using a machete to clear a path, you trip and slice your leg open from hip to knee, you at this point have 2 options

1: leave it alone, bleed to death

2: bandage it as best you can, and get yourself back to civilization where a doctor cay stitch you up and get you the anti-biotics you'll need to avoid serious infection

the OT was like a bandage, if it were _just_ a bandage, you would still eventually die, but the NT, that was when the 'doctor' so to say, came to us, complete with field equipment to fix us right up, the OT was temporary, it was not meant to fix the human condition, because NO human has ever managed to get it all right (except Jesus, and He was God incarnate, kinda gives Him an advnatage)

just my 2 cents

EDIT: whoops, i didnt go all the way through with this thought, once you get to a doctor, remember, the bandage _has_ to be removed to apply the stitches, so even thoughi t contradicts what you had to do initially to survive, it is still what needs to be done

[doubledown]

The OT is a book OF God written BY man. As such, it is as fallable as the men who wrote it.

Ahh see, thats what I was trying to get at. As I stated when I started this recent tirad, it was explained to me that the bible is god's words through man. That even though it was penned by man, the words come straight from god and are not open to interpretation.

Since then, the laws are to be judged based on the time period, then we come to the fact that in this new era, homosexuality is no longer a sin correct. It is recognized it will not lead to the disruption of society and is no real danger or threat to our way of life.

[Mithrandir]

I wish I could get fully into this discussion but I lack the time. For now I must comment that homosexuality is condemned in both the OT and the NT. Read Romans 1.

[Dove]

I wish I could get fully into this discussion but I lack the time. For now I must comment that homosexuality is condemned in both the OT and the NT. Read Romans 1.

Indeed. Also I Corinthians 6:9. It's spelled out pretty clearly right there.

[Realist]

Dove,

I admit that there is stuff in Isaiah 53 which is eerily similar to the story of the NT, but thats one passage in an enourmous Bible. Surely there is more to the OT than just to prepare for JC! Why aren't there more references to him? Why do you have to find him in obscure passages in the middle of Isaiah?

Sounds an aweful lot like Jesus Christ. The first and probably most obvious link is that "He" is capitalized continually throughout the passage.

Except that there are no capitals in the language of the OT. Oops!

Also, most of this passage is written in the past tense. Biblical prophesies are written in the future tense, as it makes sense that they should be.

Another important point is the last line of the passage, which you didn't include:

KJV
Isaiah 53
12: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Jesus has a portion with the great? Should "divide the spoil with the strong?" Sounds like the person described is one of many great people, not a divine figure in his own right.

And there is much more prophecy found in the OT relating to the NT. It just takes a bit of studying to find it.

If by "studying" you mean "reinterpretting to fit desired conclusions."

[Realist]

To further the prescription analogy, it's like when a doctor can give you temporary relief to ease a sickness until the drug is prepared, and then comes.

Like having a serious problem with your throat, and until you get the operation/drug/cure, you just have to keep sucking on losanges.

12

This is a much better analogy. The only problem is there is nothing in the OT that suggests that it isn't final and complete, and much which says the exact opposite, as Double pointed out.

[doubledown]

I wish I could get fully into this discussion but I lack the time. For now I must comment that homosexuality is condemned in both the OT and the NT. Read Romans 1.

There is alot of stuff in the OT and NT that are not applicable today.
Hell, one of the 10 commandments is to observe the sabbath day. Most people have interpreted this in a lot of ways, some say you cant work on Sunday, some just think it means you cannot get drunk on sundays (even though it was the roman emperor Constatine that moved the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday)....however in the OT God killed a man for picking up a stick on the sabbath.

Secondly, in the NT Paul said that women should be kept quiet while in church. Does this still apply in today's new era of women's rights? What church have you gone to that has a law against any woman speaking?

[Realist]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm


A whole list of OT prophecies that have been aclaimed to be the works of jesus later on.

Some of these are almost laughable....

Like:

Born of the seed of a woman Genesis 3:15 Matthew 1:18

Genesis 3
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The "thee" referred to here is the snake, who is being punished for getting the woman to eat the forbidden fruit.

So let me get this right...the OT God said that the seed of women would oppose the seed of snakes; Jesus was born by the seed of women; therefore Jesus fulfilled the OT's prophecy???? I don't get it....

[Mithrandir]

I'll let someone else field all that, I'm leaving in a few minutes. I just wanted to make sure your assertion that homosexuality is just fine and dandy in the NT was refuted.

[Dove]

Another important point is the last line of the passage, which you didn't include:

KJV
Isaiah 53
12: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Jesus has a portion with the great? Should "divide the spoil with the strong?" Sounds like the person described is one of many great people, not a divine figure in his own right.conclusions."

But you have to realize that God's heaven and Jesus reign wasn't on this earth, it is actually yet to come. You mentioned yourself the importance of tenses: "Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..." Stated in future tense, so as to note that it is yet to come.

As for being numbered with the transgressors, it is my belief that this refers to those who were on the other crosses at the time He died. He was killed with transgressors, those who hung next to Him as He died. Of course, bearing the sins of many is what Christ came to do, and it is well known that Christians believe Christ to be our intercessor to Christ the Father. He is also the one who intercedes between transgressors and God when a person is "saved". See Romans 8:26, "Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

Well I'm gone for a couple of hours, I'll be looking forward to joining again sometime, hopefully soon.

[Realist]

What everyone is failing to understand is that the OT was written to the times they were of. The inflections fo those writing it, and the society they lived in, is directly visible in the texts and what they say.
Now you guys are trying to apply 21st century logic to something that is part of a culture very few people will ever understand.

The OT is a book OF God written BY man. As such, it is as fallable as the men who wrote it.

I don't think anyone fails to understand this except the fundamentalist Christians....

[Realist]

Lol. Funny.

But if you do some more research on the Corinthian culture and the context in which it was written, you would see why Paul wrote that.

Once again, a knowledge of the times and societies of the cultures behind these words is vital.

12

Perhaps the condemnation of homosexuality was of the same type...only applicable to that culture, but no longer necessary in the society of today. How do you differentiate?

[Mithrandir]

Hey Realist, just a quick clarification question, what do you mean by "fundamentalist Christians?"

[Jeffery]

Ok, I'm pretty sure i'll be stoned to death for this:

I don't think the bible IS the infallable word of God. I think the men who wrote it wanted everyone to think that, which is why that was written into the bible to begin with.

God gave man Free Will, to do with his/her life as they choose. But several times throughout history, there have been times when God nudged man along the path that he wanted mankind to follow. Whether this be plagues, raining hellfire, flooding the earth, or sending in the old testament, and then the new testament.

The old testament was a nudge from god to try and correct the morality of the people. The new testament was a nudge to correct people into a more lovin, nurturing way of life.

[Realist]

Dove,

You failed to respond to any of my points. :eek:

The key words in Isaiah 53 12 are " divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong." This makes it seem like the person described is one of many greats, one of many strong (or something of equal value), but not superior to those others, certaintly not a divine being. This throws out the entire idea that this passage predicts Jesus.

[Realist]

Hey Realist, just a quick clarification question, what do you mean by "fundamentalist Christians?"

A Christian who believes that the Bible is absolutely true (i.e, not dependent on the culture, straight from God, no fallibility).

[Realist]

Jeffery,

Too bad it didn't work, eh?

[old_man_killer]

Boys boys boys. Unless you read the Old Testament in it original Hebrew and the New Testament in its original language (help me here Realist, wasn't it Greek?) Then we are at the mercy of certain translations. Unfortunately I don't know either of these languages. I am reading a very very interesting book called "In His Own Words" which goes into depth over some interesting facts within the Old Testament. There are many Hebrew phases and words that cannot be translated to english effectively enough to give the same nuance as the original. This is why we have theologists who do understand these things.

[Devlin777]

Wow, there sure are a lot of opposing, diverging and converging views being put forth. Does anyone have the definitive and final say?

[Moose]

Having not read much of the thread, and possibility risking the chance of being flamed, all I have to say is this.

Religion in reality is very sketchy. The bible is a good story, but in the end thats really all it is, a story.

Now I personally don't believe in god, christianity, judism, catholicism, etc.

I believe that there is more to life then what we percieve through are 5 senses.

But when it comes down to defining religion, take a no. and go eat a chocolate bar.

anyways religion is a subject that fools dwell on, if you have faith, great, if not, great.

Any way you look at it, the truth will never be drawn.

Peace out

[old_man_killer]

Wow, there sure are a lot of opposing, diverging and converging views being put forth. Does anyone have the definitive and final say?

Yes.........GOD

[Realist]

There are many Hebrew phases and words that cannot be translated to english effectively enough to give the same nuance as the original. This is why we have theologists who do understand these things.

The problem is that the theologians are not always in agreement with the Biblical scholars who study the Bible from a historical, scientific point of view to find the meaning that is most likely correct.

In any case, I can prove my points about the Bible in virtually any translation, since there are some commonalities. If you'd like to discuss anything about the Bible, just tell me your favorite translation (it has to be online, but most are) and tell me where I am wrong (or state your views and I'll tell you where you are wrong).

[Devlin777]

Yes.........GOD

Well, I meant among all these experts. :dry:

[Realist]

We all have a final say; however, these final says are contradictory.

[Devlin777]

We all have a final say; however, these final says are contradictory.

Would you kindly restate that or expand? :huh: I don't understand.

[roamingstorm]

if your read the bible as i have, you will notice that satan is never refered to as a god, but more competition, which would stand that it is monotheistic, however since satan is said to have powers not equivilant, and he is not omnicient as god is.

[Jeffery]

if your read the bible as i have, you will notice that satan is never refered to as a god, but more competition, which would stand that it is monotheistic, however since satan is said to have powers not equivilant, and he is not omnicient as god is.
Actually, Satan is known as one of the Angels, who got booted out of heaven for getting lippy.

[choplocker-17]

I know one thing for sure. God makes my life better. I lost a great grandpa a few years ago and god planned out so that the last 5 times I saw my grandpa were some of the best times I have ever had.

[old_man_killer]

if your read the bible as i have, you will notice that satan is never refered to as a god, but more competition, which would stand that it is monotheistic, however since satan is said to have powers not equivilant, and he is not omnicient as god is.

