Please refer HERE for the earlier post
QUOTE
You know(you don't), you're a pretty funny guy. On the one hand, you insist that Luke's genealogy isn't tracing Jesus' lineage through Mary and, on the other hand, you now suggest that "a bunch of non-believers(the Talmudic writers) gathered their genealogy from a Christian writer(Luke)" and concluded that MARY was the daughter of Heli and NOT Joseph??? What the...??? Do the math, genius. IF(the passage is disputed) they gathered their genealogy from Luke and then referred to MARY as the daughter of Heli, THEN that clearly shows that they understood Luke's genealogy to be tracing Jesus' lineage through MARY and NOT through Joseph.
It would all make a lot more sense to you if you understood what I was actually arguing.
My argument is that the King James Version of the bible is flawed.
Luke may or may not have been originally writing about the genealogy of Mary, rather than Joseph. It is really inconsequential to me. It actually makes a lot of sense that they are two different genealogies of two different people.
You seem to be missing the point here....
If the bible is a compilation of common texts that have been regurgitated and recycled over many centuries....then your explanation is perfectly plausible. I would even agree with it.
However, you don't think that the bible is a compilation of common texts. You think that the King James version of the bible is the "Word of God" without flaw or error. I am arguing that it is not.
I hope this makes it clear. I am not contradicting myself. I am discussing two different things the "facts of reality"(for example, that Luke's genealogy was supposed to be that of Mary) and the "facts of the Bible"(in which Luke states that his genealogy is that of Joseph).
When having a discussion about a piece of literature it is often necessary to restrict yourself to a certain subset of facts.
i.e. In Othello, we all know that Iago is manipulating everyone and that Desdemona is innocent. However, Othello is completely oblivious to this fact. If one was discussing the motive and ethics of Othello's murder of Desdemona, one would have to consider it from the perspective of Desdemona being guilty.
Finally you make the mistake of assuming that the Gospel of Luke that you read today is the exact same one that the Talmudic writers would have read. I am arguing that they may have read a version that listed it as the genealogy of Mary
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You know(you don't), you're a pretty funny guy. On the one hand, you insist that Luke's genealogy isn't tracing Jesus' lineage through Mary and, on the other hand, you now suggest that "a bunch of non-believers(the Talmudic writers) gathered their genealogy from a Christian writer(Luke)" and concluded that MARY was the daughter of Heli and NOT Joseph??? What the...??? Do the math, genius. IF(the passage is disputed) they gathered their genealogy from Luke and then referred to MARY as the daughter of Heli, THEN that clearly shows that they understood Luke's genealogy to be tracing Jesus' lineage through MARY and NOT through Joseph. |
It would all make a lot more sense to you if you understood what I was actually arguing.
My argument is that the King James Version of the bible is flawed.
Luke may or may not have been originally writing about the genealogy of Mary, rather than Joseph. It is really inconsequential to me. It actually makes a lot of sense that they are two different genealogies of two different people.
You seem to be missing the point here....
If the bible is a compilation of common texts that have been regurgitated and recycled over many centuries....then your explanation is perfectly plausible. I would even agree with it.
However, you don't think that the bible is a compilation of common texts. You think that the King James version of the bible is the "Word of God" without flaw or error. I am arguing that it is not.
I hope this makes it clear. I am not contradicting myself. I am discussing two different things the "facts of reality"(for example, that Luke's genealogy was supposed to be that of Mary) and the "facts of the Bible"(in which Luke states that his genealogy is that of Joseph).
When having a discussion about a piece of literature it is often necessary to restrict yourself to a certain subset of facts.
i.e. In Othello, we all know that Iago is manipulating everyone and that Desdemona is innocent. However, Othello is completely oblivious to this fact. If one was discussing the motive and ethics of Othello's murder of Desdemona, one would have to consider it from the perspective of Desdemona being guilty.
Finally you make the mistake of assuming that the Gospel of Luke that you read today is the exact same one that the Talmudic writers would have read. I am arguing that they may have read a version that listed it as the genealogy of Mary
No, that's not how the argument "basically" goes at all. First of all, shortened genealogies were nothing new to the Jew who were the primary "target"(probably not the best word to use) of Matthew's gospel. For example, whereas the prophet Zechariah referred to himself as "Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet"(Zechariah 1:1), Ezra merely referred to him as "Zechariah the son of Iddo"(Ezra 5:1). Was Ezra employing "poetic license"? Hardly. There are many reasons why the genealogies were written the way that they were(these many reasons are "all Greek to you", I'm afraid) and if YOU understood anything about "cultures"(something that you questioned my knowledge of), then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Anyhow, as was mentioned in the link that I provided you with in my previous post, Matthew was quite possibly employing a bit of gematria in his abbreviated genealogy. Since David was a primary focus of Matthew's genealogy, and since David's name has a numeric value of 14, Matthew quite possibly chose to break his genealogy down into segments of 14.
This all makes perfect sense...
But it is still poetic license with the facts. You are essentially arguing that at times the bible is less than accurate for purposes of literary appeal?
Explain how these three statements are different:
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus was shortened because it was common in his culture to shorten genealogies
Jericho walls were said to "tumble down" because writings of the time were fond of metaphors
God was said to create the world in 7 days because that was a common creation myth of local cultures
QUOTE
I've already begun to refute(there's more to come) your first scenario, so I'll now briefly address the second scenario. The Messiah's "natural" descent was always(long before Luke was ever born) intended to be linked to a female and not to a male as His Father is none other than God Himself. Going all the way back to the book of Genesis, we read:
"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."(Genesis 3:15)
Here, in what is sometimes called the "proto-evangelicum"(the first good news), God declared that the Messiah, the One who would bruise Satan's head, would be the seed of a woman. As far as your objections to the virgin birth are concerned, need I to remind you that we've already travelled down that path in the past? Do I need to link to our previous discussion along these lines for any of buttershug's "Johnny-come-latelies"? I'll be happy to do so, if such a need presents itself.
"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."(Genesis 3:15)
Here, in what is sometimes called the "proto-evangelicum"(the first good news), God declared that the Messiah, the One who would bruise Satan's head, would be the seed of a woman. As far as your objections to the virgin birth are concerned, need I to remind you that we've already travelled down that path in the past? Do I need to link to our previous discussion along these lines for any of buttershug's "Johnny-come-latelies"? I'll be happy to do so, if such a need presents itself.
So if we assume the bible is accurate and creatively read much older passages...we can explain away some technical errors? Of course, you are assuming the accuracy of the bible to defend an inaccuracy of the bible later. Doesn't that make you dishonest?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've already begun to refute(there's more to come) your first scenario, so I'll now briefly address the second scenario. The Messiah's "natural" descent was always(long before Luke was ever born) intended to be linked to a female and not to a male as His Father is none other than God Himself. Going all the way back to the book of Genesis, we read: "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."(Genesis 3:15) Here, in what is sometimes called the "proto-evangelicum"(the first good news), God declared that the Messiah, the One who would bruise Satan's head, would be the seed of a woman. As far as your objections to the virgin birth are concerned, need I to remind you that we've already travelled down that path in the past? Do I need to link to our previous discussion along these lines for any of buttershug's "Johnny-come-latelies"? I'll be happy to do so, if such a need presents itself. |
So if we assume the bible is accurate and creatively read much older passages...we can explain away some technical errors? Of course, you are assuming the accuracy of the bible to defend an inaccuracy of the bible later. Doesn't that make you dishonest?
Those who don't understand the context of your comment can go back and reread our previous dialogue. Aside from the fact that laws regarding incest vary from place to place, God clearly laid out laws concerning sexual practices LATER ON through Moses. I'm not about to discuss that with you now.
So God liked incest, then he disliked incest?
He blessed some couples, and condemned others to stoning?
That doesn't make much sense!!!!
QUOTE
I've already told you that I'm no fan of either tradition or Apocryphal writings, so I'll only comment briefly. The Biblical record clearly states that Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations after Jesus was born and that they had children together. Catholics deny this? Of course, they do. They deny a whole host of things that are plainly stated in scripture to support THEIR OWN un-Biblical doctrines(in this case, Mary's perpetual virginity). As far as the names are concerned, whether or not they mean the same thing, I cannot presently tell. I told you that it's unimportant to me and I only mentioned it because you brought up something that is contained within an Apocryphal book.
I don't know why you mentioned Apocryphal writings...since it was in response to a comment that made no mention of them.
However, just to nitpick...you made a huge mistake here.
The bible does not clearly indicate if the siblings of Jesus are from Mary or from an earlier marriage of Joseph. Joseph being a widow with children would definitely go a long way in explaining why such an older man was willing to marry a woman with child....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I've already told you that I'm no fan of either tradition or Apocryphal writings, so I'll only comment briefly. The Biblical record clearly states that Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations after Jesus was born and that they had children together. Catholics deny this? Of course, they do. They deny a whole host of things that are plainly stated in scripture to support THEIR OWN un-Biblical doctrines(in this case, Mary's perpetual virginity). As far as the names are concerned, whether or not they mean the same thing, I cannot presently tell. I told you that it's unimportant to me and I only mentioned it because you brought up something that is contained within an Apocryphal book. |
I don't know why you mentioned Apocryphal writings...since it was in response to a comment that made no mention of them.
However, just to nitpick...you made a huge mistake here.
The bible does not clearly indicate if the siblings of Jesus are from Mary or from an earlier marriage of Joseph. Joseph being a widow with children would definitely go a long way in explaining why such an older man was willing to marry a woman with child....
Why do you think that the words "the son" are in italics? BECAUSE THEY WERE ADDED BY THE TRANSLATORS. Matthew's genealogy CLEARLY INCLUDES the word "begat"...Luke's genealogy DOES NOT INCLUDE the words "the son". That ought to tell you something(especially if you understood anything about Jewish laws, but you don't), but, ALAS, it doesn't. Additonally, the CONTEXT surrounding Matthew's genealogy certainly seems to put the focus on Joseph, whereas the context surrounding Luke's genealogy seems to put the focus on Mary. For example, Matthew stresses an angel communicating with Joseph in regards to Christ's pending birth, whereas Luke stresses an angel communicating with Mary in regards to Christ's pending birth. I'll leave you with the following discourse between Jesus and some of the Pharisees of His day:
The greek from which Luke 3:23 was translated it pretty clear. It references Heli as the Father of Joseph. You can try to twist and turn in the wind, but it doesn't say what you want it to say.
In fact, the theory that it was the genealogy of Mary wasn't suggested until the 15th century. Go ask a student of Greek. The greek version used for the KJV is:
υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι
The reason "the son" is added is because that form of possession wasn't used in Greek. A simplification is Joseph "the/he" Heli. This was the common way of indicating the son of someone. In other words, Luke 3:23 did not ambiguously point to Joseph as the son of Heli...it points directly to him being the son of Heli without any wiggle room.
This website might help you
Luke 3:23 with Greek dictionary
I love you stupid Christians and your imaginary knowledge.
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
The original is
ιωσηφ του ηλι or 'Joseph' του 'Heli'
it continues....
του 'Matthat' του 'Levi' του 'Melchi' του 'Jannai' του 'Jannai' or του ματθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιαννα του ιωσηφ
I thought you knew all about the bible?
Why would you lie?
Yes, technically "the son of" wasn't in the original, but that language's equivalent of the phrase was used. At the very least your argument is dishonest.
It isn't as if the original said "Joseph and then the father of someone else Heli.
Have fun NewGuy. Watching a Christian squirm with the bible is always fun!
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
It would all make a lot more sense to you if you understood what I was actually arguing.
My argument is that the King James Version of the bible is flawed.
Luke may or may not have been originally writing about the genealogy of Mary, rather than Joseph. It is really inconsequential to me. It actually makes a lot of sense that they are two different genealogies of two different people.
You seem to be missing the point here....
If the bible is a compilation of common texts that have been regurgitated and recycled over many centuries....then your explanation is perfectly plausible. I would even agree with it.
However, you don't think that the bible is a compilation of common texts. You think that the King James version of the bible is the "Word of God" without flaw or error. I am arguing that it is not.
PuckSR: Your "argument" seems to change like the colors of a chameleon who is in danger(I know that chameleons change their colors for reasons other than "camoflauge", as well...no need to instruct me of such, O great teacher of men). Well, although you made several specific, unsubstantiated claims that you were unable to validate, I will grant that you did mention "translation" from time to time. Anyhow, as usual, you pass off your assumptions as fact. For example, whoever said that I don't "think that the Bible is a compilation of common texts"(assuming, which is dangerous around here, that we're talking about the same thing)? Certainly NOT me. Will you repeatedly ask me if I AM DISHONEST whilst simultaneously parading YOUR OWN DISHONESTY? Apparently, the answer to that question is a resounding "YES!". Pity. Additionally, whereas you certainly seem to enjoy attempting to confuse your hearers(to cover-up for your stupidity, I suppose), I've LONGTIME recognized/understood the difference between A TRANSLATION and the UNDERLYING TEXTS from which such a translation is made. Do I believe that the King James version of the Bible(I've read several other versions, by the way, in spite of your ridiculous/dishonest assertions) perfectly translates every word into English? NO, I DON'T. There you have it...straight from the horse's mouth(as opposed to the horse's @ss that continually seeks to speak on my behalf).
My argument is that the King James Version of the bible is flawed.
Luke may or may not have been originally writing about the genealogy of Mary, rather than Joseph. It is really inconsequential to me. It actually makes a lot of sense that they are two different genealogies of two different people.
You seem to be missing the point here....
If the bible is a compilation of common texts that have been regurgitated and recycled over many centuries....then your explanation is perfectly plausible. I would even agree with it.
However, you don't think that the bible is a compilation of common texts. You think that the King James version of the bible is the "Word of God" without flaw or error. I am arguing that it is not.
PuckSR: Your "argument" seems to change like the colors of a chameleon who is in danger(I know that chameleons change their colors for reasons other than "camoflauge", as well...no need to instruct me of such, O great teacher of men). Well, although you made several specific, unsubstantiated claims that you were unable to validate, I will grant that you did mention "translation" from time to time. Anyhow, as usual, you pass off your assumptions as fact. For example, whoever said that I don't "think that the Bible is a compilation of common texts"(assuming, which is dangerous around here, that we're talking about the same thing)? Certainly NOT me. Will you repeatedly ask me if I AM DISHONEST whilst simultaneously parading YOUR OWN DISHONESTY? Apparently, the answer to that question is a resounding "YES!". Pity. Additionally, whereas you certainly seem to enjoy attempting to confuse your hearers(to cover-up for your stupidity, I suppose), I've LONGTIME recognized/understood the difference between A TRANSLATION and the UNDERLYING TEXTS from which such a translation is made. Do I believe that the King James version of the Bible(I've read several other versions, by the way, in spite of your ridiculous/dishonest assertions) perfectly translates every word into English? NO, I DON'T. There you have it...straight from the horse's mouth(as opposed to the horse's @ss that continually seeks to speak on my behalf).
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I hope this makes it clear. I am not contradicting myself. I am discussing two different things the "facts of reality"(for example, that Luke's genealogy was supposed to be that of Mary) and the "facts of the Bible"(in which Luke states that his genealogy is that of Joseph).
When having a discussion about a piece of literature it is often necessary to restrict yourself to a certain subset of facts.
i.e. In Othello, we all know that Iago is manipulating everyone and that Desdemona is innocent. However, Othello is completely oblivious to this fact. If one was discussing the motive and ethics of Othello's murder of Desdemona, one would have to consider it from the perspective of Desdemona being guilty.
Finally you make the mistake of assuming that the Gospel of Luke that you read today is the exact same one that the Talmudic writers would have read. I am arguing that they may have read a version that listed it as the genealogy of Mary
Once again, your "argument" changes colors. Since this discussion began in a thread STARTED BY YOU that was entitled "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" and since you NOW "argue" that the Talmudic writers may have read a version of Luke's gospel that differs from the one contained in the King James Version of the Bible, where then is YOUR VALIDATION of such an, up to this point, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM? Bring it on, Puckster. I'll be waiting. Additionally, we don't "all know" any such things in regards to Othello. Some people, like myself, for example, have never even read the piece of literature which you so eloquently(in your self-inflating, thinking that you're some sort of literary genius, deluded mind, that is) expound upon.
When having a discussion about a piece of literature it is often necessary to restrict yourself to a certain subset of facts.
i.e. In Othello, we all know that Iago is manipulating everyone and that Desdemona is innocent. However, Othello is completely oblivious to this fact. If one was discussing the motive and ethics of Othello's murder of Desdemona, one would have to consider it from the perspective of Desdemona being guilty.
Finally you make the mistake of assuming that the Gospel of Luke that you read today is the exact same one that the Talmudic writers would have read. I am arguing that they may have read a version that listed it as the genealogy of Mary
Once again, your "argument" changes colors. Since this discussion began in a thread STARTED BY YOU that was entitled "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" and since you NOW "argue" that the Talmudic writers may have read a version of Luke's gospel that differs from the one contained in the King James Version of the Bible, where then is YOUR VALIDATION of such an, up to this point, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM? Bring it on, Puckster. I'll be waiting. Additionally, we don't "all know" any such things in regards to Othello. Some people, like myself, for example, have never even read the piece of literature which you so eloquently(in your self-inflating, thinking that you're some sort of literary genius, deluded mind, that is) expound upon.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
This all makes perfect sense...
Of course, it does. Haven't you heard? I'm a perfectly sensible guy(much to the chagrin of many who would like to depict all Christians as crazy).
Of course, it does. Haven't you heard? I'm a perfectly sensible guy(much to the chagrin of many who would like to depict all Christians as crazy).
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
But it is still poetic license with the facts. You are essentially arguing that at times the bible is less than accurate for purposes of literary appeal?
It's not that it's less than accurate...it's just that YOU are less than intelligent. You accuse me of not understanding cultures and the such and then display YOUR OWN ignorance of the same. Par for the course around here.
It's not that it's less than accurate...it's just that YOU are less than intelligent. You accuse me of not understanding cultures and the such and then display YOUR OWN ignorance of the same. Par for the course around here.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Explain how these three statements are different:
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus was shortened because it was common in his culture to shorten genealogies
Yes, that is one(of several) plausible reasons.
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus was shortened because it was common in his culture to shorten genealogies
Yes, that is one(of several) plausible reasons.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Jericho walls were said to "tumble down" because writings of the time were fond of metaphors
Although metaphors do clearly exist in scripture, I do NOT support your assertion that this is one such place in which one was used. Perhaps it would behoove you to examine some of the archaeological evidence from people who have actually dug around Jericho. You know(you probably don't), people like John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon, Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger. Unlike you(you probably paint your nails...you're into that kind of stuff), they actually got their hands dirty. Personally, I doubt that any of them concluded that "the tumbling of Jericho's walls" was merely metaphor.
Although metaphors do clearly exist in scripture, I do NOT support your assertion that this is one such place in which one was used. Perhaps it would behoove you to examine some of the archaeological evidence from people who have actually dug around Jericho. You know(you probably don't), people like John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon, Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger. Unlike you(you probably paint your nails...you're into that kind of stuff), they actually got their hands dirty. Personally, I doubt that any of them concluded that "the tumbling of Jericho's walls" was merely metaphor.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
God was said to create the world in 7 days because that was a common creation myth of local cultures
Another discussion for another time(life-). Don't know what that means? No surprise.
Another discussion for another time(life-). Don't know what that means? No surprise.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
So if we assume the bible is accurate and creatively read much older passages...we can explain away some technical errors? Of course, you are assuming the accuracy of the bible to defend an inaccuracy of the bible later. Doesn't that make you dishonest?
And who exactly is "creatively reading much older passages"? Hmmm? Couldn't be YOU, could it? Nah, couldn't be. It might interest you to know that there are VERY MANY WITHIN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY who recognize the aforementioned passage in Genesis 3:15 as being "Messianic". For example:
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apolo...-messiah-torah/
The Messiah is called HaShem, the Beit El
by Israel b. Betzalel
We have no other King, Savior, or Redeemer than HaShem. If one does not believe this, then they are not Jewish, and an idolater according to the Talmud. The Messiah is the King, Savior, and Redeemer of Israel. If one does not believe this, and does not expect his coming, then you have no share in the World to Come according to the RaMBaM. If one rebels against the Messiah, he will not forgive that person, according to the Torah.
The Messiah is the Promised Seed
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Gen 4:25
Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
Who is this “seed”?
It is said in Midrash Rabbah B’reisheit:
ה וידע אדם עוד את אשתו נתוסף לו תאוה על תאותו לשעבר אם לא היה רואה לא היה מתאוה עכשיו בין רואה בין שאינו רואה הוא מתאוה רבי אבא בר יודן בשם רבי אחא רמז למפרשי ימים שיהיו נזכרים את בתיהם ובאים מיד ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו’ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל אמר נסתכלה אותו זרע שהוא בא ממקום אחר ואי זה זה מלך המשיח תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין לשני אילנות שהיו סמוכין זה לזה פכרה רוח את אחד מהן ונפל על חבירו ופכרו כך תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין
“Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the Messiah, the King.”
Furthermore, RaDaK - Rabbi David Kimchi says:
“As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.”
According to the Torah, the Talmud and some Rabbis, "the seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is the Messiah. You don't suppose that these are Christian apologists, do you? You're a riot.
WAIT!
Don't tell me...let me guess...
They're reading from a different book of Genesis, right?!?
You're an imbecile(that was just to upset buttershug...he probably dropped the plastic "wookiees" that he was playing with when he read it).
And who exactly is "creatively reading much older passages"? Hmmm? Couldn't be YOU, could it? Nah, couldn't be. It might interest you to know that there are VERY MANY WITHIN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY who recognize the aforementioned passage in Genesis 3:15 as being "Messianic". For example:
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apolo...-messiah-torah/
The Messiah is called HaShem, the Beit El
by Israel b. Betzalel
We have no other King, Savior, or Redeemer than HaShem. If one does not believe this, then they are not Jewish, and an idolater according to the Talmud. The Messiah is the King, Savior, and Redeemer of Israel. If one does not believe this, and does not expect his coming, then you have no share in the World to Come according to the RaMBaM. If one rebels against the Messiah, he will not forgive that person, according to the Torah.
The Messiah is the Promised Seed
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Gen 4:25
Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
Who is this “seed”?
It is said in Midrash Rabbah B’reisheit:
ה וידע אדם עוד את אשתו נתוסף לו תאוה על תאותו לשעבר אם לא היה רואה לא היה מתאוה עכשיו בין רואה בין שאינו רואה הוא מתאוה רבי אבא בר יודן בשם רבי אחא רמז למפרשי ימים שיהיו נזכרים את בתיהם ובאים מיד ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו’ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל אמר נסתכלה אותו זרע שהוא בא ממקום אחר ואי זה זה מלך המשיח תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין לשני אילנות שהיו סמוכין זה לזה פכרה רוח את אחד מהן ונפל על חבירו ופכרו כך תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין
“Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the Messiah, the King.”
Furthermore, RaDaK - Rabbi David Kimchi says:
“As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.”
According to the Torah, the Talmud and some Rabbis, "the seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is the Messiah. You don't suppose that these are Christian apologists, do you? You're a riot.
WAIT!
Don't tell me...let me guess...
They're reading from a different book of Genesis, right?!?
You're an imbecile(that was just to upset buttershug...he probably dropped the plastic "wookiees" that he was playing with when he read it).
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
So God liked incest, then he disliked incest?
He blessed some couples, and condemned others to stoning?
That doesn't make much sense!!!!
It "makes sense" that, at the early stages of mankind, there would be no other option than to procreate through people whom you were closely related to. Unlesss, of course, you believe in aliens and the such. Buttershug apparently believes in ET's. Yeah, he talks ENDLESSLY about Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. Well, at least he admits his affiliation with science fiction. Anyhow, out of curiosity, in your evolutionary world where people evolved from Chewbacca(a little plug to appease buttershug's wounded spirit), how did mankind procreate apart from sexual relations between closely related "individuals"(I don't know if I can call them "individuals"...they were "part this" and "part that", according to you)?
He blessed some couples, and condemned others to stoning?
That doesn't make much sense!!!!
It "makes sense" that, at the early stages of mankind, there would be no other option than to procreate through people whom you were closely related to. Unlesss, of course, you believe in aliens and the such. Buttershug apparently believes in ET's. Yeah, he talks ENDLESSLY about Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. Well, at least he admits his affiliation with science fiction. Anyhow, out of curiosity, in your evolutionary world where people evolved from Chewbacca(a little plug to appease buttershug's wounded spirit), how did mankind procreate apart from sexual relations between closely related "individuals"(I don't know if I can call them "individuals"...they were "part this" and "part that", according to you)?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I don't know why you mentioned Apocryphal writings...since it was in response to a comment that made no mention of them.
Of course, you don't know why I mentioned Apocryphal writings. Afterall, no one here expects you TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID:
Of course, you don't know why I mentioned Apocryphal writings. Afterall, no one here expects you TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID:
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" March 22 2009)
It gets really complicated though...
Tradition holds that Mary's father was named Joachim.(The Gospel of James makes mention of this fact) Maybe that isn't true. Maybe you are right
Dude, that was only a week ago...did you drink some tainted blood or something?(the guy's a vampire). By the way, I asked you a while back if you slept hanging upside in a closet like Grandpa Munster or not. You never did answer. Maybe too much blood was rushing to your head before you posted? Or maybe, just maybe, this is just another example of your stupidity. Anyhow, for those of you who don't already know, THE GOSPEL OF JAMES THAT PUCKSR MADE REFERENCE TO is considered an Apocryphal book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150.
Would any of you want this guy, PuckSR, to conduct scientific research for you? Quite frankly, I don't think that the guy is capable of wiping his own @ss, which is why I have the uneviable job of consistently wiping it for him.
Tradition holds that Mary's father was named Joachim.(The Gospel of James makes mention of this fact) Maybe that isn't true. Maybe you are right
Dude, that was only a week ago...did you drink some tainted blood or something?(the guy's a vampire). By the way, I asked you a while back if you slept hanging upside in a closet like Grandpa Munster or not. You never did answer. Maybe too much blood was rushing to your head before you posted? Or maybe, just maybe, this is just another example of your stupidity. Anyhow, for those of you who don't already know, THE GOSPEL OF JAMES THAT PUCKSR MADE REFERENCE TO is considered an Apocryphal book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150.
Would any of you want this guy, PuckSR, to conduct scientific research for you? Quite frankly, I don't think that the guy is capable of wiping his own @ss, which is why I have the uneviable job of consistently wiping it for him.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
However, just to nitpick...you made a huge mistake here.
The bible does not clearly indicate if the siblings of Jesus are from Mary or from an earlier marriage of Joseph. Joseph being a widow with children would definitely go a long way in explaining why such an older man was willing to marry a woman with child....
Actually, it does CLEARLY INDICATE such...to those with basic reading comprehension skills, that is(which is why you missed it). For example:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."(Matthew 1:24-25)
Since Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN(guess you missed that, huh?) son, it is pretty obvious that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Additionally, since Jesus is clearly referred to as Mary's FIRSTBORN son, it's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that she had other sons after Him.
What's that?
You won't accept this without Luke's seal of approval?
No sweat...
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."(Luke 2:6-7)
Since I know you to be forgetful(when it's convenient, that is), I started my Biblical citation with verse six. Yeah, "while THEY were there" refers to the fact that both Joseph and Mary had returned to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed IN THEIR OWN CITY. For those equally as forgetful as you, this clearly indicates that Mary was of the seed of David. Anyhow, once again, we see Luke mentioning how Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. NOT her only son, mind you, but her FIRSTBORN. There are other examples that I could cite, but I trust that these two will suffice for now. Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment. Well, you might be...you like to wear dog-collars and be tied to bedposts and all that. No problem...just ask and MR. BULLY(according to some sissies) will be happy to whip your ignorant behind once more.
Well, that's all that I have time for, right now. Don't worry, I'll address the remainder of your post within the next day or two, even if I have to forgo sleep to do so. Until then...
The bible does not clearly indicate if the siblings of Jesus are from Mary or from an earlier marriage of Joseph. Joseph being a widow with children would definitely go a long way in explaining why such an older man was willing to marry a woman with child....
Actually, it does CLEARLY INDICATE such...to those with basic reading comprehension skills, that is(which is why you missed it). For example:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."(Matthew 1:24-25)
Since Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN(guess you missed that, huh?) son, it is pretty obvious that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Additionally, since Jesus is clearly referred to as Mary's FIRSTBORN son, it's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that she had other sons after Him.
What's that?
You won't accept this without Luke's seal of approval?
No sweat...
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."(Luke 2:6-7)
Since I know you to be forgetful(when it's convenient, that is), I started my Biblical citation with verse six. Yeah, "while THEY were there" refers to the fact that both Joseph and Mary had returned to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed IN THEIR OWN CITY. For those equally as forgetful as you, this clearly indicates that Mary was of the seed of David. Anyhow, once again, we see Luke mentioning how Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. NOT her only son, mind you, but her FIRSTBORN. There are other examples that I could cite, but I trust that these two will suffice for now. Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment. Well, you might be...you like to wear dog-collars and be tied to bedposts and all that. No problem...just ask and MR. BULLY(according to some sissies) will be happy to whip your ignorant behind once more.
Well, that's all that I have time for, right now. Don't worry, I'll address the remainder of your post within the next day or two, even if I have to forgo sleep to do so. Until then...
I notice you cleverly avoided my comments about your misunderstandings of Greek...
Let me cut right to the meat(since you seem to leave so much unnecessary fat on your responses)
Do you believe the bible is the accurate word of God?
Which version do you believe is the accurate word of God?
Where would one find a copy of the accurate version?
Do you believe the bible is the accurate word of God?
Which version do you believe is the accurate word of God?
Where would one find a copy of the accurate version?
Once again, your "argument" changes colors. Since this discussion began in a thread STARTED BY YOU that was entitled "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" and since you NOW "argue" that the Talmudic writers may have read a version of Luke's gospel that differs from the one contained in the King James Version of the Bible, where then is YOUR VALIDATION of such an, up to this point, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM? Bring it on, Puckster. I'll be waiting. Additionally, we don't "all know" any such things in regards to Othello. Some people, like myself, for example, have never even read the piece of literature which you so eloquently(in your self-inflating, thinking that you're some sort of literary genius, deluded mind, that is) expound upon.