Satan is obviously not Omnicient or omnipotent or he would already know he's gonna lose and give up now! :) That was meant to be light hearted. :)

[Twelve]

O.K. My "date" didn't show up so let's look through these last posts and deal with any relevant points:

The OT is a book OF God written BY man. As such, it is as fallable as the men who wrote it.

Jeff, nothing OF God is imperfect, whether it be through man or otherwise. If you think that man's influence over His word is greater than His perfect power, than you are putting more faith in man than God.

Where then do you place II Timothy 2:16?

I admire your Biblical skills. :) But realize that it means nothing to people who dont have faith in it, which is why I just break people down with logic...inspired by scripture. I can bring up a verse for everything said in this thread but it won't help anything if they refuse to accept God's Perfect Word.

Ahh see, thats what I was trying to get at. As I stated when I started this recent tirad, it was explained to me that the bible is god's words through man. That even though it was penned by man, the words come straight from god and are not open to interpretation.

Not open to interpretation? Of course it is! The beauty of the Bible is its ability to span cultures and times and still remain as relevant as ever. The only parts of the Bible open to interpretation are the parts of the Bible that are obviously difficult...the Bible has very blunt teachings that are its core. Many try to come and change the core teachings too, but their ideas never last...and nothing that is true fades away.

Jesus has a portion with the great? Should "divide the spoil with the strong?" Sounds like the person described is one of many great people, not a divine figure in his own right.

If you take that verse and ignore the rest, sure it might sound like he's one of many. But when you read the rest in context, it's clear that he, Jesus, plays a role that nobody else among the the great can play.

The only problem is there is nothing in the OT that suggests that it isn't final and complete, and much which says the exact opposite, as Double pointed out.

And as I pointed out, the OT is full of prophecies that need to be fullfilled. Like the passage in Isaiah. The writing of the OT is complete but the fulfillment of them are not. (Until Jesus came and fulfilled them all). I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

There is alot of stuff in the OT and NT that are not applicable today.
Hell, one of the 10 commandments is to observe the sabbath day. Most people have interpreted this in a lot of ways, some say you cant work on Sunday, some just think it means you cannot get drunk on sundays (even though it was the roman emperor Constatine that moved the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday)....however in the OT God killed a man for picking up a stick on the sabbath.

Secondly, in the NT Paul said that women should be kept quiet while in church. Does this still apply in today's new era of women's rights? What church have you gone to that has a law against any woman speaking?

I wonder what it is in you that gives you this drive to find contradictions in the Bible? Is it a personal quest of yours?


Anyways..., Jesus came and spoke of all the 10 Commandments. Some he made *harder* to follow(hating someone = murdering them in Jesus' eyes) and some he changed. Like the Sabbath. Jesus himself worked on the Sabbath and the Jewish officials of the time criticized him on it. Jesus said that He himself is Lord of the Sabbath, thereby very literally being the fullfillment of it.

I keep trying to get this point through your head, but you're not getting it...so let's try it again: Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law...the drug of the promised prescription.

As for Paul's teaching on women, yes, this is indeed followed in plenty of churches today. But the idea of "silence" is not absolute quiet...it's simply a spirit of not being loud-mouthed. Paul also said that while this may seem unfair, women have the advantage over men because only they can bare children.

Genesis 3
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The "thee" referred to here is the snake, who is being punished for getting the woman to eat the forbidden fruit.

So let me get this right...the OT God said that the seed of women would oppose the seed of snakes; Jesus was born by the seed of women; therefore Jesus fulfilled the OT's prophecy???? I don't get it....

*sigh* Do I have to explain everything to you?

The seed of the woman(Eve) is Jesus. One day, this seed will step on the head of the seed of the snake(devil), while the snake will bruise Jesus' heel. One will be hurt in a major way, one will be hurt in a minor way.

I wonder if you can figure out what this alludes to.

Perhaps the condemnation of homosexuality was of the same type...only applicable to that culture, but no longer necessary in the society of today. How do you differentiate?

If this teaching wasn't universally spread across many different cultures and times, maybe so.

The particular teaching of head coverings in Corinthians 11 can NOT be understood, literally, without knowing about the Corinthian dressing styles and pagan temple worship.


12

[roamingstorm]

TWE1VE your my hero

[Realist]

Twelve,
If you take that verse and ignore the rest, sure it might sound like he's one of many. But when you read the rest in context, it's clear that he, Jesus, plays a role that nobody else among the great can play.
Sorry, but that one verse destroys everything. In order for it to be a valid prophecy, EVERYTHING the prophecy says has to be true. If one part is false, then the entire prophesy is falsified.

That last verse makes very clear that the person being spoken of, while of great importance, is only equal to other people also of great importance; not superior to them. Since Christians claim that Jesus is not only superior to other people, but a divine being, the prophecy clearly does not apply.


And as I pointed out, the OT is full of prophecies that need to be fullfilled. Like the passage in Isaiah. The writing of the OT is complete but the fulfillment of them are not. (Until Jesus came and fulfilled them all). I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

It isn’t at all hard to understand, its just not supported by the OT. While the OT has a lot of prophecies to be fulfilled, it also says that the laws of the OT cannot be changed. It certainly doesn’t suggest that a person will come to overrule the laws of the OT. If you disagree, show me Biblical evidence.

*sigh* Do I have to explain everything to you?
Only the stuff that makes no sense. :) Get a more reasonable religion and you won’t have such a hard time.

The seed of the woman(Eve) is Jesus.
Except that there is no evidence for this in the OT. The OT verse makes perfect literal sense. The seed of woman is obviously ALL women; ALL women are supposedly descended from Eve, not just Jesus. And the seed of women DO, literally, have enmity with the snake. Snakes poison men and men kill snakes, that’s reality.

The problem here is, you’re looking at the OT from the viewpoint of the NT. You can’t do this if you want to know the real meaning of the OT. You have to look at the OT and NT separately, and if they match, you have a good point. But there is no matching here. Nowhere does it suggest that the seed of Eve refers only to Jesus, or even that the snake is the Devil.

One day, this seed will step on the head of the seed of the snake(devil), while the snake will bruise Jesus' heel. One will be hurt in a major way, one will be hurt in a minor way.

I wonder if you can figure out what this alludes to.
Sure I can figure out what you are trying to allude to—either the crucifixion or the second coming, either would work. Its just supported nowhere in the OT.

If this teaching wasn't universally spread across many different cultures and times, maybe so.

There are many problems with this assertion, but the biggest one is that homophobia wasn’t supported across many different cultures and times. In fact, medieval Christianity had very little problem with homosexuality. It wasn’t until the late middle ages (around times of the black death if I remember correctly, in bad times people blame minorities) that real anti-homosexual sentiment developed in Christianity. Homosexuality was acceptable in Greek culture and many tribal cultures.

[Aro23r]

I just like to live according to John 2: 4.

[Realist]

This?

John 2
4: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

[Devlin777]

There seems to be a great deal of mis-edjumacation being put forth here. Too much to cover at once, but here's a start regarding the "Lucifer" misconception.

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally posted by old_man_killer
Satan is obviously not Omnicient or omnipotent or he would already know he's gonna lose and give up now!

God is quite obviously not omniscient, or Satan would already have lost anyway.

If God was omniscient, Eden would not have fallen and Eve and then Adam would never have been tempted by the serpent to break the fruit of life in Gemesis 3:1-6. It is oft the belief that the actions of Satan first brought the presence of evil onto this Earth, that although God created evil on this Earth, it was the actions of Satan that unleashed it. If God was omnipotent, why didn't he prevent this from happening before it did?

Originally posted by Twelve
Jeff, nothing OF God is imperfect

According to this perfect Bible of yours, WE... Man... Earth... ARE OF GOD.

And as I pointed out, the OT is full of prophecies that need to be fullfilled.

Prophecy is none to be trusted.

A prophecy works like this:

Someone describes something very vague and very broad in meaning.

If an action somewhat similar to what was described occurs over any span of time (a very likely occurence), the "prophecy" has been fulfilled.

If no such action has occured yet, then the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, but still CAN be, because someday, somewhere, a similar action will take place. Of course, this time of hope over said prophecy can be almost indefinite, because even if the prophecy is never fulfilled, people will foolishly cling to hope of such an occurence coming to light.

For instance. If you make a prophecy that, some day, the world will end, this prophecy will be considered "true" either way; even though it is an inevitable fact that Earth will some day be unable to sustain life one way or another, it is still a fulfilled prophecy, because it was "forseen" that the world would eventually end.

But if the world has not yet ended (thankfully, I might add), then the prophecy STILL holds truth, because people will still believe the world will some day come to an end.

In that respect, prophecies can never be refuted, not necessarily because they are right, but because there is no factual basis involved whatsoever that can be refuted.

Don't trust your life to prophecy and foresight. It will get you nowhere.

[Devlin777]

God is quite obviously not omniscient, or Satan would already have lost anyway.

If God was omniscient, Eden would not have fallen and Eve and then Adam would never have been tempted by the serpent to break the fruit of life in Gemesis[SIC] 3:1-6. It is oft the belief that the actions of Satan first brought the presence of evil onto this Earth, that although God created evil on this Earth, it was the actions of Satan that unleashed it. If God was omnipotent, why didn't he prevent this from happening before it did?

GOD gave us FREE WILL, the ability to choose, if HE hadn't what would be the point? HE could've just made "perfect" worship-bots, but that's wouldn't be genuine. And wasn't it the fruit from the tree of KNOWLEDGE that was the issue? Besides, the dualistic belief of good vs. evil is something that was added only after the NT and the Apocrypha were written.

Lucifer is a Latin name, how could a Latin name be referenced in the original Hebrew text before Latin was ever spoken? It's actually an accumulated mistranslation.

Satan, however, more commonly referred to as THE Satan translates to The Adversary or The Accuser. There are no "real" references to a fallen angel.

Prophecy is none[SIC] to be trusted.

A prophecy works like this:

Someone describes something very vague and very broad in meaning.

If an action somewhat similar to what was described occurs over any span of time (a very likely occurence), the "prophecy" has been fulfilled.

What if I were to 'prophesize' that the world would NEVER end?