Substantiated?
I said that they could have read a different version of Luke. "Could" means that it may or may not have happened. I didn't say that they did
Let us look at the facts(for which I can provide ample evidence)
There are many different versions of the Gospel of Luke
The are differences between most of the versions
Now, it is understandable that one version claimed that Heli was the father of Mary(anything is possible). The Talmud genealogy of Mary could have been based on such a version. We certainly cannot prove that it is impossible.
Yet almost all of them concluded that Jericho's walls "tumbled" from an earthquake that occurred at a time incongruent with the account in the bible(Nigro and Marchetti 1997). In fact, Jericho is on an active fault line and has experienced multiple earthquakes. The evidence that a particularly destructive earthquake is not the biblical account can be clearly seen in that the protective walls were only partly damaged, and that they fell on themselves. Still providing a tall structure around the city.
Yet almost all of them concluded that Jericho's walls "tumbled" from an earthquake that occurred at a time incongruent with the account in the bible(Nigro and Marchetti 1997). In fact, Jericho is on an active fault line and has experienced multiple earthquakes. The evidence that a particularly destructive earthquake is not the biblical account can be clearly seen in that the protective walls were only partly damaged, and that they fell on themselves. Still providing a tall structure around the city.
According to the Torah, the Talmud and some Rabbis, "the seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is the Messiah. You don't suppose that these are Christian apologists, do you? You're a riot.
WAIT!
ohmy.gif
Don't tell me...let me guess...
unsure.gif
They're reading from a different book of Genesis, right?!?
Created a bit of a strawman argument there....
I dont remember mentioning Messiah prophecies.
Also, I have a great deal more respect for the Torah than I do the Christian writings. At least for several centuries before the date of Jesus the texts were carefully copied and checked for copyist errors. This is not the case for the Christian writings, since they were not even considered sacred for several hundred more years.
Well, we aren't really going to get anywhere here.
You believe the whole bible myth is equivalent to fact. I think it is myth.
I didn't realize how deep this sickness goes. It is truly scary.
Well, we aren't really going to get anywhere here.
You believe the whole bible myth is equivalent to fact. I think it is myth.
I didn't realize how deep this sickness goes. It is truly scary.
Of course, you don't know why I mentioned Apocryphal writings. Afterall, no one here expects you TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID:
Oh, I remember mentioning Apocryphal writings...but I was talking about the Catholic belief in the constant virginity of Jesus. The actual quote you were responding to did not mention Apocryphal writings AT ALL
Oh, it isn't any stretch...but it isn't "clearly stated" that Mary had other children.
Remember, you said it "CLEARLY STATED" that Mary had other children, not that it is "heavily implied"
Oh, it isn't any stretch...but it isn't "clearly stated" that Mary had other children.
Remember, you said it "CLEARLY STATED" that Mary had other children, not that it is "heavily implied"
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."(Luke 2:6-7)
Since I know you to be forgetful(when it's convenient, that is), I started my Biblical citation with verse six. Yeah, "while THEY were there" refers to the fact that both Joseph and Mary had returned to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed IN THEIR OWN CITY. For those equally as forgetful as you, this clearly indicates that Mary was of the seed of David. Anyhow, once again, we see Luke mentioning how Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. NOT her only son, mind you, but her FIRSTBORN. There are other examples that I could cite, but I trust that these two will suffice for now. Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment. Well, you might be...you like to wear dog-collars and be tied to bedposts and all that. No problem...just ask and MR. BULLY(according to some sissies) will be happy to whip your ignorant behind once more.
You make a couple of mistakes here....
First, they went to Bethlehem because of David. It wouldn't make much sense to send a husband to his home city and a wife to hers. In fact, that would be downright convoluted. So it cannot be clearly concluded from the passage that Mary was of David. In fact, it says so in Luke: "and Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, that is called Bethlehem, because of his being of the house and family of David,"
Second, your argument for the use of the term "first-born" is hazardous. Jesus was the first-born even if he was an only child. It is completely speculative to even begin to use this as some justification that he had siblings. I am not dismissing the idea that Mary had other children, but there is much more tangible evidence than this single word.
The fact that you choose to use this as your "CLEARLY STATED" evidence is sad.
BTW...Paul used the same term to refer to Jesus...
Paul claimed that Jesus was the first-born son of God...and as far as I know, there aren't any other direct offspring of God!
But before you get all confused...remember the following.
I am not questioning the existence of siblings for Jesus.
I am not questioning the existence of Mary having other children.
I AM questioning the existence of a "CLEARLY STATED" reference to these siblings being the younger siblings of Jesus in the bible.
Do you understand the difference?
You probably cannot separate reality from fiction for a significant portion of time, but try your justification again(personally I might try the event of Mary and the siblings of Jesus coming to bring him home as a stronger evidence of a direct blood relation between Jesus and his siblings)
My goodness, I never thought teasing a delusional idiot could be so much fun!
Let me cut right to the meat(since you seem to leave so much unnecessary fat on your responses)
QUOTE
PuckSR: Your "argument" seems to change like the colors of a chameleon who is in danger(I know that chameleons change their colors for reasons other than "camoflauge", as well...no need to instruct me of such, O great teacher of men). Well, although you made several specific, unsubstantiated claims that you were unable to validate, I will grant that you did mention "translation" from time to time. Anyhow, as usual, you pass off your assumptions as fact. For example, whoever said that I don't "think that the Bible is a compilation of common texts"(assuming, which is dangerous around here, that we're talking about the same thing)? Certainly NOT me. Will you repeatedly ask me if I AM DISHONEST whilst simultaneously parading YOUR OWN DISHONESTY? Apparently, the answer to that question is a resounding "YES!". Pity. Additionally, whereas you certainly seem to enjoy attempting to confuse your hearers(to cover-up for your stupidity, I suppose), I've LONGTIME recognized/understood the difference between A TRANSLATION and the UNDERLYING TEXTS from which such a translation is made. Do I believe that the King James version of the Bible(I've read several other versions, by the way, in spite of your ridiculous/dishonest assertions) perfectly translates every word into English? NO, I DON'T. There you have it...straight from the horse's mouth(as opposed to the horse's @ss that continually seeks to speak on my behalf).
Do you believe the bible is the accurate word of God?
Which version do you believe is the accurate word of God?
Where would one find a copy of the accurate version?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PuckSR: Your "argument" seems to change like the colors of a chameleon who is in danger(I know that chameleons change their colors for reasons other than "camoflauge", as well...no need to instruct me of such, O great teacher of men). Well, although you made several specific, unsubstantiated claims that you were unable to validate, I will grant that you did mention "translation" from time to time. Anyhow, as usual, you pass off your assumptions as fact. For example, whoever said that I don't "think that the Bible is a compilation of common texts"(assuming, which is dangerous around here, that we're talking about the same thing)? Certainly NOT me. Will you repeatedly ask me if I AM DISHONEST whilst simultaneously parading YOUR OWN DISHONESTY? Apparently, the answer to that question is a resounding "YES!". Pity. Additionally, whereas you certainly seem to enjoy attempting to confuse your hearers(to cover-up for your stupidity, I suppose), I've LONGTIME recognized/understood the difference between A TRANSLATION and the UNDERLYING TEXTS from which such a translation is made. Do I believe that the King James version of the Bible(I've read several other versions, by the way, in spite of your ridiculous/dishonest assertions) perfectly translates every word into English? NO, I DON'T. There you have it...straight from the horse's mouth(as opposed to the horse's @ss that continually seeks to speak on my behalf). |
Do you believe the bible is the accurate word of God?
Which version do you believe is the accurate word of God?
Where would one find a copy of the accurate version?
Once again, your "argument" changes colors. Since this discussion began in a thread STARTED BY YOU that was entitled "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" and since you NOW "argue" that the Talmudic writers may have read a version of Luke's gospel that differs from the one contained in the King James Version of the Bible, where then is YOUR VALIDATION of such an, up to this point, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM? Bring it on, Puckster. I'll be waiting. Additionally, we don't "all know" any such things in regards to Othello. Some people, like myself, for example, have never even read the piece of literature which you so eloquently(in your self-inflating, thinking that you're some sort of literary genius, deluded mind, that is) expound upon.
Substantiated?
I said that they could have read a different version of Luke. "Could" means that it may or may not have happened. I didn't say that they did
Let us look at the facts(for which I can provide ample evidence)
There are many different versions of the Gospel of Luke
The are differences between most of the versions
Now, it is understandable that one version claimed that Heli was the father of Mary(anything is possible). The Talmud genealogy of Mary could have been based on such a version. We certainly cannot prove that it is impossible.
QUOTE
Although metaphors do clearly exist in scripture, I do NOT support your assertion that this is one such place in which one was used. Perhaps it would behoove you to examine some of the archaeological evidence from people who have actually dug around Jericho. You know(you probably don't), people like John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon, Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger. Unlike you(you probably paint your nails...you're into that kind of stuff), they actually got their hands dirty. Personally, I doubt that any of them concluded that "the tumbling of Jericho's walls" was merely metaphor.
Yet almost all of them concluded that Jericho's walls "tumbled" from an earthquake that occurred at a time incongruent with the account in the bible(Nigro and Marchetti 1997). In fact, Jericho is on an active fault line and has experienced multiple earthquakes. The evidence that a particularly destructive earthquake is not the biblical account can be clearly seen in that the protective walls were only partly damaged, and that they fell on themselves. Still providing a tall structure around the city.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although metaphors do clearly exist in scripture, I do NOT support your assertion that this is one such place in which one was used. Perhaps it would behoove you to examine some of the archaeological evidence from people who have actually dug around Jericho. You know(you probably don't), people like John Garstang, Kathleen Kenyon, Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger. Unlike you(you probably paint your nails...you're into that kind of stuff), they actually got their hands dirty. Personally, I doubt that any of them concluded that "the tumbling of Jericho's walls" was merely metaphor. |
Yet almost all of them concluded that Jericho's walls "tumbled" from an earthquake that occurred at a time incongruent with the account in the bible(Nigro and Marchetti 1997). In fact, Jericho is on an active fault line and has experienced multiple earthquakes. The evidence that a particularly destructive earthquake is not the biblical account can be clearly seen in that the protective walls were only partly damaged, and that they fell on themselves. Still providing a tall structure around the city.
According to the Torah, the Talmud and some Rabbis, "the seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is the Messiah. You don't suppose that these are Christian apologists, do you? You're a riot.
WAIT!
ohmy.gif
Don't tell me...let me guess...
unsure.gif
They're reading from a different book of Genesis, right?!?
Created a bit of a strawman argument there....
I dont remember mentioning Messiah prophecies.
Also, I have a great deal more respect for the Torah than I do the Christian writings. At least for several centuries before the date of Jesus the texts were carefully copied and checked for copyist errors. This is not the case for the Christian writings, since they were not even considered sacred for several hundred more years.
QUOTE
It "makes sense" that, at the early stages of mankind, there would be no other option than to procreate through people whom you were closely related to. Unlesss, of course, you believe in aliens and the such. Buttershug apparently believes in ET's. Yeah, he talks ENDLESSLY about Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. Well, at least he admits his affiliation with science fiction. Anyhow, out of curiosity, in your evolutionary world where people evolved from Chewbacca(a little plug to appease buttershug's wounded spirit), how did mankind procreate apart from sexual relations between closely related "individuals"(I don't know if I can call them "individuals"...they were "part this" and "part that", according to you)?
Well, we aren't really going to get anywhere here.
You believe the whole bible myth is equivalent to fact. I think it is myth.
I didn't realize how deep this sickness goes. It is truly scary.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It "makes sense" that, at the early stages of mankind, there would be no other option than to procreate through people whom you were closely related to. Unlesss, of course, you believe in aliens and the such. Buttershug apparently believes in ET's. Yeah, he talks ENDLESSLY about Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. Well, at least he admits his affiliation with science fiction. Anyhow, out of curiosity, in your evolutionary world where people evolved from Chewbacca(a little plug to appease buttershug's wounded spirit), how did mankind procreate apart from sexual relations between closely related "individuals"(I don't know if I can call them "individuals"...they were "part this" and "part that", according to you)? |
Well, we aren't really going to get anywhere here.
You believe the whole bible myth is equivalent to fact. I think it is myth.
I didn't realize how deep this sickness goes. It is truly scary.
Of course, you don't know why I mentioned Apocryphal writings. Afterall, no one here expects you TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID:
Oh, I remember mentioning Apocryphal writings...but I was talking about the Catholic belief in the constant virginity of Jesus. The actual quote you were responding to did not mention Apocryphal writings AT ALL
QUOTE
Actually, it does CLEARLY INDICATE such...to those with basic reading comprehension skills, that is(which is why you missed it). For example:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."(Matthew 1:24-25)
Since Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN(guess you missed that, huh?) son, it is pretty obvious that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Additionally, since Jesus is clearly referred to as Mary's FIRSTBORN son, it's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that she had other sons after him.
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."(Matthew 1:24-25)
Since Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN(guess you missed that, huh?) son, it is pretty obvious that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Additionally, since Jesus is clearly referred to as Mary's FIRSTBORN son, it's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that she had other sons after him.
Oh, it isn't any stretch...but it isn't "clearly stated" that Mary had other children.
Remember, you said it "CLEARLY STATED" that Mary had other children, not that it is "heavily implied"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually, it does CLEARLY INDICATE such...to those with basic reading comprehension skills, that is(which is why you missed it). For example: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."(Matthew 1:24-25) Since Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN(guess you missed that, huh?) son, it is pretty obvious that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Additionally, since Jesus is clearly referred to as Mary's FIRSTBORN son, it's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that she had other sons after him. |
Oh, it isn't any stretch...but it isn't "clearly stated" that Mary had other children.
Remember, you said it "CLEARLY STATED" that Mary had other children, not that it is "heavily implied"
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."(Luke 2:6-7)
Since I know you to be forgetful(when it's convenient, that is), I started my Biblical citation with verse six. Yeah, "while THEY were there" refers to the fact that both Joseph and Mary had returned to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed IN THEIR OWN CITY. For those equally as forgetful as you, this clearly indicates that Mary was of the seed of David. Anyhow, once again, we see Luke mentioning how Mary brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. NOT her only son, mind you, but her FIRSTBORN. There are other examples that I could cite, but I trust that these two will suffice for now. Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment. Well, you might be...you like to wear dog-collars and be tied to bedposts and all that. No problem...just ask and MR. BULLY(according to some sissies) will be happy to whip your ignorant behind once more.
You make a couple of mistakes here....
First, they went to Bethlehem because of David. It wouldn't make much sense to send a husband to his home city and a wife to hers. In fact, that would be downright convoluted. So it cannot be clearly concluded from the passage that Mary was of David. In fact, it says so in Luke: "and Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, that is called Bethlehem, because of his being of the house and family of David,"
Second, your argument for the use of the term "first-born" is hazardous. Jesus was the first-born even if he was an only child. It is completely speculative to even begin to use this as some justification that he had siblings. I am not dismissing the idea that Mary had other children, but there is much more tangible evidence than this single word.
The fact that you choose to use this as your "CLEARLY STATED" evidence is sad.
BTW...Paul used the same term to refer to Jesus...
Paul claimed that Jesus was the first-born son of God...and as far as I know, there aren't any other direct offspring of God!
But before you get all confused...remember the following.
I am not questioning the existence of siblings for Jesus.
I am not questioning the existence of Mary having other children.
I AM questioning the existence of a "CLEARLY STATED" reference to these siblings being the younger siblings of Jesus in the bible.
Do you understand the difference?
You probably cannot separate reality from fiction for a significant portion of time, but try your justification again(personally I might try the event of Mary and the siblings of Jesus coming to bring him home as a stronger evidence of a direct blood relation between Jesus and his siblings)
My goodness, I never thought teasing a delusional idiot could be so much fun!
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 29 2009, 11:28 PM)
Since Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN(guess you missed that, huh?) son, it is pretty obvious that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. Additionally, since Jesus is clearly referred to as Mary's FIRSTBORN son, it's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that she had other sons after Him.
Wholly Moses!!
Are you serious?
Are you unaware of the Jewish influence of the JC and the Bible?
Maybe you havn't seen Blazing Saddles, where Tagert suggests "we could kill the first born male of each household" and Hedy(that's Hedly) replies "no too Jewish".
You are aware of Moses and passover aren't you?
Where the Pharoh was going to kill every first born male but God beat him tothe punch?
That shows a president for the phrase "first born son" that has nothing to do with anyone having more than one son.
What makes you think there is such an inconsistency? You think the New Testament authors never read the Old One?
And I don't know why Puckster is trying to argue that the Bible is inconsistent. Newguy will be able to twist and pound the words to show that they are consistent.
And the arguement is not about the veracity of the Bible but rather ends up showing Newguys verbal acrobatics.
This is what I think of his method of argueing.
Contains good advice
Evidence that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6...are.html?cat=37
There I proved that Hamlet was a real person the way Newguy proves that JC was the Son of God. (well except I didn't call anyone a *****.)
In another thread he quoted the Talmud to back up what the Bible said.
To me that is like quoting Ivanhoe, to prove that Robin Hood was real.
Wholly Moses!!
Are you serious?
Are you unaware of the Jewish influence of the JC and the Bible?
Maybe you havn't seen Blazing Saddles, where Tagert suggests "we could kill the first born male of each household" and Hedy(that's Hedly) replies "no too Jewish".
You are aware of Moses and passover aren't you?
Where the Pharoh was going to kill every first born male but God beat him tothe punch?
That shows a president for the phrase "first born son" that has nothing to do with anyone having more than one son.
What makes you think there is such an inconsistency? You think the New Testament authors never read the Old One?
And I don't know why Puckster is trying to argue that the Bible is inconsistent. Newguy will be able to twist and pound the words to show that they are consistent.
And the arguement is not about the veracity of the Bible but rather ends up showing Newguys verbal acrobatics.
This is what I think of his method of argueing.
QUOTE
Polonius’ Advice to Laertes,
Divided into Pieces of Advice
Hamlet I, iii, 59-80
Lines 59-60
Give thy thoughts no tongue, Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Line 61
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Lines 62-65
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel; But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatch’d, unfledged comrade.
Lines 65-69
Beware Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Lines 70-74
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy; For the apparel oft proclaims the man, And they in France of the best rank and station Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Lines 75-77
Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Lines 78-80
This above all: to thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Divided into Pieces of Advice
Hamlet I, iii, 59-80
Lines 59-60
Give thy thoughts no tongue, Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Line 61
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Lines 62-65
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel; But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatch’d, unfledged comrade.
Lines 65-69
Beware Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Lines 70-74
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy; For the apparel oft proclaims the man, And they in France of the best rank and station Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Lines 75-77
Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Lines 78-80
This above all: to thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Contains good advice
Evidence that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6...are.html?cat=37
There I proved that Hamlet was a real person the way Newguy proves that JC was the Son of God. (well except I didn't call anyone a *****.)
In another thread he quoted the Talmud to back up what the Bible said.
To me that is like quoting Ivanhoe, to prove that Robin Hood was real.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I notice you cleverly avoided my comments about your misunderstandings of Greek...
PuckSR: "Cleverly avoided"? When? When I simply stated that I'd answer the remainder of your post within the next day or two? You flatter yourself. If I "cleverly avoid" anything, then I "cleverly avoid" wasting too much precious time on a bottomless pit of ignorance like you. Hold onto your panties...here comes my response.
PuckSR: "Cleverly avoided"? When? When I simply stated that I'd answer the remainder of your post within the next day or two? You flatter yourself. If I "cleverly avoid" anything, then I "cleverly avoid" wasting too much precious time on a bottomless pit of ignorance like you. Hold onto your panties...here comes my response.
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" March 24 2009)
The greek from which Luke 3:23 was translated it pretty clear. It references Heli as the Father of Joseph. You can try to twist and turn in the wind, but it doesn't say what you want it to say.
In fact, the theory that it was the genealogy of Mary wasn't suggested until the 15th century. Go ask a student of Greek. The greek version used for the KJV is:
υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι
The reason "the son" is added is because that form of possession wasn't used in Greek. A simplification is Joseph "the/he" Heli. This was the common way of indicating the son of someone. In other words, Luke 3:23 did not ambiguously point to Joseph as the son of Heli...it points directly to him being the son of Heli without any wiggle room.
This website might help you
Luke 3:23 with Greek dictionary
I love you stupid Christians and your imaginary knowledge.
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
The original is
ιωσηφ του ηλι or 'Joseph' του 'Heli'
it continues....
του 'Matthat' του 'Levi' του 'Melchi' του 'Jannai' του 'Jannai' or του ματθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιαννα του ιωσηφ
I thought you knew all about the bible?
Why would you lie?
Yes, technically "the son of" wasn't in the original, but that language's equivalent of the phrase was used. At the very least your argument is dishonest.
It isn't as if the original said "Joseph and then the father of someone else Heli.
As usual, you're a riot. Previously, you ERRONEOUSLY stated:
In fact, the theory that it was the genealogy of Mary wasn't suggested until the 15th century. Go ask a student of Greek. The greek version used for the KJV is:
υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι
The reason "the son" is added is because that form of possession wasn't used in Greek. A simplification is Joseph "the/he" Heli. This was the common way of indicating the son of someone. In other words, Luke 3:23 did not ambiguously point to Joseph as the son of Heli...it points directly to him being the son of Heli without any wiggle room.
This website might help you
Luke 3:23 with Greek dictionary
I love you stupid Christians and your imaginary knowledge.
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
The original is
ιωσηφ του ηλι or 'Joseph' του 'Heli'
it continues....
του 'Matthat' του 'Levi' του 'Melchi' του 'Jannai' του 'Jannai' or του ματθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιαννα του ιωσηφ
I thought you knew all about the bible?
Why would you lie?
Yes, technically "the son of" wasn't in the original, but that language's equivalent of the phrase was used. At the very least your argument is dishonest.
It isn't as if the original said "Joseph and then the father of someone else Heli.
As usual, you're a riot. Previously, you ERRONEOUSLY stated:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You didn't explain anything..
All you did was point to a comment in parenthesis(which means that it is meant to explain the translation and is not contained within the original text).
For those who haven't been closely following our conversation, the "comment in parentheses" which YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM "is not contained within the original text" is as follows:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"(Luke 3:23)
Let's briefly examine the underlying Greek text to see whether or not it contains the word that is translated as "supposed":
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
The underlined Greek word "enomizeto" is the word that has been translated as "supposed". So, as usual, YOU are in grave error. You argue against the word "supposed" that is supported by the underlying Greek text whilst simultaneously arguing in favor of the italicized words(which means that they're NOT part of the underlying Greek text) "the son" in relation to Joseph and Heli. Like I've said so many times before, you're a riot! YOUR error doesn't stop here, however. No, being the imbecile that you are, you had to insert your other foot into your mouth as well. I literally couldn't believe it(you might possibly be the biggest idiot that I've ever encountered in my lifetime) when I read:
All you did was point to a comment in parenthesis(which means that it is meant to explain the translation and is not contained within the original text).
For those who haven't been closely following our conversation, the "comment in parentheses" which YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM "is not contained within the original text" is as follows:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"(Luke 3:23)
Let's briefly examine the underlying Greek text to see whether or not it contains the word that is translated as "supposed":
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
The underlined Greek word "enomizeto" is the word that has been translated as "supposed". So, as usual, YOU are in grave error. You argue against the word "supposed" that is supported by the underlying Greek text whilst simultaneously arguing in favor of the italicized words(which means that they're NOT part of the underlying Greek text) "the son" in relation to Joseph and Heli. Like I've said so many times before, you're a riot! YOUR error doesn't stop here, however. No, being the imbecile that you are, you had to insert your other foot into your mouth as well. I literally couldn't believe it(you might possibly be the biggest idiot that I've ever encountered in my lifetime) when I read:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
The reason "the son" is added is because that form of possession wasn't used in Greek. A simplification is Joseph "the/he" Heli. This was the common way of indicating the son of someone.
And, again:
And, again:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I love you stupid Christians and your imaginary knowledge.
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
DUDE, PLEASE DON'T GO ANY FURTHER...I might go out and hang myself if you do, having lost all hope for humanity. Let me preface my response with the following:
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
Got it? No? Then I'll expound further.
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
Here, the underlined word "uiov" is translated as "son". In other words, in this passage, the underlying Greek text CLEARLY USES "the form of possession" that you claim "wasn't used in Greek" and CLEARLY "writes it the way" that you claim it isn't written. How can you be so stupid? Practice? That's what I thought. Additionally, as I pointed out last night on another thread, there are AT LEAST the following examples, as well, which point out the error of your thesis:
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
DUDE, PLEASE DON'T GO ANY FURTHER...I might go out and hang myself if you do, having lost all hope for humanity. Let me preface my response with the following:
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
Got it? No? Then I'll expound further.
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
Here, the underlined word "uiov" is translated as "son". In other words, in this passage, the underlying Greek text CLEARLY USES "the form of possession" that you claim "wasn't used in Greek" and CLEARLY "writes it the way" that you claim it isn't written. How can you be so stupid? Practice? That's what I thought. Additionally, as I pointed out last night on another thread, there are AT LEAST the following examples, as well, which point out the error of your thesis:
QUOTE (newguy+ "Richard Dawkins")
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."(Matthew 1:1)
Dude, THE VERY FIRST VERSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH WAS TRANSLATED FROM GREEK(I posted it in red because he's drawn to blood. Yep, in case you haven't heard, he's a vampire), uses the word "son" TWICE in reference to a genealogy. What are you trying to do...kill me? Seriously, dude, I laughed so hard when I read this latest example of your great *AHEM* "research abilities" that I almost choked on my own saliva! You're a riot! What's that? You want more? No problem. Try these two on for size:
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."(Matthew 1:20)
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."(Matthew 23:35)
Start with those three and then I'll give you more(You stupid SON OF...)
And I'm the "stupid Christian"? Yeah, right. Being the nice guy that I am, I'll give you something else to consider. Even if you could prove(and you can't) that IT IS IMPLIED that Joseph was "the son" of Heli, you still wouldn't really have proven anything. Consider the following:
"And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to-day?"(I Samuel 20:27)
Here, we see(well, you probably don't see it) Saul speaking unto HIS SON, JONATHAN, about DAVID, THE SON OF JESSE. With me, so far? Johathan was indeed Saul's son, whereas David was the son of Jesse and THE SON-IN-LAW of Saul.
"Then Abimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?"(I Samuel 22:14)
Although David was clearly Saul's SON-IN-LAW and although Saul rightly referred to David as THE SON OF JESSE at different times, you just might find some of the following commentary of interest:
"And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept."(I Samuel 24:16)
"And Saul knew David's voice, and said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And David said, It is my voice, my lord, O king."(I Samuel 26:17)
"Then said Saul, I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly."(I Samuel 26:21)
"Then said Saul to David, Blessed be thou, my son David: thou shalt both do great things, and also thou shalt still prevail. So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place."(I Samuel 26:25)
In each of these instances, Saul referred to David as "my son", even though he was David's FATHER-IN-LAW. Knowing you to be an imbecile, I expect that the implications of this will be totally missed by you, but I suspect that someone will understand. As far as your newest questions are concerned, you can basically "stick them" where the sun doesn't shine. As I've mentioned in the past, some of you(and this "some" DEFINITELY includes you) remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that I've encountered over the years. I'll refute every single thing that they say and they either just ask a bunch more questions, without ever admitting any/all of their already documented errors, or they'll just simply go next door and start all over again, having learned nothing and having remained in their ignorance. I will briefly address a couple of things in your most recent post some time soon(hopefully today) because they are a continuation of things that we've already discussed. After that, I'm through with you for quite some time. Aside from my busy work schedule, I've got to prepare my taxes and I simply have more important things to do with my time than to waste it on an incorrigible imbecile like you. See you around...
P.S. How does it feel to be even lower than Saul? At least he half-heartedly admitted that he had "played the fool" and "erred exceedingly". I don't suppose that you're man enough to do the same. Pity.
Dude, THE VERY FIRST VERSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH WAS TRANSLATED FROM GREEK(I posted it in red because he's drawn to blood. Yep, in case you haven't heard, he's a vampire), uses the word "son" TWICE in reference to a genealogy. What are you trying to do...kill me? Seriously, dude, I laughed so hard when I read this latest example of your great *AHEM* "research abilities" that I almost choked on my own saliva! You're a riot! What's that? You want more? No problem. Try these two on for size:
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."(Matthew 1:20)
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."(Matthew 23:35)
Start with those three and then I'll give you more(You stupid SON OF...)
And I'm the "stupid Christian"? Yeah, right. Being the nice guy that I am, I'll give you something else to consider. Even if you could prove(and you can't) that IT IS IMPLIED that Joseph was "the son" of Heli, you still wouldn't really have proven anything. Consider the following:
"And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to-day?"(I Samuel 20:27)
Here, we see(well, you probably don't see it) Saul speaking unto HIS SON, JONATHAN, about DAVID, THE SON OF JESSE. With me, so far? Johathan was indeed Saul's son, whereas David was the son of Jesse and THE SON-IN-LAW of Saul.
"Then Abimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?"(I Samuel 22:14)
Although David was clearly Saul's SON-IN-LAW and although Saul rightly referred to David as THE SON OF JESSE at different times, you just might find some of the following commentary of interest:
"And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept."(I Samuel 24:16)
"And Saul knew David's voice, and said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And David said, It is my voice, my lord, O king."(I Samuel 26:17)
"Then said Saul, I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly."(I Samuel 26:21)
"Then said Saul to David, Blessed be thou, my son David: thou shalt both do great things, and also thou shalt still prevail. So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place."(I Samuel 26:25)
In each of these instances, Saul referred to David as "my son", even though he was David's FATHER-IN-LAW. Knowing you to be an imbecile, I expect that the implications of this will be totally missed by you, but I suspect that someone will understand. As far as your newest questions are concerned, you can basically "stick them" where the sun doesn't shine. As I've mentioned in the past, some of you(and this "some" DEFINITELY includes you) remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that I've encountered over the years. I'll refute every single thing that they say and they either just ask a bunch more questions, without ever admitting any/all of their already documented errors, or they'll just simply go next door and start all over again, having learned nothing and having remained in their ignorance. I will briefly address a couple of things in your most recent post some time soon(hopefully today) because they are a continuation of things that we've already discussed. After that, I'm through with you for quite some time. Aside from my busy work schedule, I've got to prepare my taxes and I simply have more important things to do with my time than to waste it on an incorrigible imbecile like you. See you around...