[Twelve]

Twelve,

Sorry, but that one verse destroys everything. In order for it to be a valid prophecy, EVERYTHING the prophecy says has to be true. If one part is false, then the entire prophesy is falsified.

That last verse makes very clear that the person being spoken of, while of great importance, is only equal to other people also of great importance; not superior to them. Since Christians claim that Jesus is not only superior to other people, but a divine being, the prophecy clearly does not apply.

*bewildered expression*

Man, the Bible is FILLED with great people...in Jesus time, before and after. There were plenty of great men who had much to do with Jesus and who are honored and receive honor. Many who worked with him and suffered in His Name. How in the world does that knowledge take away from what the other verses say about him? I don't see your logic.



It isn’t at all hard to understand, its just not supported by the OT. While the OT has a lot of prophecies to be fulfilled, it also says that the laws of the OT cannot be changed. It certainly doesn’t suggest that a person will come to overrule the laws of the OT. If you disagree, show me Biblical evidence.

Once again....the OT wasn't destroyed, abolished, overruled...it was FULFILLED.

Matthew 5:17.


Except that there is no evidence for this in the OT. The OT verse makes perfect literal sense. The seed of woman is obviously ALL women; ALL women are supposedly descended from Eve, not just Jesus. And the seed of women DO, literally, have enmity with the snake. Snakes poison men and men kill snakes, that’s reality.

Wait...are you saying that your weird interpretation of this verse implies that all women have enmity with snakes? You're not making a sexist argument out of this, are you?

The problem here is, you’re looking at the OT from the viewpoint of the NT. You can’t do this if you want to know the real meaning of the OT. You have to look at the OT and NT separately, and if they match, you have a good point. But there is no matching here. Nowhere does it suggest that the seed of Eve refers only to Jesus, or even that the snake is the Devil.

Well, duh. Most prophecies aren't understood until they are fulfilled. Only then can you look back and understand what they mean.


Well,

Sure I can figure out what you are trying to allude to—either the crucifixion or the second coming, either would work. Its just supported nowhere in the OT.

Both. And the entire OT, taken together, speaks of the promised Messiah. Here we go again....



There are many problems with this assertion, but the biggest one is that homophobia wasn’t supported across many different cultures and times. In fact, medieval Christianity had very little problem with homosexuality. It wasn’t until the late middle ages (around times of the black death if I remember correctly, in bad times people blame minorities) that real anti-homosexual sentiment developed in Christianity. Homosexuality was acceptable in Greek culture and many tribal cultures.

Huh?

What does this have to do with anything I said? Homophobia? What? Stay on topic.

What I mean is this...the teachings of sexual propriety in the Bible were not just some sidenote in a letter written to one church. It was written and expounded to a variety of people, groups, and churches across thousands of years, therefore raising it above the limitations of culture/society.


12

[Twelve]

God is quite obviously not omniscient, or Satan would already have lost anyway.

If God was omniscient, Eden would not have fallen and Eve and then Adam would never have been tempted by the serpent to break the fruit of life in Gemesis 3:1-6. It is oft the belief that the actions of Satan first brought the presence of evil onto this Earth, that although God created evil on this Earth, it was the actions of Satan that unleashed it. If God was omnipotent, why didn't he prevent this from happening before it did?



I suppose you like the idea of being a person of no free will? That's the only way God could "prevent" his creations from doing anything wrong. And He had to make a way to get around even that. God didnt' create evil, but He did provide his angels and humans with the ability to choose to do what is not good(evil) if they wish.

Evil is not a force...not a creation. It is simply the ABSENCE of good.



According to this perfect Bible of yours, WE... Man... Earth... ARE OF GOD.

Of God and with a free will, dude. Use that free will and think about this for a second.





Prophecy is none to be trusted.

A prophecy works like this:

Someone describes something very vague and very broad in meaning.


Your seemingly logical argument broke down right there. There is nothing vague or broad about the prophecy we are talking about in Isaiah. Read it for yourself and then please come back for more.

Come, come you all. As long as there are new arguments, I will throw them back in your face. I'll only quit when I begin to repeat myself. :)

12

[Lonely Tylenol]

What if I were to 'prophesize' that the world would NEVER end?

Then for as long as the world DOESN'T end, the prophecy is true. However, since there is no way to see indefinitely into the future, the prophecy would only ever hold ground because no being would live to see the lack of the world's ending. Seeing as we could never see the end of infinity, the prophecy will be both true and false in its own respects, because T: the world has yet to end, and F: we have not lapsed over an infinite amount of time.

Naturally, if the world ends, as all things do, the prophecy is false, but nobody will be around to laugh at those who believed the world would never end.

What I say still stands: A prophecy can never be actually proven wrong or right, it is in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore not logically sound enough to be considered truth in any respect.

Gemesis[SIC]

I missed that typo when I went through the edit.... ;)

However, this...

none[SIC]

Is not necessarily wrong.

[End nitpick]

EDIT:

Of God and with a free will, dude. Use that free will and think about this for a second.

No, we were created of God, in every respect that you claim the Bible to be created by God. One is, in your words, just as fallible as the next.

Your seemingly logical argument broke down right there. There is nothing vague or broad about the prophecy we are talking about in Isaiah. Read it for yourself and then please come back for more.

Way to nitpick. So tell me, what exactly does that have to do with the validity of prophecy? All you're saying is that it's a more detailed prophecy than the typical prophecy I described, it still goes by the same reasoning.

As long as there are new arguments, I will throw them back in your face.

[Whistles] Someone has a high opinion of themself... I would hardly call that throwing my argument in my face, the last two were little more than nitpicks... :huh:

As for the argument of "free will", why is it those who make the wrong "choices", according to the Old Testament, suffer eternal damnation? Even in the New Testament, Christ's infinite "compassion" for humankind only spares the ones who believe and repent. Where's the free will in that?

[Devlin777]

Come, come you all. As long as there are new arguments, I will throw them back in your face. I'll only quit when I begin to repeat myself. :)

12

Not an argument at all, but a question if you don't mind.

1. On the cross Christ said to the repentant thief "This day you will be with me in the Kingdom..." or words to that effect (paraphrasing)

If, as the Catholics (I don't know about the dogma of all the Christian faiths) believe, that the Kingdom was locked at the time, and thus not until the third day were the gates reopened, how does the time lapse get accounted for? (wow, bad grammar!)


Always wondered, thanks! :bigsmile:

[Devlin777]

However, this... Is not necessarily wrong.
[End nitpick]

My bad, sorry brother. :bad:

Meanwhile...

EDIT: The following is taken, whole, or in part, quoted or paraphrased from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

"...prophecy or prediction, has been defined as a "miracle of knowledge, a declaration or description or representation of something future, beyond the power of human sagacity to foresee, discern, or conjecture." The great prediction which runs like a golden thread through the whole contents of the Old Testament is that regarding the coming and work of the Messiah; and the great use of prophecy was to perpetuate faith in his coming, and to prepare the world for that event. But there are many subordinate and intermediate prophecies also which hold an important place in the great chain of events which illustrate the sovereignty and all-wise overruling providence of God.

Then there are many prophecies regarding the Jewish nation, its founder Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:16; 15:5; 17:2, 4-6, etc.), and his posterity, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants (12:7; 13:14, 15, 17;15:18-21; Ex. 3:8, 17), which have all been fulfilled. The twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy contains a series of predictions which are even now in the present day being fulfilled. In the writings of the prophets Isaiah (2:18-21), Jeremiah (27:3-7; 29:11-14), Ezekiel (5:12; 8), Daniel (8; 9:26, 27), Hosea (9:17), there are also many prophecies regarding the events which were to befall that people. There is in like manner a large number of prophecies relating to those nations with which the Jews came into contact, as Tyre (Ezek. 26:3-5, 14-21), Egypt (Ezek. 29:10, 15; 30:6, 12, 13), Ethiopia (Nahum 3:8-10), Nineveh (Nahum 1:10; 2:8-13; 3:17-19), Babylon (Isa. 13:4; Jer. 51:7; Isa. 44:27; Jer. 50:38; 51:36, 39, 57), the land of the Philistines (Jer. 47:4-7; Ezek. 25:15-17; Amos 1:6-8; Zeph. 2:4-7; Zech. 9:5-8), and of the four great monarchies (Dan. 2:39, 40; 7:17-24; 8:9).

But the great body of Old Testament prophecy relates directly to the advent of the Messiah, beginning with Gen. 3:15, the first great promise, and extending in ever-increasing fulness and clearness all through to the very close of the canon. The Messianic prophecies are too numerous to be quoted. "To him gave all the prophets witness." (Comp. Micah 5:2; Hag. 2:6-9; Isa. 7:14; 9:6, 7; 11:1, 2; 53; 60:10, 13; Ps. 16:11; 68:18.) Many predictions also were delivered by Jesus and his apostles. Those of Christ were very numerous. (Comp. Matt. 10:23:24; 11:23; 19:28; 21:43, 44; 24; 25:31-46; 26:17-35, 46, 64; Mark 9:1; 10:30; 13; 11:1-6, 14; 14:12-31, 42, 62; 16:17, etc.)"

[Realist]

Twelve,

I'm wondering if you're intentionally misinterpretting what I say or you just don't get it...I'll try to explain more clearly.

Isaiah 53:12 says: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death"

In other words, this guy did good stuff so God will give him the same things as he gives other great men...he will get the reward of the strong. How is this Jesus? Does Jesus get rewarded in the same way that strong or great men get rewarded? This verse makes no sense if you apply it to Jesus, Jesus the divine is greater than simply an equal among the best, and he hardly needs to be rewarded with a portion of the spoil of the strong.

If Jesus is God then why is he treated and rewarded as simply a great man in this passage? Why are there no prophecies which reference Jesus' godness?

Once again....the OT wasn't destroyed, abolished, overruled...it was FULFILLED.

Fine, the fact is: The people who converted to Christianity did not follow the OT laws, and the OT leaves no room for a time when it would be allowed to stop following the OT laws. Show me where it suggests in OT that there will be a time when the laws no longer have to be followed because they have been fulfilled.

Wait...are you saying that your weird interpretation of this verse implies that all women have enmity with snakes? You're not making a sexist argument out of this, are you?