P.S. How does it feel to be even lower than Saul? At least he half-heartedly admitted that he had "played the fool" and "erred exceedingly". I don't suppose that you're man enough to do the same. Pity.
I may as well finish up here...
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims")
2) Luke really is writing about Mary's genealogy, Jesus needed to be related to David to fulfill prophecy. Luke made up a genealogy after realizing that if Joseph was an ancestor of David it wouldn't make Jesus a blood relative of David
QUOTE (newguy+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims")
I've already begun to refute(there's more to come) your first scenario, so I'll now briefly address the second scenario. The Messiah's "natural" descent was always(long before Luke was ever born) intended to be linked to a female and not to a male as His Father is none other than God Himself. Going all the way back to the book of Genesis, we read:
"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."(Genesis 3:15)
Here, in what is sometimes called the "proto-evangelicum"(the first good news), God declared that the Messiah, the One who would bruise Satan's head, would be the seed of a woman. As far as your objections to the virgin birth are concerned, need I to remind you that we've already travelled down that path in the past? Do I need to link to our previous discussion along these lines for any of buttershug's "Johnny-come-latelies"? I'll be happy to do so, if such a need presents itself.
"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."(Genesis 3:15)
Here, in what is sometimes called the "proto-evangelicum"(the first good news), God declared that the Messiah, the One who would bruise Satan's head, would be the seed of a woman. As far as your objections to the virgin birth are concerned, need I to remind you that we've already travelled down that path in the past? Do I need to link to our previous discussion along these lines for any of buttershug's "Johnny-come-latelies"? I'll be happy to do so, if such a need presents itself.
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "The Genealogy of Jesus")
So if we assume the bible is accurate and creatively read much older passages...we can explain away some technical errors? Of course, you are assuming the accuracy of the bible to defend an inaccuracy of the bible later. Doesn't that make you dishonest?
QUOTE (newguy+ "The Genealogy of Jesus")
And who exactly is "creatively reading much older passages"? Hmmm? Couldn't be YOU, could it? Nah, couldn't be. It might interest you to know that there are VERY MANY WITHIN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY who recognize the aforementioned passage in Genesis 3:15 as being "Messianic". For example:
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apolo...-messiah-torah/
The Messiah is called HaShem, the Beit El
by Israel b. Betzalel
We have no other King, Savior, or Redeemer than HaShem. If one does not believe this, then they are not Jewish, and an idolater according to the Talmud. The Messiah is the King, Savior, and Redeemer of Israel. If one does not believe this, and does not expect his coming, then you have no share in the World to Come according to the RaMBaM. If one rebels against the Messiah, he will not forgive that person, according to the Torah.
The Messiah is the Promised Seed
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Gen 4:25
Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
Who is this “seed”?
It is said in Midrash Rabbah B’reisheit:
ה וידע אדם עוד את אשתו נתוסף לו תאוה על תאותו לשעבר אם לא היה רואה לא היה מתאוה עכשיו בין רואה בין שאינו רואה הוא מתאוה רבי אבא בר יודן בשם רבי אחא רמז למפרשי ימים שיהיו נזכרים את בתיהם ובאים מיד ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו’ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל אמר נסתכלה אותו זרע שהוא בא ממקום אחר ואי זה זה מלך המשיח תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין לשני אילנות שהיו סמוכין זה לזה פכרה רוח את אחד מהן ונפל על חבירו ופכרו כך תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין
“Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the Messiah, the King.”
Furthermore, RaDaK - Rabbi David Kimchi says:
“As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.”
According to the Torah, the Talmud and some Rabbis, "the seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is the Messiah. You don't suppose that these are Christian apologists, do you? You're a riot.
WAIT!
Don't tell me...let me guess...
They're reading from a different book of Genesis, right?!?
You're an imbecile(that was just to upset buttershug...he probably dropped the plastic "wookiees" that he was playing with when he read it).
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apolo...-messiah-torah/
The Messiah is called HaShem, the Beit El
by Israel b. Betzalel
We have no other King, Savior, or Redeemer than HaShem. If one does not believe this, then they are not Jewish, and an idolater according to the Talmud. The Messiah is the King, Savior, and Redeemer of Israel. If one does not believe this, and does not expect his coming, then you have no share in the World to Come according to the RaMBaM. If one rebels against the Messiah, he will not forgive that person, according to the Torah.
The Messiah is the Promised Seed
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Gen 4:25
Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
Who is this “seed”?
It is said in Midrash Rabbah B’reisheit:
ה וידע אדם עוד את אשתו נתוסף לו תאוה על תאותו לשעבר אם לא היה רואה לא היה מתאוה עכשיו בין רואה בין שאינו רואה הוא מתאוה רבי אבא בר יודן בשם רבי אחא רמז למפרשי ימים שיהיו נזכרים את בתיהם ובאים מיד ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו’ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל אמר נסתכלה אותו זרע שהוא בא ממקום אחר ואי זה זה מלך המשיח תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין לשני אילנות שהיו סמוכין זה לזה פכרה רוח את אחד מהן ונפל על חבירו ופכרו כך תחת הבל כי הרגו קין מחטייה של הבל נהרג קין
“Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the Messiah, the King.”
Furthermore, RaDaK - Rabbi David Kimchi says:
“As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.”
According to the Torah, the Talmud and some Rabbis, "the seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is the Messiah. You don't suppose that these are Christian apologists, do you? You're a riot.
WAIT!
Don't tell me...let me guess...
They're reading from a different book of Genesis, right?!?
You're an imbecile(that was just to upset buttershug...he probably dropped the plastic "wookiees" that he was playing with when he read it).
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "The Genealogy of Jesus')
Created a bit of a strawman argument there....
I dont remember mentioning Messiah prophecies.
Of course(for the intelligent, that is), there was no straw man at all. I mentioned to you that the Messiah's descent was always linked to a female, long before Luke ever came along, and I quoted from Genesis 3:15 to substantiate this claim. You, in turn, accused me of "creatively interpreting older passages", which prompted me to show you how that a great number of Jews recognize the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy. And NOW you don't remember that "Messiah prophecies" were "mentioned"? How convenient. That's a pretty selective memory that you have there, PuckSR. Pretty selective, indeed. This next one not only demonstrates another instance where your selective memory comes into play, but it also shows how utterly incapable you are of even the most basic research:
I dont remember mentioning Messiah prophecies.
Of course(for the intelligent, that is), there was no straw man at all. I mentioned to you that the Messiah's descent was always linked to a female, long before Luke ever came along, and I quoted from Genesis 3:15 to substantiate this claim. You, in turn, accused me of "creatively interpreting older passages", which prompted me to show you how that a great number of Jews recognize the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy. And NOW you don't remember that "Messiah prophecies" were "mentioned"? How convenient. That's a pretty selective memory that you have there, PuckSR. Pretty selective, indeed. This next one not only demonstrates another instance where your selective memory comes into play, but it also shows how utterly incapable you are of even the most basic research:
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims")
It gets really complicated though...
Tradition holds that Mary's father was named Joachim.(The Gospel of James makes mention of this fact) Maybe that isn't true. Maybe you are right
Tradition holds that Mary's father was named Joachim.(The Gospel of James makes mention of this fact) Maybe that isn't true. Maybe you are right
QUOTE (newguy+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims")
Although I'm personally no fan of either "tradition" or Apocryphal writings, your two sources of "proof", I will say that there are plenty of people who insist(I don't know if they're correct or not) that the names "Joachim", "Eliachim/Eliakim" and "Eli/Heli" all mean the same thing. A quick Google search will show you what I mean. Anyhow, I tried looking up the etymological roots of these three names online, but the site that I usually use didn't offer any information on any of them. You're free to conduct your own research, if you'd like. Personally, I've already wasted enough time on this topic.
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims")
And this brings up an interesting point. Apologetics frequently manufactures its own facts.
Want an example...
According to Catholics, Jesus had no siblings. Despite the fact that he clearly did have siblings. Ignoring the fact that it clearly states that he had 2 brothers and 4 sisters.
How do Catholics get around this?
They claim that the term for 'sibling' and 'relative'(such as cousin) are the same. This, of course, is false. The term used to describe Jesus' siblings is not used anywhere else in the New Testament to describe 'relatives'. In fact, any expert on text will confirm that this 'hypothesis' is speculative at best.
There seems to be only two requirements for a "apologetic's hypothesis":
1) It conforms with your personal opinion
2) It isn't easily falsifiable.
Do the people who make this suggestion of Joachim=Heli have any supporting evidence for their claim, or is it merely a convenient excuse to simplify the entire conversation?
Want an example...
According to Catholics, Jesus had no siblings. Despite the fact that he clearly did have siblings. Ignoring the fact that it clearly states that he had 2 brothers and 4 sisters.
How do Catholics get around this?
They claim that the term for 'sibling' and 'relative'(such as cousin) are the same. This, of course, is false. The term used to describe Jesus' siblings is not used anywhere else in the New Testament to describe 'relatives'. In fact, any expert on text will confirm that this 'hypothesis' is speculative at best.
There seems to be only two requirements for a "apologetic's hypothesis":
1) It conforms with your personal opinion
2) It isn't easily falsifiable.
Do the people who make this suggestion of Joachim=Heli have any supporting evidence for their claim, or is it merely a convenient excuse to simplify the entire conversation?
QUOTE (newguy+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims")
I've already told you that I'm no fan of either tradition or Apocryphal writings, so I'll only comment briefly. The Biblical record clearly states that Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations after Jesus was born and that they had children together. Catholics deny this? Of course, they do. They deny a whole host of things that are plainly stated in scripture to support THEIR OWN un-Biblical doctrines(in this case, Mary's perpetual virginity). As far as the names are concerned, whether or not they mean the same thing, I cannot presently tell. I told you that it's unimportant to me and I only mentioned it because you brought up something that is contained within an Apocryphal book.
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "The Genealogy of Jesus")
I don't know why you mentioned Apocryphal writings...since it was in response to a comment that made no mention of them.
QUOTE (newguy+ "The Genealogy of Jesus")
Of course, you don't know why I mentioned Apocryphal writings. Afterall, no one here expects you TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID:
It gets really complicated though...
Tradition holds that Mary's father was named Joachim.(The Gospel of James makes mention of this fact) Maybe that isn't true. Maybe you are right
Dude, that was only a week ago...did you drink some tainted blood or something?(the guy's a vampire). By the way, I asked you a while back if you slept hanging upside in a closet like Grandpa Munster or not. You never did answer. Maybe too much blood was rushing to your head before you posted? Or maybe, just maybe, this is just another example of your stupidity. Anyhow, for those of you who don't already know, THE GOSPEL OF JAMES THAT PUCKSR MADE REFERENCE TO is considered an Apocryphal book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150.
Would any of you want this guy, PuckSR, to conduct scientific research for you? Quite frankly, I don't think that the guy is capable of wiping his own @ss, which is why I have the uneviable job of consistently wiping it for him.
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "Validity of Unsubstantiated Claims" March 22 2009)
It gets really complicated though...
Tradition holds that Mary's father was named Joachim.(The Gospel of James makes mention of this fact) Maybe that isn't true. Maybe you are right
Dude, that was only a week ago...did you drink some tainted blood or something?(the guy's a vampire). By the way, I asked you a while back if you slept hanging upside in a closet like Grandpa Munster or not. You never did answer. Maybe too much blood was rushing to your head before you posted? Or maybe, just maybe, this is just another example of your stupidity. Anyhow, for those of you who don't already know, THE GOSPEL OF JAMES THAT PUCKSR MADE REFERENCE TO is considered an Apocryphal book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150.
Would any of you want this guy, PuckSR, to conduct scientific research for you? Quite frankly, I don't think that the guy is capable of wiping his own @ss, which is why I have the uneviable job of consistently wiping it for him.
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "The Genealogy of Jesus")
Oh, I remember mentioning Apocryphal writings...but I was talking about the Catholic belief in the constant virginity of Jesus. The actual quote you were responding to did not mention Apocryphal writings AT ALL
First of all, you were talking about BOTH the Catholic belief in the constant virginity of Jesus AND the suggestion that Joachim = Heli. YOU are the one who first mentioned Joachim and YOU quoted an Apocryphal book to do so. Additionally, YOU IMBECILE, this very same Apocryphal book partially explains why Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Jesus(since YOU asked how they get around the fact that the Bible states that Jesus had brothers and sisters). Had you bothered to click on the link that I provided for you in an earlier response, then you would have/should have noticed the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150. The Gospel of James may be the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary by stating her perpetual virginity and presenting her as the New Eve.
Just another example of your *AHEM* "great research abilities", I'm afraid. How about taking a piece of friendly advice?
Go shack up in a closet inside of some cloister for about 3 years or so. While you're there, grow a beard down to your ankles, so no one recognizes your stupid @ss when you come out. Wait...I almost forgot...you're a vampire, which means that you probably sleep hanging upside down. In that case, grow a beard UP to your ankles before you come out. Don't worry about lost time with dominatrices and the such...afterall, there's always altar boys to keep you busy. You considered the Catholic priesthood before, if I recall correctly. Dude, you're a natural for the position...dumb as an ox and kinky as can be. I'm finished with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
First of all, you were talking about BOTH the Catholic belief in the constant virginity of Jesus AND the suggestion that Joachim = Heli. YOU are the one who first mentioned Joachim and YOU quoted an Apocryphal book to do so. Additionally, YOU IMBECILE, this very same Apocryphal book partially explains why Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Jesus(since YOU asked how they get around the fact that the Bible states that Jesus had brothers and sisters). Had you bothered to click on the link that I provided for you in an earlier response, then you would have/should have noticed the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150. The Gospel of James may be the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary by stating her perpetual virginity and presenting her as the New Eve.
Just another example of your *AHEM* "great research abilities", I'm afraid. How about taking a piece of friendly advice?
Go shack up in a closet inside of some cloister for about 3 years or so. While you're there, grow a beard down to your ankles, so no one recognizes your stupid @ss when you come out. Wait...I almost forgot...you're a vampire, which means that you probably sleep hanging upside down. In that case, grow a beard UP to your ankles before you come out. Don't worry about lost time with dominatrices and the such...afterall, there's always altar boys to keep you busy. You considered the Catholic priesthood before, if I recall correctly. Dude, you're a natural for the position...dumb as an ox and kinky as can be. I'm finished with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
Oooops...I momentarily forgot to address one other thing:
Of course(for the intelligent, that is), there was no straw man at all. I mentioned to you that the Messiah's descent was always linked to a female, long before Luke ever came along, and I quoted from Genesis 3:15 to substantiate this claim. You, in turn, accused me of "creatively interpreting older passages", which prompted me to show you how that a great number of Jews recognize the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy.