How hard is this to understand? It works like this:

The snake convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, she did so. So God comes and decides a fitting punishment: The children of Eve, humanity, would always be enemies of the children of the snake. The snake would bite at the feet of humanity, and humanity would stomp snakes. This makes literal sense, and it is actually what occured: Snakes do bite humans, and humans do stomp on snakes to prevent them from biting us.

Read the chapter again carefully, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying, it is not some weird interpretation, its the obvious, literal meaning.

In fact, I suggest you read the entire OT again, from a fresh perspective. Stop thinking of it as simply a prelude to the NT and look at it as a separate book. There is no real connection between the OT and NT, thematically or theologically.

Well, duh. Most prophecies aren't understood until they are fulfilled. Only then can you look back and understand what they mean.

How convinient.

Not true though. Biblical prophets were very rarely subtle, they clearly and literally told of the punishments that would occur if sins were not stopped. If you actually read the OT with an open mind, you would know this.

Now, there is an exception for some prophecies, notably in Danial and parts of Isaiah. But this is rare, and even in these cases, you really have to try to see the connections between the prophecy in Jesus. I could go into greater detail about this if necessary.

Huh?

What does this have to do with anything I said? Homophobia? What? Stay on topic.

Well, you might be a bit forgettful, but in your last post you did right:

If this teaching wasn't universally spread across many different cultures and times, maybe so.

So I clearly explained that the teaching on homosexuality, i.e, that homosexuality is forbidden, is absolutely NOT spread accross many different cultures and times. Of course, you just totally ignored this.

What I mean is this...the teachings of sexual propriety in te Bible were not just some sidenote in a letter written to one church. It was written and expounded to a variety of people, groups, and churches across thousands of years, therefore raising it above the limitations of culture/society.

We weren't talking about sexual propriety as a whole, just homosexuality. And as I said in my previous post, it is absolutely not true that anti-homosexual thought was prevalent in Christianity throughout Christiani history. I could give you lots of historical links proving this if you would like.

[Realist]

Devlin777,

That which you posted is a straight out steal from another site which you gave absolutely no credit for nor even admitted you didn't write it yourself.

Here is a site you might have stolen it from:
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/prophecy.html

[Mithrandir]

Nice catch, how'd you notice did you google it or something?

[Devlin777]

I wasn't aware that common knowledge or public domain needed crediting, but the three big paragraphs were a direct lift from a site (not the one you mentioned) Doesn't make it any less untrue. And, since it's posted verbatim on at least THREE sites (your ref., my ref and DICTIONARY.com, I didn't feel it needed crediting. But if it'll make you happy :

Previous comments from: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

I'd be happy to paraphrase or give you my direct input if you'd prefer. I was just too lazy to type and think.

P.S.

Reverend R. Hachenberg, DD

[Realist]

Devlin777, I'm sure the writers don't care if you use it, its not the crediting that matters to me.

What matters is that you pretend it was you who wrote it when it wasn't. That really annoys me for some reason; if people want to post something they didnt write themselves then they should at least say it wasn't them who wrote it.

Mith, I knew as soon as I read it that it wasn't Devlin who wrote it, because it was above Devlin's posting level. Thats how I catch 95% of people.

[Devlin777]

I knew as soon as I read it that it wasn't Devlin who wrote it, because it was above Devlin's posting level. Thats how I catch 95% of people.

Wow, that's nice of you. Um, on what scale are we judging these levels? I'd be interested in seeing the imperical data you're using. Perhaps a bell curve or sorts? Is it purely academic? Poetic? Verbage, sentence structure? :huh:

I didn't 'pretend' anything, and I'm shocked at the accusation. Who are you to question my veracity? I simply put it out there for those who are interested to edjumacate themselves rather than the seemingly endless spewing of pseudo-knowledge. However, since it seems to have irked you, I apologise for leaving room for your inference.

Have a nice day. I love you. :)

[Realist]

:huh:

Wow, that's nice of you. Um, on what scale are we judging these levels? I'd be interested in seeing the imperical data you're using. Perhaps a bell curve or sorts? Is it purely academic? Poetic? Verbage, sentence structure?

Well, I did catch you didn't I? :cool:

How do you think I did it? Think I google every post made by you? I'm not saying your posts are stupid, they just aren't particularly complex or developed, and what you posted was both. So I put two and two together. No personal offense meant, you simply have a different style.

[Devlin777]

Well, I did catch you didn't I? :cool:

How do you think I did it? Think I google every post made by you? I'm not saying your posts are stupid, they just aren't particularly complex or developed, and what you posted was both. So I put two and two together. No personal offense meant, you simply have a different style.

No offense taken.

I wasn't aware that there was anything that needed to be "caught". Sharing information? Enlightening the misinformed? This isn't a classroom where references and bibliographies are required. I was under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that the nature of the very post would make it self-evident that it was from a previous text. My bad. ;)

[Realist]

Its dishonest to pass someone else's writing off as your own, pure and simple. Regardless of whether the writer cares or not.

[Devlin777]

Its dishonest to pass someone else's writing off as your own, pure and simple. Regardless of whether the writer cares or not.

Then you may consider me dishonest I suppose.

I think you're reading far more into it than is there.

Either way. Shall we get back to the point?

[Devlin777]

I admit that there is stuff in Isaiah 53 which is eerily similar to the story of the NT, but thats one passage in an enourmous Bible. Surely there is more to the OT than just to prepare for JC! Why aren't there more references to him? Why do you have to find him in obscure passages in the middle of Isaiah?

KJV
Isaiah 53:12 - Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Jesus has a portion with the great? Should "divide the spoil with the strong?" Sounds like the person described is one of many great people, not a divine figure in his own right.

What sentence or thought BEGINS with "Therefore"? This is the continuation of a thought (See Isaiah 53:1-11) Who else would this be speaking of?


How hard is this to understand? It works like this:

The snake convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, she did so. So God comes and decides a fitting punishment: The children of Eve, humanity, would always be enemies of the children of the snake. The snake would bite at the feet of humanity, and humanity would stomp snakes. This makes literal sense, and it is actually what occured: Snakes do bite humans, and humans do stomp on snakes to prevent them from biting us.

Read the chapter again carefully, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying, it is not some weird interpretation, its the obvious, literal meaning.

The seed of woman you're alluding to refers to Christ, as he was not from the seed of man, but of GOD. It's a simple, LITERAL translation. Everywhere in the BIBLE where the serpent is mentioned in this type of context it refers to the Devil or Satan, not a legless reptile. Snakes, as a species don't have the capacity for enmity. To think otherwise is foolishness. You're anthopomorphosising human traits onto a cold blooded creature.

[Realist]

What sentence or thought BEGINS with "Therefore"? This is the continuation of a thought (See Isaiah 53:1-11) Who else would this be speaking of?

Its speaking of the same person the rest of Isaiah 53:1-11 is speaking of. This person has a lot of characteristics similar to Jesus but 53:12 pretty much proves he is not Jesus. That is my point.

The seed of woman you're alluding to refers to Christ, as he was not from the seed of man, but of GOD. It's a simple, LITERAL translation. Everywhere in the BIBLE where the serpent is mentioned in this type of context it refers to the Devil or Satan, not a legless reptile. Snakes, as a species don't have the capacity for enmity. To think otherwise is foolishness. You're anthopomorphosising human traits onto a cold blooded creature.

You and 12 are so ridiculously absolutely wrong about this...Do Christians REALLY believe this? I've talked to Christians and non-Christians about the Bible for years and I've actually never seen this interpretation....

The passage has a very clear literal meaning, as I have explained many times. Its not at all hard to get if you just read the OT as a book on its own instead of assuming it was written just to be fulfilled by the NT.

I'm not the one antropomorphisizing a cold blooded creature, the OT is! I don't need to give any other verses to prove this because the passage already supports my view, but why not use the evidence when you have it?

KJV
Genesis 3

1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Implying that the serpent is an animal.

14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Snake did evil thing, so now he's cursed and has to move on his belly (as snakes actually do! Have you ever seen a snake before? They move on their belly! God was correct!).

Yes you can interpret this metaphorically, but it makes much more sense literally. Even if you want a metaphorical interpretation, you should at least acknowledge that the literal meaning makes perfect sense inside the context of the verse.

15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

As I have said many times, this too occured. Snakes do bite humanity (the seed of women) and humanity does stomp on snakes do stop from getting bitten. Makes sense!

As for the words "the seed of woman", there are a few reasons why we know this applies to humanity and not Jesus specifically in the literal context.

1. In the literal meaning, the snake is not the devil, just a snake. And humans, not Jesus specifically, do stomp on snakes. So it makes sense that humans would be the "seed of women" referred to in this passage.

2. Humanity are actually the seed of woman. All men and women are descended from the first woman. From the first man too, yes, but that doesn't take away from the seed of woman (and the mother of Jesus also was influenced by all the seeds of her male ancestors).

3. The next passage goes like this:
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This seems to be referring to the same person as the previous verse and clearly is talking about all women, not any one in particular.

4. It makes sense to be Eve he is talking about because Eve was the one the serpant tricked! Poetic justice--Snake was trying to befriend woman to get her against God, now God is ensuring that snake and woman (and by extension, all of humanity, woman's children) are forerver enemies.

So far there is tons of evidence to support my view of the literal meaning, and absolutely none to support the view of you and Twelve EXCEPT STUFF THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY IN THE OT. Please at least try to understand what I'm saying and don't ask me to reexplain stuff I have made clear.

I would suggest that you, too, read the OT as its own book if you want to understand it. It really is a fun book on its own, full of tons of sexual perversion, zounds of mass-violence, and lots of cool fighting scenes.

[S_K_O_F]

A true faithful is not allowed to ask that questions, and those without faith don;t need to.

This is not true. We are allowed to ask this question. And many do. The answer is just too difficult to come by through the thoughts of a 4 dimensional mind.

I believe that God lives outside of time. In our minds, we have to question the beginning of God's existence because we are only capable of thinking inside of time. But in reality, it is very possible that God didn't actually "come" from anywhere. If God had a beginning, would He not have to have an end?
Christians are taught that God was, is, and forever will be. So someone can ask, "How old is God?" or "Where did God come from?" But those questions are not sufficient. God does not live inside of his creation, which includes time itself. God just IS.
Perhaps maybe someday, we will be capable of understanding what it is like to not be constrained by time. Until then, though, I don't believe we are able to accurately ask a time constrained question, when the answer is free of constraints.

That is the best I can try to explain something like that.

[Jeffery]

Yes, but if you are 100% true to your faith, there is no need to ask that question. If you begin asking thatquestion, you are considered to be questioning your faith, and at that point are not a true faithful in the eyes of the church.
Faith is just that, trusting in the teachings of your religion. If you are asking a question like h()()t asked, then you are doubting God as the supreme being, becasue if someone or something made HIM, then obviously he would not be the supreme being the churches teach.

The problem here is you are reading my response, but not the question it was made in reference to. And like most people who are taking something out of context, you are deliberately misinterpreting it.

[S_K_O_F]

Yes, but if you are 100% true to your faith, there is no need to ask that question. If you begin asking thatquestion, you are considered to be questioning your faith, and at that point are not a true faithful in the eyes of the church.
Faith is just that, trusting in the teachings of your religion. If you are asking a question like h()()t asked, then you are doubting God as the supreme being, becasue if someone or something made HIM, then obviously he would not be the supreme being the churches teach.

The problem here is you are reading my response, but not the question it was made in reference to. And like most people who are taking something out of context, you are deliberately misinterpreting it.

Show me a person who is 100% true to faith. Is that even possible? By human standards it is not.

This post, though, actually sheds some light on your actions and responses around here. I am actually seeing you from a whole new light now.

[Jeffery]

A whole new light from what?
Because the church teaches that God is the Whole?

Show me ONE place in the bible or other teachings where the answer for "Who made God" is given? Why is it not given? Because it is a question that is not asked of a believer.

Also, if you are taking my religious views written in response to a narrow question as the whole me, you are sorely mistaken. There is a heck of a lot more about me and my own personal faith that can not be translated into a few words in a forum to people who are so closeminded as to have made up their minds about people they know nothing about.

[S_K_O_F]

A whole new light from what?
Because the church teaches that God is the Whole?

Show me ONE place in the bible or other teachings where the answer for "Who made God" is given? Why is it not given? Because it is a question that is not asked of a believer.

Also, if you are taking my religious views written in response to a narrow question as the whole me, you are sorely mistaken. There is a heck of a lot more about me and my own personal faith that can not be translated into a few words in a forum to people who are so closeminded as to have made up their minds about people they know nothing about.

I think you took my post in the wrong way, Jeff. Seeing the way you view faith and how you are responding is giving me a better picture of who you are. Even if it is only slight, it is still a new light.
Are the forums not here for us to express ourselves? Why does it offend you when someone finally sees a little more than before?

but anyway...
The bible does not offer the answer to the question "Who made God?"
not directly anyway. We are given hints throughout the bible, though, that Questions of origins outside of genesis-revelation are irrelevant, considering that nothing (as we know it) existed or will exist. That is all I was trying to say before.

A person only follows blindly as a child. Human adults are not capable of blind faith. We are capable of faith through knowledge and experience.
for example:
in my experience, whenever I walk out my front door, I know that I will still be able to take in breathable air. It was that way the first time I went out the front door, and (barring any major natural disasters) it will be that way when I walk out of it that final time. I have faith that the air will be there. I do not know for sure, but experience lets me know that the odds are in my favor.

[Twelve]

No, we were created of God, in every respect that you claim the Bible to be created by God. One is, in your words, just as fallible as the next.

Come now. You're making this too easy on me.

There is a HUGE difference between God's Word and a human being. That difference is FREE WILL. Think about that. Can God's Word get up and act on its own? No. But we can. Isn't this difference obvious to you?



Way to nitpick. So tell me, what exactly does that have to do with the validity of prophecy? All you're saying is that it's a more detailed prophecy than the typical prophecy I described, it still goes by the same reasoning.

Did you read that passage in Isaiah? It very clearly speaks of the same thing that Jesus is. As a matter of fact, the only argument critics had against it was to say that it was written during the time of Jesus, an argument broken down once the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Your logic fails against clear evidence.



[Whistles] Someone has a high opinion of themself... I would hardly call that throwing my argument in my face, the last two were little more than nitpicks... :huh:

Breakin' em down, son!


As for the argument of "free will", why is it those who make the wrong "choices", according to the Old Testament, suffer eternal damnation? Even in the New Testament, Christ's infinite "compassion" for humankind only spares the ones who believe and repent. Where's the free will in that?

Ummm...according to the Bible, everyone has the free will to choose eternal damnation or eternal salvation. Ummmm....yeah...I think that's where you're coming from.

12

[Twelve]

Not an argument at all, but a question if you don't mind.

1. On the cross Christ said to the repentant thief "This day you will be with me in the Kingdom..." or words to that effect (paraphrasing)

If, as the Catholics (I don't know about the dogma of all the Christian faiths) believe, that the Kingdom was locked at the time, and thus not until the third day were the gates reopened, how does the time lapse get accounted for? (wow, bad grammar!)


Always wondered, thanks! :bigsmile:

The Catholics have plenty of beliefs from the Vatican that...uh...are kind of weird.

Based on a pure Biblical study apart from Vatican traditions, there is a place that people go to BEFORE they go to heaven, and that place is referred to as Paradise. That's why the thief went there instantly, as all people of God do once they die. When Christ comes back, He will take everyone in Paradise and those still on Earth to heaven.

Help you out?

12

[Jeffery]

S_K_O_F, sorry for taking offense. My slightly twisted religious views tend to ge me riled.

[Devlin777]

Faith, as I understand it, is not an all or nothing proposition.


Jesus Himself speaks of varying degrees of faith, i.e.:

Matthew 15:28 - Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Matt 16:8 -But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?

Matt 17:20 - He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

Luke 7:9 - When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

Luke 12:28 - But if God so clothes the grass which is alive in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith!

Luke 17:5 - The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"

Acts 16:5 - So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

...and most importantly....

Romans 10:17 - So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

We are called to strengthen our faith through the word, not accept things as such and never learn or question. To do otherwise is foolishness and akin to the worship-bots that God DIDN'T make when he created man.

And while we're at it, I seem to recall Realist mentioning that the NT doesn't mention fulfilling or nullifying the OT (my words, paraphrasing him), but if THAT were true then how could...

Romans 3:30 - since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

...be true, since in the OT it was MANDATORY to be circumsized?


NOTE: all lines preceded by chapter and verse are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, they are not my original thoughts or words. Rather than credit each author of each book of The Bible, let me please direct you to the Book in general where you may find my source documents. Quotations are marked in ORANGE

[Twelve]

Twelve,

I'm wondering if you're intentionally misinterpretting what I say or you just don't get it...I'll try to explain more clearly.

Do you think I have time to waste by playing that kind of game? Look in the eyes of the dude on my sig. Do you think he has time to waste by playing foolish games? Come on. lol...


Isaiah 53:12 says: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death"

In other words, this guy did good stuff so God will give him the same things as he gives other great men...he will get the reward of the strong. How is this Jesus? Does Jesus get rewarded in the same way that strong or great men get rewarded? This verse makes no sense if you apply it to Jesus, Jesus the divine is greater than simply an equal among the best, and he hardly needs to be rewarded with a portion of the spoil of the strong.

If Jesus is God then why is he treated and rewarded as simply a great man in this passage? Why are there no prophecies which reference Jesus' godness?

Now I got ya. Awww...it's rather sweet to see you so concerned with Jesus being short-changed. But you have to understand that Jesus did not come to earth to be a "great man". Quite the contrary. He came to be the dirt of mankind, to be stepped upon, abused, and without glory. So if you're wondering where all of the hooplah is over Jesus, you won't see that until he comes back.



Fine, the fact is: The people who converted to Christianity did not follow the OT laws, and the OT leaves no room for a time when it would be allowed to stop following the OT laws. Show me where it suggests in OT that there will be a time when the laws no longer have to be followed because they have been fulfilled.

You make judgements as if you know so much about the OT, and yet you don't know where to find that obvious teaching? Look it up yourself. I'm not running around to dig up info that you have already pre-judged to be false anyhow.





How hard is this to understand? It works like this:

The snake convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, she did so. So God comes and decides a fitting punishment: The children of Eve, humanity, would always be enemies of the children of the snake. The snake would bite at the feet of humanity, and humanity would stomp snakes. This makes literal sense, and it is actually what occured: Snakes do bite humans, and humans do stomp on snakes to prevent them from biting us.

Read the chapter again carefully, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying, it is not some weird interpretation, its the obvious, literal meaning.

No. YOU read the chapter again, especially 3:1. If this snake is a normal snake, then I want you to find me one that can talk like this.

In fact, I suggest you read the entire OT again, from a fresh perspective. Stop thinking of it as simply a prelude to the NT and look at it as a separate book. There is no real connection between the OT and NT, thematically or theologically.

You who make such a claim...have YOU read the OT?



How convinient.

Not true though. Biblical prophets were very rarely subtle, they clearly and literally told of the punishments that would occur if sins were not stopped. If you actually read the OT with an open mind, you would know this.

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? You keep adding all kinds of junk to the conversation!


Now, there is an exception for some prophecies, notably in Danial and parts of Isaiah. But this is rare, and even in these cases, you really have to try to see the connections between the prophecy in Jesus. I could go into greater detail about this if necessary.

Maybe YOU have to really try. Speak for yourself. I notice that you assume your own difficulties with the Scriptures is universal.


So I clearly explained that the teaching on homosexuality, i.e, that homosexuality is forbidden, is absolutely NOT spread accross many different cultures and times. Of course, you just totally ignored this.

Let's try this all over again. BIBLICALLY, the teaching on homsexuality is spread throughout time, cultures, and places, placing it above little cultural teachings like 1 Corinthians 11.


12

[Lonely Tylenol]

Isn't this difference obvious to you?

Yeah, but even as God's Word, it was written by man. And just as God's instructions unto Adam and Eve were distorted, so may God's word by the fallacy of man.

There is a HUGE difference between God's Word and a human being.