"The" is the definite article. "A" is the indefinite article.
"The" is used when refering to a specific example of what is being discussed.
In Genesis the woman being discussed is Eve. (I thought you would know that)
And it says seed not son. I would think that would mean any desendent not just a child.
If Mary was the person being talked about wouldn't it be written as "a woman"?
And I still see no difference between your arguements and someone trying to prove that Hamlet or Robin Hood were real people based on the books about them.
While you're at it, you might want to do some more *AHEM* "research" to find out how many people view Psalm 69 as a Messianic prophecy that pertains directly to Jesus. For example, you might want to compare:
"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."(Psalm 69:21)
with:
"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."(Matthew 27:34)
Au revoir!
You might want to read Dune by Frank Herbert.
He uses this technique in his book.
The Bene Jesurit(sp) would make prophecies then members that went later would full fill said prophecies.
I guess that technique works in real life.
All your quotes show is that Mathew knew of the first one.
Another possibility is that it was a more common saying back then.
Good to see I haven't rattled your cage too much...LMAO
Good to see I haven't rattled your cage too much...LMAO
For those who haven't been closely following our conversation, the "comment in parentheses" which YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM "is not contained within the original text" is as follows:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"(Luke 3:23)
Let's briefly examine the underlying Greek text to see whether or not it contains the word that is translated as "supposed":
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
You are correct...I was wrong about that.
My sincere apologies
It doesn't really change much...but glad I forced you to read some Greek.
Now, this is a bit funny.
I was clearly pointing to the next verse, Luke 3:24
I was discussing that the form of possession "the son of" was not used in genealogies.
i.e.
Luke 3:24(which is discussing the ancestors of Heli)
Heli is not called the son of Matthat.
You clearly lack the ability to comprehend my posts, but I guess I will explain it as if to a child:
in the original greek Joseph is not called the "son of" Heli. Heli is also not called "the son" of Matthat.
The term used in Luke 3:23 is "huios", which is a very general term for offspring.
It can even be used to refer to the offspring of animals. The term "huios" is used in Luke 3:23 to reference that Joseph is not the genetic parent of Jesus. It is not used to describe a lineage.
It could be used in a genealogy(and is elsewhere), but Luke refrains from using the term.
Do you understand?
The greek text clearly identifies Joseph as the son of Heli. It is just a different syntax
Now, this is a bit funny.
I was clearly pointing to the next verse, Luke 3:24
I was discussing that the form of possession "the son of" was not used in genealogies.
i.e.
Luke 3:24(which is discussing the ancestors of Heli)
Heli is not called the son of Matthat.
You clearly lack the ability to comprehend my posts, but I guess I will explain it as if to a child:
in the original greek Joseph is not called the "son of" Heli. Heli is also not called "the son" of Matthat.
The term used in Luke 3:23 is "huios", which is a very general term for offspring.
It can even be used to refer to the offspring of animals. The term "huios" is used in Luke 3:23 to reference that Joseph is not the genetic parent of Jesus. It is not used to describe a lineage.
It could be used in a genealogy(and is elsewhere), but Luke refrains from using the term.
Do you understand?
The greek text clearly identifies Joseph as the son of Heli. It is just a different syntax
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."(Matthew 1:1)
Dude, THE VERY FIRST VERSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH WAS TRANSLATED FROM GREEK(I posted it in red because he's drawn to blood. Yep, in case you haven't heard, he's a vampire), uses the word "son" TWICE in reference to a genealogy. What are you trying to do...kill me? Seriously, dude, I laughed so hard when I read this latest example of your great *AHEM* "research abilities" that I almost choked on my own saliva! You're a riot! What's that? You want more? No problem. Try these two on for size:
Notice that matthew uses "huios" each time?
Notice that in the entire genealogy Luke only uses huios at all after discussing Jesus as the supposed offspring of Joseph?
You would have a legitimate argument if Luke used the term repeatedly in his genealogy...but he doesn't. He uses it one when discussing the Jesus/Joseph relationship.
Did you just compare the English translation of a Hebrew text with the English translation of a Greek text to prove that using the term "son" can mean "son-in-law"?
Are you serious? This is your grand point?
You point to a text in a different language written by a different author to prove that the term "son" could be applied to in-laws?
That may be the silliest thing I have ever read. You just pointed to a text that was written in a completely different language, centuries earlier, by a completely different culture to prove...what?
Do you realize that you can't do that?
It isn't applicable!!!!!
**************************************************************
So, let me see if I understand your position.
Despite being a Christian, you find it necessary to hurl insults at anyone who tries to discuss the bible with you?
Then, you make highly specious arguments that border on nonsensical
i.e.
Mary had other siblings because Jesus was called "the first-born"?
Luke uses the term "son" once in his entire genealogy of Jesus....which clearly indicates that all of the rest of the genealogy is not referring to father/sons?
You randomly reference the Hebrew use of the term "son" to indicate a son-in-law...which proves that all greek authors did the same?
You start quoting ancient prophecies to discuss the genealogy of a person?
Do the absurdity of your arguments?
It is as if you decided the facts, and then randomly construct arguments to support your pre-determined facts. The arguments do not need to be factually accurate, or be based on any form of rational thought. As long as it supports your predetermined fact...it is a good argument.
*************************************************************
So...when are we going to hear an apology for your "walls of Jericho" comment?
How about your "first-born" proves a "second-born" argument?
Also, I simply cannot believe the level of ad hominem in your posts.
Why lash out so bluntly? Does it upset you that I dare tread in the waters of your religion? Do you lack the objectivity to discuss this topic with someone who does not agree with you?
Actually...that is a very good question.
Recently research indicates that our genetic diversity is great enough that cousins can typically have children without any ill effects. I wouldn't recommend it...but it wouldn't produce automatic deformaties
So, why allow it when there are a limited number of people(I understand that according to the mythology they needed to populate the Earth), but why did it suddenly become wrong?
QUOTE
In other words, Luke 3:23 did not ambiguously point to Joseph as the son of Heli...it points directly to him being the son of Heli without any wiggle room.
And, again:
QUOTE (PuckSR)
I love you stupid Christians and your imaginary knowledge.
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
DUDE, PLEASE DON'T GO ANY FURTHER...I might go out and hang myself if you do, having lost all hope for humanity. Let me preface my response with the following:
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN:
http://www.searchgodsword.org ...
MisterBelfry March 26 2009, 08:02 AM
>>> You should find the number 9999 three times for a total of six added words in Luke 3:23. <<< Maybe just five if the translator(s) says "old" instead "of age".
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE
(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions: (a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke; ( b ) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli; ( c ) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ib, 128).
(4) (a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli,
--------------
You both are a riot.
I'll note here that the NKJV does italicize Godet's article.
However, it still misses "of age." But for cause of readablity, i don't really give a damn. Someone should find a good interlinear biblical website. I dislike the one at Newguy's link. {Those weren't Strong's numbers @ searchgodsword. I don't know what they were.} However, it had an option for something I never heard of.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING
TO THE BYZANTINE/MAJORITY TEXTFORM
The Greek Text Edited by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont
Prepared and edited in disk format by
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
©1991, The Original Word Publishers, Atlanta
All Rights Reserved
Released on disk in Online Bible format
as FREEWARE by the
Editors and Publisher
3 April 1992
NOTICE the EXTENSION ····· NOTICE the SIZE ····· FAIR WARNING
http://www.online-bible.com/english-site/byz.exe
Byzantine Greek Majority Textform 1991
Byzantine/Majority Textform Keyed to Strongs and Fully Parsed. Prepared by Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. (See Copyright Information) 970mb.
However, I seriously doubt Luke 3:23 has any variation!
MrB.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
But before you get all confused...remember the following.
I am not questioning the existence of siblings for Jesus.
I am not questioning the existence of Mary having other children.
I AM questioning the existence of a "CLEARLY STATED" reference to these siblings being the younger siblings of Jesus in the bible.
Do you understand the difference?
In your leisure time(when you're not busy drinking blood, tying women to bedposts, conducting *AHEM* "research", etc.), perhaps you should peruse Psalm 69. In it, you will find the following:
"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children."(Psalm 69:8)
While you're at it, you might want to do some more *AHEM* "research" to find out how many people view Psalm 69 as a Messianic prophecy that pertains directly to Jesus. For example, you might want to compare:
"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."(Psalm 69:21)
with:
"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."(Matthew 27:34)
Au revoir!
I am not questioning the existence of siblings for Jesus.
I am not questioning the existence of Mary having other children.
I AM questioning the existence of a "CLEARLY STATED" reference to these siblings being the younger siblings of Jesus in the bible.
Do you understand the difference?
In your leisure time(when you're not busy drinking blood, tying women to bedposts, conducting *AHEM* "research", etc.), perhaps you should peruse Psalm 69. In it, you will find the following:
"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children."(Psalm 69:8)
While you're at it, you might want to do some more *AHEM* "research" to find out how many people view Psalm 69 as a Messianic prophecy that pertains directly to Jesus. For example, you might want to compare:
"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."(Psalm 69:21)
with:
"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."(Matthew 27:34)
Au revoir!
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 30 2009, 04:20 PM)
Of course(for the intelligent, that is), there was no straw man at all. I mentioned to you that the Messiah's descent was always linked to a female, long before Luke ever came along, and I quoted from Genesis 3:15 to substantiate this claim. You, in turn, accused me of "creatively interpreting older passages", which prompted me to show you how that a great number of Jews recognize the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy.
"The" is the definite article. "A" is the indefinite article.
"The" is used when refering to a specific example of what is being discussed.
In Genesis the woman being discussed is Eve. (I thought you would know that)
And it says seed not son. I would think that would mean any desendent not just a child.
If Mary was the person being talked about wouldn't it be written as "a woman"?
And I still see no difference between your arguements and someone trying to prove that Hamlet or Robin Hood were real people based on the books about them.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 30 2009, 04:33 PM)
While you're at it, you might want to do some more *AHEM* "research" to find out how many people view Psalm 69 as a Messianic prophecy that pertains directly to Jesus. For example, you might want to compare:
"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."(Psalm 69:21)
with:
"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."(Matthew 27:34)
Au revoir!
You might want to read Dune by Frank Herbert.
He uses this technique in his book.
The Bene Jesurit(sp) would make prophecies then members that went later would full fill said prophecies.
I guess that technique works in real life.
All your quotes show is that Mathew knew of the first one.
Another possibility is that it was a more common saying back then.
You know, this would have been an enlightening debate if not for the hostility. I thought a scholarly view compared to an apologetic view would be interesting. I still think it could be.
QUOTE
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
Good to see I haven't rattled your cage too much...LMAO
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N! |
Good to see I haven't rattled your cage too much...LMAO
For those who haven't been closely following our conversation, the "comment in parentheses" which YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM "is not contained within the original text" is as follows:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"(Luke 3:23)
Let's briefly examine the underlying Greek text to see whether or not it contains the word that is translated as "supposed":
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
You are correct...I was wrong about that.
My sincere apologies
It doesn't really change much...but glad I forced you to read some Greek.
QUOTE
DUDE, PLEASE DON'T GO ANY FURTHER...I might go out and hang myself if you do, having lost all hope for humanity. Let me preface my response with the following:
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
Got it? No? Then I'll expound further.
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
Got it? No? Then I'll expound further.
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli
Now, this is a bit funny.
I was clearly pointing to the next verse, Luke 3:24
I was discussing that the form of possession "the son of" was not used in genealogies.
i.e.
Luke 3:24(which is discussing the ancestors of Heli)
Heli is not called the son of Matthat.
You clearly lack the ability to comprehend my posts, but I guess I will explain it as if to a child:
in the original greek Joseph is not called the "son of" Heli. Heli is also not called "the son" of Matthat.
The term used in Luke 3:23 is "huios", which is a very general term for offspring.
It can even be used to refer to the offspring of animals. The term "huios" is used in Luke 3:23 to reference that Joseph is not the genetic parent of Jesus. It is not used to describe a lineage.
It could be used in a genealogy(and is elsewhere), but Luke refrains from using the term.
Do you understand?
The greek text clearly identifies Joseph as the son of Heli. It is just a different syntax
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| DUDE, PLEASE DON'T GO ANY FURTHER...I might go out and hang myself if you do, having lost all hope for humanity. Let me preface my response with the following: YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N! Got it? No? Then I'll expound further. How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN: http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cg...b=lu&ng=3&ncc=3 Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began (5734) to be (5713) about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed (5712)) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arxomenov wn wv enomizeto uiov Iwshf tou Hli |
Now, this is a bit funny.
I was clearly pointing to the next verse, Luke 3:24
I was discussing that the form of possession "the son of" was not used in genealogies.
i.e.
Luke 3:24(which is discussing the ancestors of Heli)
Heli is not called the son of Matthat.
You clearly lack the ability to comprehend my posts, but I guess I will explain it as if to a child:
in the original greek Joseph is not called the "son of" Heli. Heli is also not called "the son" of Matthat.
The term used in Luke 3:23 is "huios", which is a very general term for offspring.
It can even be used to refer to the offspring of animals. The term "huios" is used in Luke 3:23 to reference that Joseph is not the genetic parent of Jesus. It is not used to describe a lineage.
It could be used in a genealogy(and is elsewhere), but Luke refrains from using the term.
Do you understand?
The greek text clearly identifies Joseph as the son of Heli. It is just a different syntax
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."(Matthew 1:1)
Dude, THE VERY FIRST VERSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH WAS TRANSLATED FROM GREEK(I posted it in red because he's drawn to blood. Yep, in case you haven't heard, he's a vampire), uses the word "son" TWICE in reference to a genealogy. What are you trying to do...kill me? Seriously, dude, I laughed so hard when I read this latest example of your great *AHEM* "research abilities" that I almost choked on my own saliva! You're a riot! What's that? You want more? No problem. Try these two on for size:
Notice that matthew uses "huios" each time?
Notice that in the entire genealogy Luke only uses huios at all after discussing Jesus as the supposed offspring of Joseph?
You would have a legitimate argument if Luke used the term repeatedly in his genealogy...but he doesn't. He uses it one when discussing the Jesus/Joseph relationship.
QUOTE
In each of these instances, Saul referred to David as "my son", even though he was David's FATHER-IN-LAW. Knowing you to be an imbecile, I expect that the implications of this will be totally missed by you, but I suspect that someone will understand. As far as your newest questions are concerned, you can basically "stick them" where the sun doesn't shine. As I've mentioned in the past, some of you(and this "some" DEFINITELY includes you) remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that I've encountered over the years. I'll refute every single thing that they say and they either just ask a bunch more questions, without ever admitting any/all of their already documented errors, or they'll just simply go next door and start all over again, having learned nothing and having remained in their ignorance. I will briefly address a couple of things in your most recent post some time soon(hopefully today) because they are a continuation of things that we've already discussed. After that, I'm through with you for quite some time. Aside from my busy work schedule, I've got to prepare my taxes and I simply have more important things to do with my time than to waste it on an incorrigible imbecile like you. See you around...
Did you just compare the English translation of a Hebrew text with the English translation of a Greek text to prove that using the term "son" can mean "son-in-law"?
Are you serious? This is your grand point?
You point to a text in a different language written by a different author to prove that the term "son" could be applied to in-laws?
That may be the silliest thing I have ever read. You just pointed to a text that was written in a completely different language, centuries earlier, by a completely different culture to prove...what?
Do you realize that you can't do that?
It isn't applicable!!!!!
**************************************************************
So, let me see if I understand your position.
Despite being a Christian, you find it necessary to hurl insults at anyone who tries to discuss the bible with you?
Then, you make highly specious arguments that border on nonsensical
i.e.
Mary had other siblings because Jesus was called "the first-born"?
Luke uses the term "son" once in his entire genealogy of Jesus....which clearly indicates that all of the rest of the genealogy is not referring to father/sons?
You randomly reference the Hebrew use of the term "son" to indicate a son-in-law...which proves that all greek authors did the same?
You start quoting ancient prophecies to discuss the genealogy of a person?
Do the absurdity of your arguments?
It is as if you decided the facts, and then randomly construct arguments to support your pre-determined facts. The arguments do not need to be factually accurate, or be based on any form of rational thought. As long as it supports your predetermined fact...it is a good argument.
*************************************************************
So...when are we going to hear an apology for your "walls of Jericho" comment?
How about your "first-born" proves a "second-born" argument?
Also, I simply cannot believe the level of ad hominem in your posts.
Why lash out so bluntly? Does it upset you that I dare tread in the waters of your religion? Do you lack the objectivity to discuss this topic with someone who does not agree with you?
QUOTE (NewGuy+)
Here, Luke used the Greek word "prototokos", which is translated as "firstborn". This Greek word only appears eight times in the entire New Testament. Would you like to discuss the other seven instances as well? Here are a couple more instances where Luke speaks of an "only" child:
Sure...lets talk about the term "prototokos"
Luke doesn't use the term again after Luke 2:7(at least to my knowledge)
However, Paul likes the word
I hate to use another book to illustrate my point(since I prefer keeping arguments about interpretation to a single author), but I am forced. I think it is acceptable in this situation because Luke was a contemporary of Paul.
Hebrews 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
According to your "theory", this indicates that God had other children AFTER Jesus.
So, Paul must be indicating that Jesus is not the only child of God?
In fact, Paul is not trying to say this at all.
"prototokos" is used to indicate the primacy of a child, rather than the sequential order of his birth. This is an important cultural reference. The 'first' child inherited a larger portion and had the greatest expectations placed on his shoulder. This is why Paul goes on to discuss Jesus inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
Note: This does not disprove the idea that "prototokos" is a reference to later children. It is merely a demonstration that this is not a CLEAR reference to later offspring of Mary. Remember, I simply said that no CLEAR reference exists...I didn't say that there were not indications and references to this fact.
(NewGuy seems to have severe difficulty with the concept)
Sure...lets talk about the term "prototokos"
Luke doesn't use the term again after Luke 2:7(at least to my knowledge)
However, Paul likes the word
I hate to use another book to illustrate my point(since I prefer keeping arguments about interpretation to a single author), but I am forced. I think it is acceptable in this situation because Luke was a contemporary of Paul.
Hebrews 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
According to your "theory", this indicates that God had other children AFTER Jesus.
So, Paul must be indicating that Jesus is not the only child of God?
In fact, Paul is not trying to say this at all.
"prototokos" is used to indicate the primacy of a child, rather than the sequential order of his birth. This is an important cultural reference. The 'first' child inherited a larger portion and had the greatest expectations placed on his shoulder. This is why Paul goes on to discuss Jesus inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
Note: This does not disprove the idea that "prototokos" is a reference to later children. It is merely a demonstration that this is not a CLEAR reference to later offspring of Mary. Remember, I simply said that no CLEAR reference exists...I didn't say that there were not indications and references to this fact.
(NewGuy seems to have severe difficulty with the concept)
newguy,
If incest was OK to start with in a very, very limited gene pool, why did your god change the rules when the gene pool was far greater? It is not illegal in France and several other countries. Anyway, why does your god make such strange and varying rules?
It makes no sense to me.
Physfan
QUOTE
It "makes sense" that, at the early stages of mankind, there would be no other option than to procreate through people whom you were closely related to.
If incest was OK to start with in a very, very limited gene pool, why did your god change the rules when the gene pool was far greater? It is not illegal in France and several other countries. Anyway, why does your god make such strange and varying rules?
It makes no sense to me.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Mar 31 2009, 03:58 AM)
newguy,
If incest was OK to start with.. It is not illegal in France...
Physfan
It doesn't surprise me that incest is legal in France. Looking at their history, I'm just surprised they haven't made it mandatory.
If incest was OK to start with.. It is not illegal in France...
Physfan
It doesn't surprise me that incest is legal in France. Looking at their history, I'm just surprised they haven't made it mandatory.
The proscription against incest was only for the Jews, just like the proscription against pork. Obviously so, since Genesis clearly needs incest in order to get its thing going.
QUOTE
If incest was OK to start with in a very, very limited gene pool, why did your god change the rules when the gene pool was far greater? It is not illegal in France and several other countries. Anyway, why does your god make such strange and varying rules?
It makes no sense to me.
It makes no sense to me.
Actually...that is a very good question.
Recently research indicates that our genetic diversity is great enough that cousins can typically have children without any ill effects. I wouldn't recommend it...but it wouldn't produce automatic deformaties
So, why allow it when there are a limited number of people(I understand that according to the mythology they needed to populate the Earth), but why did it suddenly become wrong?
Marrying cousins is okay in the Bible.
If I were a YECer, I would say that the old DNA was more mutation free, and thus incest was less likely to cause mutation accumulation in the offspring. It's only since the DNA has become contaminated over the generations (leading up to the Moses era) where it's actually become improper.
Or we could acknowledge that aversion to incest is heavily conserved in the wild, and is much older than humanity. Ergo, it's likely to be included in a moral code.
If I were a YECer, I would say that the old DNA was more mutation free, and thus incest was less likely to cause mutation accumulation in the offspring. It's only since the DNA has become contaminated over the generations (leading up to the Moses era) where it's actually become improper.
Or we could acknowledge that aversion to incest is heavily conserved in the wild, and is much older than humanity. Ergo, it's likely to be included in a moral code.
I read an article that 50% of pershain marriages are between first cousins.
At the time I knew a Pershain Aghgani so I asked him.
He was suprised it was an issue. He said it is normal there.
At the time I knew a Pershain Aghgani so I asked him.
He was suprised it was an issue. He said it is normal there.
Physfan
When Adam and Eve were created, they were intended for eternal life. A design for eternal life would require perfect genes. All those that came from Adam and Eve would have the same perfect genes. There could be no negative results within a gene pool of perfect genes.
After the fall of Adam and Eve some of the descendents of Adam and Eve mixed with the animal man that was not of the image and likeness of God. The intermixing degraded the genes of those that had perfect genes. After that point any relation that had imperfect genes could or would have negative results.
The first person recorded to have mixed with physical animal type man was Cain after he killed Able.
Much of the Bible deals with trying to keep the Chosen people away from the animal type man.
QUOTE
If incest was OK to start with in a very, very limited gene pool, why did your god change the rules when the gene pool was far greater? It is not illegal in France and several other countries. Anyway, why does your god make such strange and varying rules?
It makes no sense to me.
It makes no sense to me.
When Adam and Eve were created, they were intended for eternal life. A design for eternal life would require perfect genes. All those that came from Adam and Eve would have the same perfect genes. There could be no negative results within a gene pool of perfect genes.
After the fall of Adam and Eve some of the descendents of Adam and Eve mixed with the animal man that was not of the image and likeness of God. The intermixing degraded the genes of those that had perfect genes. After that point any relation that had imperfect genes could or would have negative results.
The first person recorded to have mixed with physical animal type man was Cain after he killed Able.
Much of the Bible deals with trying to keep the Chosen people away from the animal type man.
Did Star Trek ever deal with incest?
I'm sure the Bible isn't the only fiction to deal with the subject.
At least there is evidence that a lot of the Bible is fiction especially the Adam and Eve part.
I'm sure the Bible isn't the only fiction to deal with the subject.
At least there is evidence that a lot of the Bible is fiction especially the Adam and Eve part.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 2 2009, 11:11 AM)
Did Star Trek ever deal with incest?
I'm sure the Bible isn't the only fiction to deal with the subject.
At least there is evidence that a lot of the Bible is fiction especially the Adam and Eve part.
No, but surely you have to believe Adam & Eve were real, otherwise pratically the whole gruesome story makes no sense whatsoever?
I'm sure the Bible isn't the only fiction to deal with the subject.
At least there is evidence that a lot of the Bible is fiction especially the Adam and Eve part.
No, but surely you have to believe Adam & Eve were real, otherwise pratically the whole gruesome story makes no sense whatsoever?
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 2 2009, 08:20 AM)
Physfan
When Adam and Eve were created, they were intended for eternal life. A design for eternal life would require perfect genes. All those that came from Adam and Eve would have the same perfect genes. There could be no negative results within a gene pool of perfect genes.
After the fall of Adam and Eve some of the descendents of Adam and Eve mixed with the animal man that was not of the image and likeness of God. The intermixing degraded the genes of those that had perfect genes. After that point any relation that had imperfect genes could or would have negative results.
The first person recorded to have mixed with physical animal type man was Cain after he killed Able.
Much of the Bible deals with trying to keep the Chosen people away from the animal type man.
What is this insanity? Where did you find the basis for this argument? Is this one of those ideas that begins with the assumption that an irrational idea must be true and then attempts to explain away the irrationality with complex and often equally irrational speculation? Surely you understand why your post is absurd?
What do you mean by the "Animal-type man"? Last time I checked humans were animals. Where is your argument for the existence of ancestors with "perfect genes"? If your logic is applied to evolution should we assume that the genetic makeup of humanity is lesser than it was in the past and that we have actually devolved?
When Adam and Eve were created, they were intended for eternal life. A design for eternal life would require perfect genes. All those that came from Adam and Eve would have the same perfect genes. There could be no negative results within a gene pool of perfect genes.
After the fall of Adam and Eve some of the descendents of Adam and Eve mixed with the animal man that was not of the image and likeness of God. The intermixing degraded the genes of those that had perfect genes. After that point any relation that had imperfect genes could or would have negative results.
The first person recorded to have mixed with physical animal type man was Cain after he killed Able.
Much of the Bible deals with trying to keep the Chosen people away from the animal type man.
What is this insanity? Where did you find the basis for this argument? Is this one of those ideas that begins with the assumption that an irrational idea must be true and then attempts to explain away the irrationality with complex and often equally irrational speculation? Surely you understand why your post is absurd?
What do you mean by the "Animal-type man"? Last time I checked humans were animals. Where is your argument for the existence of ancestors with "perfect genes"? If your logic is applied to evolution should we assume that the genetic makeup of humanity is lesser than it was in the past and that we have actually devolved?
Yep, that was the prediction.
Genesis does give scientific predictions, actually. They've just been shown to be false.
Genesis does give scientific predictions, actually. They've just been shown to be false.
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 2 2009, 08:20 AM)
Physfan
When Adam and Eve were created, they were intended for eternal life. A design for eternal life would require perfect genes. All those that came from Adam and Eve would have the same perfect genes. There could be no negative results within a gene pool of perfect genes.
#1 why would immortal beings need genes?
#2 have you not heard of mutations?
#3 where did the animal men come from?
When Adam and Eve were created, they were intended for eternal life. A design for eternal life would require perfect genes. All those that came from Adam and Eve would have the same perfect genes. There could be no negative results within a gene pool of perfect genes.
#1 why would immortal beings need genes?
#2 have you not heard of mutations?
#3 where did the animal men come from?
buttershug, you are missing the point...
Tlocity has just invented an entire race of man that was not made in the image of God. They are apparently "ape men" or something. This seems like it is about 2 sentences away from a very racist statement.
Tlocity has just invented an entire race of man that was not made in the image of God. They are apparently "ape men" or something. This seems like it is about 2 sentences away from a very racist statement.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 2 2009, 10:14 PM)
buttershug, you are missing the point...
Tlocity has just invented an entire race of man that was not made in the image of God. They are apparently "ape men" or something. This seems like it is about 2 sentences away from a very racist statement.
I actually think the insanity is far more disturbing that the semi-racism. There may or may not be a racist agenda at work here, but there is definitely some lunacy present.
Tlocity has just invented an entire race of man that was not made in the image of God. They are apparently "ape men" or something. This seems like it is about 2 sentences away from a very racist statement.
I actually think the insanity is far more disturbing that the semi-racism. There may or may not be a racist agenda at work here, but there is definitely some lunacy present.
QUOTE
Would any of you want this guy, PuckSR, to conduct scientific research for you?
MisterBelfry March 26 2009, 08:02 AM
>>> You should find the number 9999 three times for a total of six added words in Luke 3:23. <<< Maybe just five if the translator(s) says "old" instead "of age".
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE
(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions: (a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke; ( b ) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli; ( c ) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ib, 128).
(4) (a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli, between whom and Joseph there existed a relationship which made Luke desirous of connecting them. (b ) In addition, the absence of the article serves to call attention to something exceptional in the relationship of Joseph to the rest of this ancestral line which is brought into connection with his name. To this point we shall recur later. We have an explanation for all the suggested problems except one, and that one, in a sense, the most difficult of all, namely, the choice of Joseph's genealogy.
...
MisterBelfry March 24 2009, 11:11 AM
...
http://www.keyofdavid.com <------This would be the importance of Matthew's genealogy & this of the flesh------->
http://www.gracecentered.com/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm
...
and Joseph would be the son-in-law of Eli (Heli).
Dr. Charles Ellicott writes, regarding Luke's genealogy, "the more probable view is that we have here the genealogy not of Joseph, but of Mary" (Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6, p. 262). After all, the apostle Paul stated that Jesus "was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). That could only have been Mary, because Jesus had no connection with Joseph "according to the flesh."
-------------
April 2009
-------------
Re: Godet
Frédéric Louis Godet Commentary Collection Upgrade (12 Vols.)The Scripture references in Godet’s commentaries are linked to the Bible texts in your digital library, and information about important theological and ...
http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/4682 - 79k - Cached - Similar pages
Godet's Commentary on Luke's Gospel (2 Vols)
Godet's Commentary on Luke is an important addition to the Logos Bible Software library because of its historical precedence as a premier study of third Gospel...
Godet was a leading Swiss Protestant Reformed scholar of the 19th century. He was an able defender of the orthodox Christian faith in an age of growing liberalism. This book represents one of Godet’s finest works of analysis and exposition.
- C.H. Dyer in "Bibliotheca Sacra" [Godet] brings out the plan of the work, its unity, and many of the internal proofs that it was written by Luke, not as a mere compilation, or as founded upon the other gospels, but as a history in the true sense of the word, which drew its sources, indeed, from brief oral or written accounts already in existence, but wrought out what they furnished into a new and elaborated work. ...