They're both created by God, which means by the logic of what you said earlier, they're both perfect beings. Whether or not they have free will (which is quite arguable) doesn't change the fact that we were created in God's image, which, by your logic, makes us perfect.

Did you read that passage in Isaiah? It very clearly speaks of the same thing that Jesus is. As a matter of fact, the only argument critics had against it was to say that it was written during the time of Jesus, an argument broken down once the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Your logic fails against clear evidence.

The evidence of prophecy. :rolleyes: I'm so scared.

What you said was completely irrelevant, and really has nothing to do with the fact that it's still a prophecy and DOES abide by the same reasoning.

Breakin' em down, son!

:unsure: No comment.

Ummm...according to the Bible, everyone has the free will to choose eternal damnation or eternal salvation. Ummmm....yeah...I think that's where you're coming from.

Exactly, and that isn't free will. Free will is having the freedom to make your life's choices without being forced or imposed on by anyone or anything else.

Being sent to Hell for making the wrong choices--by the being who decided what right and wrong was, above all else--is not free will. I didn't choose eternal damnation, I simply believe it not to exist. Plus... If such a God existed, and cast His judgement apon all mortal beings and parted the "good" from the "bad" according to his own laws and cast out the "bad" for not abiding his laws... I'd rather go to Hell with my head held high, than to Heaven with my head bowed.

I think I live freer than you ever will, because I don't bow to a being who has to exercise superiority in order to be acknowledged for it. I'm sure some people find solace in a Supreme Being that will [potentially] take care of them in the afterlife, but I'm just not one of those people.

EDIT: Sorry if this particular post doesn't make sense, I'm a little woozy from the painkillers I needed to take to prevent a searing migraine and probably unconsciousness. I hope you don't mind, but I would like to refrain from posting here for a few days. My mind is too fluttered, and I would not be able to keep myself together long enough to post an especially long response, and I'd much rather not limit myself to two line posts. ;)

[Jeffery]

A whole new light from what?
Because the church teaches that God is the Whole?

Show me ONE place in the bible or other teachings where the answer for "Who made God" is given? Why is it not given? Because it is a question that is not asked of a believer.

Also, if you are taking my religious views written in response to a narrow question as the whole me, you are sorely mistaken. There is a heck of a lot more about me and my own personal faith that can not be translated into a few words in a forum to people who are so closeminded as to have made up their minds about people they know nothing about.
In response to this post, our kid Dev here Repped me with 'Hypocrit"

I would liek to take time to ask how what I said was hyporcritical, and what it is supposed to be hypocritical of. If all else fails, i would like to know what dictionary Dev uses for learning new words, because i highly doubt he understands the meaning of the word "hypocrit"

[old_man_killer]

Yeah, but even as God's Word, it was written by man. And just as God's instructions unto Adam and Eve were distorted, so may God's word by the fallacy of man.
They're both created by God, which means by the logic of what you said earlier, they're both perfect beings. Whether or not they have free will (which is quite arguable) doesn't change the fact that we were created in God's image, which, by your logic, makes us perfect.
Yes Adam and Eve were made perfect and sinless, but GOD gave them free will, and they chose to sin against GOD. And that very act of disobedience brought sin into the world.




Exactly, and that isn't free will. Free will is having the freedom to make your life's choices without being forced or imposed on by anyone or anything else.

Being sent to Hell for making the wrong choices--by the being who decided what right and wrong was, above all else--is not free will. I didn't choose eternal damnation, I simply believe it not to exist. Plus... If such a God existed, and cast His judgement apon all mortal beings and parted the "good" from the "bad" according to his own laws and cast out the "bad" for not abiding his laws... I'd rather go to Hell with my head held high, than to Heaven with my head bowed.
Congratulations, you are exercising your free will. To deny GOD's existance IS free will. And as such you will have to deal with those consequences. You successfully managed to contradict yourself in this one paragraph.

I think I live freer than you ever will, because I don't bow to a being who has to exercise superiority in order to be acknowledged for it.
You are incorrect on both points here. You may think you are freer, but your actions that you choose to do that are counter to GOD's will; will catch up with you at some point. Whereas I face every day with a positive outlook, and no matter the trials that I am faced with, I can face them boldly and strongly with the blessed assurance that my LORD is with me, you will have to face them alone. as for the second point, If you were correct in that statement then GOD would be casting down lightning bolts on all of you right now to "exercise his superiority" he would be a tyrant and not the loving GOD that he is.

[Jeffery]

I'd also point out that Gods instructions of "Don;t eat that fruit" was far from distorted. If someone tells you "Don't eat this" and you do, then claiming you didn;t understand what he meant is you trying to get out from being blamed for your own mistake.

[Lonely Tylenol]

One short post won't hurt.

Congratulations, you are exercising your free will. To deny GOD's existance IS free will. And as such you will have to deal with those consequences. You successfully managed to contradict yourself in this one paragraph.

Let me get this straight.

I exercise a belief that does not conform with God's view of humankind, in a completely calm, nonviolent manner that does not adversely affect anyone in any way...

And I'm going to be damned for eternity for it?

By doing so, God is imposing HIS will apon us. That's not free will.

Your God, and for that matter, most... If not all... Gods, of many faiths, watches every move His/Her subjects make, and judges them accordingly. Apon death, your life's actions are weighed and you are judged according to your God's personal outlook. (This does not apply for atheists and nonbelievers of [your faith here]; they are damned from the start.)

It should be noted that by this rule, an outstanding human being of [not your faith], who is an overall selfless guy and abides by the rules will be sent to Hell, whereas a serial killer can repent on death row and be sent to Heaven, because the only sin that can't be shrugged is blasphemy. :rolleyes:

Also to be noted... Any sin, no matter how small, would have a major effect in the afterlife, if left unrepented. Beings deemed "unworthy" of God's great glory are persecuted and damned for eternity.

Adolf Hitler held and enforced these same beliefs, and killed many millions who did not conform with his "great" beliefs--most of which were undoubtedly generally innocent--in the process. He was also able to whitewash his actions in the eyes of so many by making himself seem like the grand judge, and those who opposed him the enemy of the people. I will not judge God of the latter, but I will not hesitate to judge him of the former.

No offense, but this God person is starting to sound like a bit of a fascist.

[Talinsword]

You are incorrect on both points here. You may think you are freer, but your actions that you choose to do that are counter to GOD's will; will catch up with you at some point. Whereas I face every day with a positive outlook, and no matter the trials that I am faced with, I can face them boldly and strongly with the blessed assurance that my LORD is with me, you will have to face them alone. as for the second point, If you were correct in that statement then GOD would be casting down lightning bolts on all of you right now to "exercise his superiority" he would be a tyrant and not the loving GOD that he is.

You say this with such certainty that God does exist. So I'm wondering... Have you met him/her? Is there even proof of God's existance other than a book written and copied by men in ancient times?

But let's not go there... For I myself believe in God.. Many of them.. Godesses too... Even the Christian one is in my little pathenon of higher beings. It's not wrong to believe and have faith without proof.... Never is. Belief and faith helps us get thru our lives...


But let me ask you this?
Who are you to judge others opinions about Gods?
you were correct in that statement then GOD would be casting down lightning bolts on all of you right now...
Funny how you didn't include yourself.. Are you free of sin? Because if you are.. Then by all means, throw the first stone and Cast judgement upon your fellow man..
But... By your own faith's doctrines... If you are not free of sin.. Completely virginal of any wrong-doing.. You have no place to sit here and act superior to anyone.


...

Anyways... As to the topic of this little thread...

I think it's kinda proven in the ten commandments that Christianity is polytheistic.

I mean.. These commandments.. They came from the big guy himself, right?
These are his words brought down upon his followers, right?

I: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have gods before me.

Well.. That's the first one.. Looks to me like God is telling us not to have gods before him... Not, "don't have other gods"..

That's a big ol' okay to worshipping other beings as long as they don't supercede God. And since he's giving us the okay.. And god is all knowning.. Then he must know that other gods do exsist...

Seeing how he has given us the okay to worship them... I mean.. He wouldn't want to mess with our heads by saying it's okay to worship something/someone that doesn't exsist, right?

~Talinsword

[Elentari]

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread, because it just makes me extremely frustrated :). But I will reply to this last post!

This is sort of the way I see it:

When he says gods, I don't think he neccesarily means actual GOD gods. He could mean things like money, fashion, sports... Anything that you hold as extremely important in your life.

My interpretation is that he's telling us not to put other things (no matter what form they take) before him, rather than that it's ok to worship other gods as long as he still holds first place.

[X-Takhisis]

I am just woundering what denomination of Christianatly is everywon ( if u are Christian and if not what religion u are) and i wanted to know why cathlics worship on sunday. Oh one more thing i was woundering is who knows annything about the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) is.

[TheBlazedAce]

I am just woundering what denomination of Christianatly is everywon ( if u are Christian and if not what religion u are) and i wanted to know why cathlics worship on sunday. Oh one more thing i was woundering is who knows annything about the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) is.

It was already mentioned. In fact, I believe it was mentioned in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong (the SDA).

[Jeffery]

http://www.carm.org/questions/sabbath.htm

We had this discussion not so long ago. The beginning being that what people today consider "sunday" or "saturday" have nothing to do with what was the first/last day of the week, since the days were assigned in the middle ages by some kind when he declared the current calender most christian nations use as how things would be timed,

Also, the release from not working on Sabbath actually begins with jesus, who was clled blasphemus himself for working on the Sabbath.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I have neither the time nor the wits about myself to describe Seventh Day Adventism at this time, so here (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html) is a link.

[Talinsword]

As far as I know/remember... Sunday is a holy day of rest because God rested on the seventh day of the creation of Man/Earth.
And since when the catholic calander was created, Sunday was the seventh day, and therefore a day to spend in rememberance of what God did.

~Talinsword

[Realist]

And while we're at it, I seem to recall Realist mentioning that the NT doesn't mention fulfilling or nullifying the OT

No, I said that the OT doesn't mention or at all imply that it will be fulfilled or nullified by the NT. In fact, its the opposite, the OT claims that the law can't be changed.

Obviously Jesus does say he comes to fulfill the OT.

[old_man_killer]

You say this with such certainty that God does exist. So I'm wondering... Have you met him/her? Is there even proof of God's existance other than a book written and copied by men in ancient times?

But let's not go there... For I myself believe in God.. Many of them.. Godesses too... Even the Christian one is in my little pathenon of higher beings. It's not wrong to believe and have faith without proof.... Never is. Belief and faith helps us get thru our lives...


But let me ask you this?
Who are you to judge others opinions about Gods?

Funny how you didn't include yourself.. Are you free of sin? Because if you are.. Then by all means, throw the first stone and Cast judgement upon your fellow man..
But... By your own faith's doctrines... If you are not free of sin.. Completely virginal of any wrong-doing.. You have no place to sit here and act superior to anyone.


...

Anyways... As to the topic of this little thread...

I think it's kinda proven in the ten commandments that Christianity is polytheistic.

I mean.. These commandments.. They came from the big guy himself, right?
These are his words brought down upon his followers, right?



Well.. That's the first one.. Looks to me like God is telling us not to have gods before him... Not, "don't have other gods"..

That's a big ol' okay to worshipping other beings as long as they don't supercede God. And since he's giving us the okay.. And god is all knowning.. Then he must know that other gods do exsist...

Seeing how he has given us the okay to worship them... I mean.. He wouldn't want to mess with our heads by saying it's okay to worship something/someone that doesn't exsist, right?

~Talinsword

You have taken the Bible verses and my comments completely out of context.

[old_man_killer]

One short post won't hurt.



Let me get this straight.

I exercise a belief that does not conform with God's view of humankind, in a completely calm, nonviolent manner that does not adversely affect anyone in any way...

And I'm going to be damned for eternity for it?

By doing so, God is imposing HIS will apon us. That's not free will.

Your God, and for that matter, most... If not all... Gods, of many faiths, watches every move His/Her subjects make, and judges them accordingly. Apon death, your life's actions are weighed and you are judged according to your God's personal outlook. (This does not apply for atheists and nonbelievers of [your faith here]; they are damned from the start.)

It should be noted that by this rule, an outstanding human being of [not your faith], who is an overall selfless guy and abides by the rules will be sent to Hell, whereas a serial killer can repent on death row and be sent to Heaven, because the only sin that can't be shrugged is blasphemy. :rolleyes:

Also to be noted... Any sin, no matter how small, would have a major effect in the afterlife, if left unrepented. Beings deemed "unworthy" of God's great glory are persecuted and damned for eternity.

Adolf Hitler held and enforced these same beliefs, and killed many millions who did not conform with his "great" beliefs--most of which were undoubtedly generally innocent--in the process. He was also able to whitewash his actions in the eyes of so many by making himself seem like the grand judge, and those who opposed him the enemy of the people. I will not judge God of the latter, but I will not hesitate to judge him of the former.

No offense, but this God person is starting to sound like a bit of a fascist.

LT, if you deny GOD's existance, then why do you care what I believe? Your preoccupation of this percieved lack of free will by believers is sad. By your definition: GOD says worship me and me alone or face eternal damnation, denies you free will. Let me ask you a question. Lets say you walk into a kitchen, there is a note saying "do not touch - hot" on the stove. Now lets look at the facts we know:
1) a person wrote the note
2) it warns that to avoid dire consequenses that you cannot do something
3) you really don't know if it's hot or not

now, by your definition, this is denying you free will. I say it isn't. You have the right to choose wether to touch the stove or not. But you have to live with the consequenses. GOD gave us the bible as a warning note. We have the choice to follow or not. Don't say you don't have free will because that is wrong.

[Warcow]

LT, if you deny GOD's existance, then why do you care what I believe? Your preoccupation of this percieved lack of free will by believers is sad. By your definition: GOD says worship me and me alone or face eternal damnation, denies you free will. Let me ask you a question. Lets say you walk into a kitchen, there is a note saying "do not touch - hot" on the stove. Now lets look at the facts we know:
1) a person wrote the note
2) it warns that to avoid dire consequenses that you cannot do something
3) you really don't know if it's hot or not

now, by your definition, this is denying you free will. I say it isn't. You have the right to choose wether to touch the stove or not. But you have to live with the consequenses. GOD gave us the bible as a warning note. We have the choice to follow or not. Don't say you don't have free will because that is wrong.

What if the note is 2000 years old . . . from someone you have no real knowledge of, or have any idea of their motives.

[old_man_killer]

What if the note is 2000 years old . . . from someone you have no real knowledge of, or have any idea of their motives.
you still have the free will to choose (context of original statement)

[Tinybrain]

old_man_killer makes a good point. Saying "Don't do this thing or something bad will happen to you" does not remove free will.

If making rules removed free will, we wouldn't have so many people in prison.

[The Prophet]

First, I will have to agree with Realist on the discussion on Genesis 3.

In verse 15, the seed of her is Christ and his followers. The seed of the serpent of course is satan.

Satan could not present himself as a human to Eve. So, God allowed him to use a beast. The serpent was the most fitting for the vial act he was going to permit. God also allowed the serpent to speak words to her. This was all allowed for a test.

Now on to OT prophecies of Christ. I like to use Micah 5:1-2. He prophecies of a ruler coming out of Bethlehem. To rule over Israel. We all know the story of Christ and where he was born.

[Devlin777]

First, I will have to agree with Realist on the discussion on Genesis 3.

In verse 15, the seed of her is Christ and his followers. The seed of the serpent of course is satan.

Well, now I'm totally confused? Didn't Realist say that the serpent was just a snake (talking?)

And the seed of woman was just any old person?

I might be mistaken. If so, sorry.

[The Prophet]

Her seed will be Christ and His followers.

It says, "...He (Christ) will strike your (Satan) head, and you (Satan) will strike His (CHrist) heel....". This all means that Christ and His fllowers will have dominion over satan.

In literal sense, her seed will be all of mankind but God was speaking directly about His Son and his followers.

[Devlin777]

The seed of woman you're alluding to refers to Christ, as he was not from the seed of man, but of GOD. It's a simple, LITERAL translation. Everywhere in the BIBLE where the serpent is mentioned in this type of context it refers to the Devil or Satan, not a legless reptile. Snakes, as a species don't have the capacity for enmity. To think otherwise is foolishness. You're anthopomorphosising human traits onto a cold blooded creature.
:)

[Realist]

12,

Now I got ya. Awww...it's rather sweet to see you so concerned with Jesus being short-changed. But you have to understand that Jesus did not come to earth to be a "great man". Quite the contrary. He came to be the dirt of mankind, to be stepped upon, abused, and without glory. So if you're wondering where all of the hooplah is over Jesus, you won't see that until he comes back.

So Isaiah doesn’t believe in Jesus’ godhood, just that he will exist? I understand that Jesus didn’t come to Earth to be a great man, but shouldn’t the prophecy about him know that he is more than just one among a lot of greats?

You make judgements as if you know so much about the OT, and yet you don't know where to find that obvious teaching? Look it up yourself. I'm not running around to dig up info that you have already pre-judged to be false anyhow.
Do you know how stupid this sounds? You’re asking ME to look up evidence to support YOUR argument! There is nowhere in the OT where it says the laws will be “fulfilled” and therefore will no longer need to be followed Your argument has no support.

I have prejudged NOTHING to be false. I am an objective reader. Back up your claims rationally and I will accept them. But you so far have not; so far I have crushed every one of your assertions.

No. YOU read the chapter again, especially 3:1. If this snake is a normal snake, then I want you to find me one that can talk like this.
Wow! Holding the Bible up to the standards of modern science? Why are you so sure that normal snakes couldn’t talk in Eden? Perhaps they simply lost that ability later.

You who make such a claim...have YOU read the OT?
Obviously. I have read it carefully and understand it vastly better than most Jews and Christians who haven’t read it closely. How else do you think I know so much about it?

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? You keep adding all kinds of junk to the conversation!
Not my fault you don’t remember your own posts. You said that it was unknown what Biblical prophesies were referring to until they actually happened, and I explained that this was generally false. Usually it was quite well known what future events the prophets were referring to even while the prophets were prophesizing.
Maybe YOU have to really try. Speak for yourself. I notice that you assume your own difficulties with the Scriptures is universal.
True. I have to try because I look at the Bible from the standpoint of truth and objectivity. Some people assume their conclusions about the Bible before they even begin to read. It is quite easy for these people to read what they want to into the Bible even if it actually isn’t there.
Let's try this all over again. BIBLICALLY, the teaching on homsexuality is spread throughout time, cultures, and places, placing it above little cultural teachings like 1 Corinthians 11.

Ok, this is different from what you already said, but it does make a lot more sense. I’m not willing to argue this even though it is arguable.

[Realist]

Prophet,

First, I will have to agree with Realist on the discussion on Genesis 3.

In verse 15, the seed of her is Christ and his followers. The seed of the serpent of course is satan.

Satan could not present himself as a human to Eve. So, God allowed him to use a beast. The serpent was the most fitting for the vial act he was going to permit. God also allowed the serpent to speak words to her. This was all allowed for a test.

This is one possible interpretation of the story. it is certaintly not the literal one. It is also certaintly not evidence for a connection between Jesus and the OT, there is not enough evidence in the passage unless such a connection has already been established. I assume this is what you mean by agreeing with me since you don't seem to agree with me on much else.

Do you think the serpent was actually punished by God in a literal sense in that it does actually crawl on its belly?

Now on to OT prophecies of Christ. I like to use Micah 5:1-2. He prophecies of a ruler coming out of Bethlehem. To rule over Israel. We all know the story of Christ and where he was born.

The first thing to remember when looking for prophecies of Jesus in the OT is that the writers of the NT read the OT, so they obviously knew the requirements for the Messiah somewhat well. Therefore, simply finding connections between what the NT writers ascribe to Jesus and what the OT writers ascribe to the Messiah does not mean that the OT predicted Jesus. This is very much the case here.

The messiah described by Micah, if it actually is talking about a messiah (it works literally too, the Assyrians really were enemies of Israel) is a pretty generic messiah. There's nothing particularly Jesus-like about him.

The biggest difference between OT descriptions of the Messiah and NT descriptions (not that the NT is so clear about this either) is the whole son of God thing. Find me a passage that suggests that the Messiah is not simply a great man of God like a whole lot of the other people mentioned in the OT, but actually divine or actually the son of God. If you can't find such a passage, then it is pretty clear to me that the OT never prophesized Jesus.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Listen, I only have a few minutes. I am still in a mild state of irrationality and wooziness from the pain killers that are squelching most of my pain right now, amplified by the state of hysteria over misplacing thousands of dollars and potentially going bankrupt and giving away most of my possessions to keep a roof over my head.... So forgive me if this doesn't make sense, but...

LT, if you deny GOD's existance, then why do you care what I believe? Your preoccupation of this percieved lack of free will by believers is sad. By your definition: GOD says worship me and me alone or face eternal damnation, denies you free will. Let me ask you a question. Lets say you walk into a kitchen, there is a note saying "do not touch - hot" on the stove. Now lets look at the facts we know:
1) a person wrote the note
2) it warns that to avoid dire consequenses that you cannot do something
3) you really don't know if it's hot or not

now, by your definition, this is denying you free will. I say it isn't. You have the right to choose wether to touch the stove or not. But you have to live with the consequenses. GOD gave us the bible as a warning note. We have the choice to follow or not. Don't say you don't have free will because that is wrong.

Wrong. Beliefs and actions are two very different things. If someone touches a hot stove, then consequences are directly linked to their actions, because there is a physical reaction to this matter.

However, if someone, say, tells you not to believe the Earth is flat, then it is not necessarily a consequential action, so much as it is a belief, a mindset. The belief has no physical reaction and in fact doesn't adversely affect anyone, unless carried out violently. In fact, the only way to judge someone based on their beliefs is if you impose other beliefs ON them.

For God to judge someone based on a BELIEF is directly imposing his mindset on that of others, and is, yes, an infringement apon one's own free will.

And Warcow does hold another point... God's laws were created thousands of years ago, many were subject to change and have changed through the Church. Furthermore, some of these rules have no logical bearing or consequence in life and the only actual consequences are that it defies God's vision of humankind, which is really just in support of the same argument I had to begin with.

Your argument only holds ground under the assumption that blasphemy is a direct action, and is thus subject to direct consequence, but this is no such case.

[Realist]

For God to judge someone based on a BELIEF is directly imposing his mindset on that of others, and is, yes, an infringement apon one's own free will.

This doesn't follow...free will only means you have the choice to believe as you wish, not that there won't be consequences of this belief. Me judging your beliefs doesn't take away from your free will, even if it harms you, so why is it any different if God did the judging?

[Devlin777]

Jer. 23:5 "Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

For Jesus' fulfillment of this, please see Matt. 1:1

Zech. 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.

See John 12:12-14

Zech 11:12-13 Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-- that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.

Matt. 27:3-10

Ps. 22:18 They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.
(please note that, unlike the preposition set forth earlier in this thread, this prophecy speaks in the present tense)

Fulfulled Mark 15:24

Ps. 34:20 He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken.\

John 19:31-33

Now, the agrument can (and apparently has :) ) be(en) made that the OT was refering to a human person or persons, who might just be the King of the Isrealites. But the overwhelming evidence that Christ fulfilled all the OT prophecies would lead one to logically conclude that Jesus was who the OT referred to. Whether or not the OT was talking about the Son of God is moot, since the NT declares that Jesus was.

Syllogism: (Major premise) Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies
(Minor premise) Jesus was and is the Son of God.
(Conclusion) The OT prophecies were about the Son of God.

[The Prophet]

This is one possible interpretation of the story. it is certaintly not the literal one. It is also certaintly not evidence for a connection between Jesus and the OT, there is not enough evidence in the passage unless such a connection has already been established. I assume this is what you mean by agreeing with me since you don't seem to agree with me on much else.There seemed to be some confusion on the snake, that is what I was pointing out.
Do you think the serpent was actually punished by God in a literal sense in that it does actually crawl on its belly?Yes, I believe that. That is what it says. Serpent must have been with legs or wings.

The messiah described by Micah, if it actually is talking about a messiah (it works literally too, the Assyrians really were enemies of Israel) is a pretty generic messiah. There's nothing particularly Jesus-like about him.

The biggest difference between OT descriptions of the Messiah and NT descriptions (not that the NT is so clear about this either) is the whole son of God thing. Find me a passage that suggests that the Messiah is not simply a great man of God like a whole lot of the other people mentioned in the OT, but actually divine or actually the son of God. If you can't find such a passage, then it is pretty clear to me that the OT never prophesized Jesus.
You are correct there seems to not being an direct relation to god-like Messiah. When Jesus was walking the earth the majority still didn't get the fact of who He was. Some even asked of Him to revolt and cause war against their oppressors.

The prophecies were of literal nature and not the divine nature of what Christ would do.

[old_man_killer]

You know, the only way any of our debates will be proven, is when we are all standing before GOD. Hear me friends, the time for Jesus's return just may be closer than you think. If you have honest questions about GOD, Jesus and the afterlife, please do some true research. Talk with your Pastor or Priest or Rabbi or even Cleric. But don't take what is said here as the ultimate truth.

[Lonely Tylenol]

is when we are all standing before GOD.

*When* and *if*.

I am an atheist, but I will not absolutely deny the possibility of a Supreme Being. It does not mean that I will be "saved" or that I even want to be "saved". What happens, happens.

I just wish it would all stop happening for just a few days. :mad:

[Realist]

Prophet,

Wow...we actually pretty much agree with each other on this topic.

[Jeffery]

The best thing about Atheists who claim not to believe in God is that they expend all the energy they can trying to prove God doesn;t exist. The problem is that they are not really trying to prove it to others, but are constantly trying to prove it to themselves in an effort to not be afraid of what might happen when they are wrong.

[Devlin777]

*When* and *if*.

I am an atheist, ...


Just curious but are you a converted athiest or have you always been?

[savanna]

i am Agnostic all the way.
have been.
will be.
church? *grins*
not on MY watch.

[old_man_killer]

i am Agnostic all the way.
have been.
will be.
church? *grins*
not on MY watch.

Do you know what an Agnostic is?

[xerent]

I'm agnostic as well.

See, the thing is... I just really don't care. I live my life to have fun, meet other people, and make friends.

[Northwind]

Agnosticism is not "not caring" nor is it "not believing," it is a state of "not knowing." Agnostics believe that the idea of God can not be proven either way. It doesn't necessarily suggest antipathy for the idea of God.

Theism: God is.

Atheism: God is not.

Agnosticism: It cannot be known.

Confusion: I don't know what I believe :confused:

[Realist]

Jer. 23:5 "Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

For Jesus' fulfillment of this, please see Matt. 1:1

Yes, but remember, the writers of the NT had read the OT. Of course they would say that Jesus was descended from David if they wanted to prove that he was the messiah. This is therefore invalid evidence.


Zech. 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.

See John 12:12-14

Again...Jesus knew about the OT (if he even existed.) This is hardly a very difficult prophesy to fulfill if you already know what the prophecy is. Its completely probable that Jesus acted as he did for the exact purpose of fulfilling the prophecy. Invalid evidence.

Zech 11:12-13 Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-- that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.

Matt. 27:3-10

I see the connection, but don't see any prophecy fulfilled....


Ps. 34:20 He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken.\

John 19:31-33

Again...writers of the NT read the OT. Of course they would say this.


Now, the agrument can (and apparently has :) ) be(en) made that the OT was refering to a human person or persons, who might just be the King of the Isrealites. But the overwhelming evidence that Christ fulfilled all the OT prophecies would lead one to logically conclude that Jesus was who the OT referred to.

Except that 1) many of the prophesies you mentioned here were not very difficult ones to fulfill and 2) it is not contended whether writers of the NT believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the question is whether the OT predicted Jesus specifically. The writers of the NT were obviously going to say that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies, otherwise their claim meant nothing. As I pointed out to Prophet, however, there are real differences between the OT perception of the Messiah and the NT perception of Jesus which leads me to believe that the case made by the NT for Jesus' prediction in the OT is weak.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just curious but are you a converted athiest or have you always been?

You say converted as if it was a religion itself...

I have never held a belief in an afterlife, or in a Supreme Being or anything in the supernatural (except aliens). However, I have always been open to the fact that I could be wrong, and have been considered an agnostic for that reason (although I am most certain that I don't believe in an afterlife).

i am Agnostic all the way.
have been.
will be.
church? *grins*
not on MY watch.

Agnosticism is when you're not sure what you believe.

What you should have said would be, "Church? *half gins*
Maybe not on MY watch."

[Realist]

The best thing about Atheists who claim not to believe in God is that they expend all the energy they can trying to prove God doesn;t exist. The problem is that they are not really trying to prove it to others, but are constantly trying to prove it to themselves in an effort to not be afraid of what might happen when they are wrong.

Nope....

I truly wish I could believe in God.

I wish I could believe in a good, fair, ordered universe. God makes this possible.

The evidence is simply against this. :( It makes me unhappy. Sometimes it even makes me depressed. But I simply can't believe something which is so obviously false.

[savanna]

Do you know what an Agnostic is?

yes i do.
i was forced to go to church, i walked out.

[Devlin777]

You say converted as if it was a religion itself...

That's not how I meant it. :)
It's a philosophy like others.

[xerent]

Well, then when someone asks "What are you?" (In reference to religious belief)

What should I tell them?

[Realist]

Nonreligious.

[Devlin777]

Not accepting applications, maybe? (a small joke, tiny, in fact)

[X-Takhisis]

http://www.carm.org/questions/sabbath.htm

We had this discussion not so long ago. The beginning being that what people today consider "sunday" or "saturday" have nothing to do with what was the first/last day of the week, since the days were assigned in the middle ages by some kind when he declared the current calender most christian nations use as how things would be timed,

Also, the release from not working on Sabbath actually begins with jesus, who was clled blasphemus himself for working on the Sabbath.

did not work. he healed. that is different. it is just like preaching in a sence. it was makeing people belive in him as bieng the messiah

[old_man_killer]

I see the connection, but don't see any prophecy fulfilled....


The prophecy was fulfilled when Judas was paid thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Thus Jesus was worth 30 pieces of silver.

[old_man_killer]

yes i do.
i was forced to go to church, i walked out.
That is "rebellious" not "agnostic" ;)