Godet did much to interpret German theological thought to French–speaking Protestants, and the English translations of his works made him influential in international New Testament scholarship. His conservative viewpoint in New Testament interpretation is clearly expressed in his critical commentaries (John, 1864–1865; Luke, 1871; Romans, 1879–1880; 1 Corinthians, 1886).
- taken from Who's Who in Christian History
http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/who
Excerpt from the Preface to the First Edition
...The most advanced ideas of modern unbelief circulate at the present time in all our great centers of population. In the streets of our cities, workmen are heard talking about the conflict between St. Paul and the other apostles of Jesus Christ. We must therefore endeavor to place the results of a real and impartial Biblical science within reach of all. I repeat, respecting this Commentary, what I have already said of its predecessor; it has been written, not so much with a view to its being consulted, as read.
If I am asked with what scientific or religious assumptions I have approached this study of the third Gospel, I reply; With these two only: that the authors of our Gospels were men of good sense and good faith.
http://www.logos.com/products/details/2531 - 94k - Cached - Similar pages
Zondervan - Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Godet)Nor does Godet bypass the difficult verses. The student of the Bible can admire
Godet for taking on the difficult and controversial passages and coming to ...
Amazon.com: Commentary on Romans: Frederic Louis Godet: Books
This is a wonderful commentary that takes a fundamental, honest look at the Bible. Godet was called a fundamentalist before the term was ever coined. ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would any of you want this guy, PuckSR, to conduct scientific research for you? The term used in Luke 3:23 is "huios", which is a very general term for offspring. It can even be used to refer to the offspring of animals. The term "huios" is used in Luke 3:23 to reference that Joseph is not the genetic parent of Jesus. It is not used to describe a lineage. It could be used in a genealogy(and is elsewhere), but Luke refrains from using the term. Do you understand? The greek text clearly identifies Joseph as the son of Heli. It is just a different syntax |
MisterBelfry March 26 2009, 08:02 AM
>>> You should find the number 9999 three times for a total of six added words in Luke 3:23. <<< Maybe just five if the translator(s) says "old" instead "of age".
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE
(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions: (a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke; ( b ) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli; ( c ) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ib, 128).
(4) (a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli, between whom and Joseph there existed a relationship which made Luke desirous of connecting them. (b ) In addition, the absence of the article serves to call attention to something exceptional in the relationship of Joseph to the rest of this ancestral line which is brought into connection with his name. To this point we shall recur later. We have an explanation for all the suggested problems except one, and that one, in a sense, the most difficult of all, namely, the choice of Joseph's genealogy.
...
MisterBelfry March 24 2009, 11:11 AM
...
http://www.keyofdavid.com <------This would be the importance of Matthew's genealogy & this of the flesh------->
http://www.gracecentered.com/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm
...
and Joseph would be the son-in-law of Eli (Heli).
Dr. Charles Ellicott writes, regarding Luke's genealogy, "the more probable view is that we have here the genealogy not of Joseph, but of Mary" (Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6, p. 262). After all, the apostle Paul stated that Jesus "was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). That could only have been Mary, because Jesus had no connection with Joseph "according to the flesh."
-------------
April 2009
-------------
Re: Godet
Frédéric Louis Godet Commentary Collection Upgrade (12 Vols.)The Scripture references in Godet’s commentaries are linked to the Bible texts in your digital library, and information about important theological and ...
http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/4682 - 79k - Cached - Similar pages
Godet's Commentary on Luke's Gospel (2 Vols)
Godet's Commentary on Luke is an important addition to the Logos Bible Software library because of its historical precedence as a premier study of third Gospel...
Godet was a leading Swiss Protestant Reformed scholar of the 19th century. He was an able defender of the orthodox Christian faith in an age of growing liberalism. This book represents one of Godet’s finest works of analysis and exposition.
- C.H. Dyer in "Bibliotheca Sacra" [Godet] brings out the plan of the work, its unity, and many of the internal proofs that it was written by Luke, not as a mere compilation, or as founded upon the other gospels, but as a history in the true sense of the word, which drew its sources, indeed, from brief oral or written accounts already in existence, but wrought out what they furnished into a new and elaborated work. ...
Godet did much to interpret German theological thought to French–speaking Protestants, and the English translations of his works made him influential in international New Testament scholarship. His conservative viewpoint in New Testament interpretation is clearly expressed in his critical commentaries (John, 1864–1865; Luke, 1871; Romans, 1879–1880; 1 Corinthians, 1886).
- taken from Who's Who in Christian History
http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/who
Excerpt from the Preface to the First Edition
...The most advanced ideas of modern unbelief circulate at the present time in all our great centers of population. In the streets of our cities, workmen are heard talking about the conflict between St. Paul and the other apostles of Jesus Christ. We must therefore endeavor to place the results of a real and impartial Biblical science within reach of all. I repeat, respecting this Commentary, what I have already said of its predecessor; it has been written, not so much with a view to its being consulted, as read.
If I am asked with what scientific or religious assumptions I have approached this study of the third Gospel, I reply; With these two only: that the authors of our Gospels were men of good sense and good faith.
http://www.logos.com/products/details/2531 - 94k - Cached - Similar pages
Zondervan - Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Godet)Nor does Godet bypass the difficult verses. The student of the Bible can admire
Godet for taking on the difficult and controversial passages and coming to ...
Amazon.com: Commentary on Romans: Frederic Louis Godet: Books
This is a wonderful commentary that takes a fundamental, honest look at the Bible. Godet was called a fundamentalist before the term was ever coined. ...
QUOTE
In other words, Luke 3:23 did not ambiguously point to Joseph as the son of Heli...it points directly to him being the son of Heli without any wiggle room.
And, again:
QUOTE (PuckSR)
I love you stupid Christians and your imaginary knowledge.
"the son" wasn't in the original? of course not...because in greek you don't write it that way. Let me go further
DUDE, PLEASE DON'T GO ANY FURTHER...I might go out and hang myself if you do, having lost all hope for humanity. Let me preface my response with the following:
YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC, IMBECILIC MOR0N!
QUOTE
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN:
http://www.searchgodsword.org ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
How the hell can you state "that form of possession wasn't used in Greek" and "in Greek you don't write it that way" WHEN IT APPEARS EXACTLY THIS WAY IN THE GREEK IN THE VERY PASSAGE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING when it describes Jesus as "supposedly" being THE SON of Joseph?!? Sorry to yell, but I'm trying to wake you out of your stupor. Let's look at the original Greek of Luke 3:23, AGAIN: http://www.searchgodsword.org ... Now, this is a bit funny. I was clearly pointing to the next verse, Luke 3:24 I was discussing that the form of possession "the son of" was not used in genealogies. |
MisterBelfry March 26 2009, 08:02 AM
>>> You should find the number 9999 three times for a total of six added words in Luke 3:23. <<< Maybe just five if the translator(s) says "old" instead "of age".
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE
(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions: (a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke; ( b ) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli; ( c ) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ib, 128).
(4) (a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli,
--------------
You both are a riot.
I'll note here that the NKJV does italicize Godet's article.
However, it still misses "of age." But for cause of readablity, i don't really give a damn. Someone should find a good interlinear biblical website. I dislike the one at Newguy's link. {Those weren't Strong's numbers @ searchgodsword. I don't know what they were.} However, it had an option for something I never heard of.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING
TO THE BYZANTINE/MAJORITY TEXTFORM
The Greek Text Edited by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont
Prepared and edited in disk format by
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
©1991, The Original Word Publishers, Atlanta
All Rights Reserved
Released on disk in Online Bible format
as FREEWARE by the
Editors and Publisher
3 April 1992
NOTICE the EXTENSION ····· NOTICE the SIZE ····· FAIR WARNING
http://www.online-bible.com/english-site/byz.exe
Byzantine Greek Majority Textform 1991
Byzantine/Majority Textform Keyed to Strongs and Fully Parsed. Prepared by Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. (See Copyright Information) 970mb.
However, I seriously doubt Luke 3:23 has any variation!
MrB.
Belfry....
I actually want to respond to your post, but I cannot.
I wont respond until you make an honest attempt to clarify your posts.
Which portions are quotations from other websites?
Which parts are your original thoughts?
Why dont you use the quote function?
Please correct these issues so that I can respond.
I actually want to respond to your post, but I cannot.
I wont respond until you make an honest attempt to clarify your posts.
Which portions are quotations from other websites?
Which parts are your original thoughts?
Why dont you use the quote function?
Please correct these issues so that I can respond.
QUOTE (Showtopic= 25268+)
MisterBelfry March 24 2009, 11:11 AM
...
http://www.keyofdavid.com <------This would be the importance of Matthew's genealogy & this of the flesh------->
http://www.gracecentered.com/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm
I'll note here that the NKJV does italicize Godet's article.
However, it still misses "of age." But for cause of readablity, i don't really give a damn.
Having just finished watching Dr. Beckett reappear on a Stargate offshoot after his previous death on some other episode...
I thought Belfry's sci-fi translation might be best.
Luke
3:23 And Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years a clone of humanity, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son-in-law of Heli,
That's about ten added words displacing none. This preserves the immaculate conception. It also relates to the second Adam mentioned by Paul somewhere. A true genealogy would go from woman to woman as Newguy has interpretated Genesis three.
MrB.
I have the New King James Version on my computer but it doesn't indicate a damn word has been added. The original King James doesn't have "his ministry".
...
http://www.keyofdavid.com <------This would be the importance of Matthew's genealogy & this of the flesh------->
http://www.gracecentered.com/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm
QUOTE
I'll note here that the NKJV does italicize Godet's article.
However, it still misses "of age." But for cause of readablity, i don't really give a damn.
Having just finished watching Dr. Beckett reappear on a Stargate offshoot after his previous death on some other episode...
I thought Belfry's sci-fi translation might be best.
Luke
3:23 And Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years a clone of humanity, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son-in-law of Heli,
That's about ten added words displacing none. This preserves the immaculate conception. It also relates to the second Adam mentioned by Paul somewhere. A true genealogy would go from woman to woman as Newguy has interpretated Genesis three.
MrB.
I have the New King James Version on my computer but it doesn't indicate a damn word has been added. The original King James doesn't have "his ministry".
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Wholly Moses!!
buttershug: No, I'm wholly/completely "newguy". Oh, you meant "Holy Moses!!"? What of him?
buttershug: No, I'm wholly/completely "newguy". Oh, you meant "Holy Moses!!"? What of him?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Are you serious?
Yes, I am. You?
Yes, I am. You?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Are you unaware of the Jewish influence of the JC and the Bible?
"The JC"? Dude, take a few deep breaths...it will be okay(for me, that is). I'm quite aware of the Jewish influence of both Jesus Christ and the Bible. And?
"The JC"? Dude, take a few deep breaths...it will be okay(for me, that is). I'm quite aware of the Jewish influence of both Jesus Christ and the Bible. And?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Maybe you havn't seen Blazing Saddles, where Tagert suggests "we could kill the first born male of each household" and Hedy(that's Hedly) replies "no too Jewish".
Actually, I only saw a small part of it years ago. And? Was there something profound about watching men sitting around a campfire and farting? Maybe you got your knowledge of Moses from the other Mel Brooks movie, "History of the World"?
Damn straight, I am. What of him/it?
Damn straight, I am. What of him/it?
Where the Pharoh was going to kill every first born male but God beat him tothe punch?
Oh, dude...you were doing so well(not really, but things are about to get really bad for you). Let's examine this claim of yours, shall we?
"And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive."(Exodus 1:7-22)
First of all, this Pharaoh intended to kill EVERY SON...NOT just the firstborn as you erroneously claim. Additionally, this Pharaoh had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "the Passover" as he was DEAD when the initial Passover took place.
"And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage."(Exodus 2:23)
Dude, this happened BEFORE Moses was even sent back into Egypt to deliver God's people, so what the hell are you talking about? Do you see what happens when you derive your Biblical knowledge from the inside of Snapple bottle caps? Try reading the book. Who knows? You might even learn something(like to keep your big mouth shut). Anyhow, when God sent Moses TO A DIFFERENT PHARAOH, He instructed him thusly:
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."(Exodus 4:22-23)
YOU are clearly a little bit mixed up, aren't YOU?
Actually, I only saw a small part of it years ago. And? Was there something profound about watching men sitting around a campfire and farting? Maybe you got your knowledge of Moses from the other Mel Brooks movie, "History of the World"?
QUOTE
You are aware of Moses and passover aren't you?
Damn straight, I am. What of him/it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are aware of Moses and passover aren't you? |
Damn straight, I am. What of him/it?
Where the Pharoh was going to kill every first born male but God beat him tothe punch?
Oh, dude...you were doing so well(not really, but things are about to get really bad for you). Let's examine this claim of yours, shall we?
"And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive."(Exodus 1:7-22)
First of all, this Pharaoh intended to kill EVERY SON...NOT just the firstborn as you erroneously claim. Additionally, this Pharaoh had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "the Passover" as he was DEAD when the initial Passover took place.
"And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage."(Exodus 2:23)
Dude, this happened BEFORE Moses was even sent back into Egypt to deliver God's people, so what the hell are you talking about? Do you see what happens when you derive your Biblical knowledge from the inside of Snapple bottle caps? Try reading the book. Who knows? You might even learn something(like to keep your big mouth shut). Anyhow, when God sent Moses TO A DIFFERENT PHARAOH, He instructed him thusly:
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."(Exodus 4:22-23)
YOU are clearly a little bit mixed up, aren't YOU?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
That shows a president for the phrase "first born son" that has nothing to do with anyone having more than one son.
Which "President" was this shown to? George W. Bush? Barack Obama? Okay, this could be considered a precedent, but CERTAINLY NOT the only one. For example, since you went back to the Old Testament book of Exodus, I'll do you one better and go back to the Old Testament book of Genesis:
"And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction."(Genesis 41:50-52)
See(try opening your eyes and shutting your mouth)? There's ANOTHER precedent. Which one, then, best applies to the portions of scripture that we were discussing? Shall we go back and look at those verses again or would you prefer to escape out the back door while there is still time?
Which "President" was this shown to? George W. Bush? Barack Obama? Okay, this could be considered a precedent, but CERTAINLY NOT the only one. For example, since you went back to the Old Testament book of Exodus, I'll do you one better and go back to the Old Testament book of Genesis:
"And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction."(Genesis 41:50-52)
See(try opening your eyes and shutting your mouth)? There's ANOTHER precedent. Which one, then, best applies to the portions of scripture that we were discussing? Shall we go back and look at those verses again or would you prefer to escape out the back door while there is still time?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
What makes you think there is such an inconsistency? You think the New Testament authors never read the Old One?
What "inconsistency" would that be? I just showed you a precedent for my position...shall we re-examine the verses in question to see which precedent actually applies? Dude, I'm sitting here, salivating, just hoping that you say "Yes". Who ever suggested that the New Testament authors never read the Old Testament? Certainly not me.
What "inconsistency" would that be? I just showed you a precedent for my position...shall we re-examine the verses in question to see which precedent actually applies? Dude, I'm sitting here, salivating, just hoping that you say "Yes". Who ever suggested that the New Testament authors never read the Old Testament? Certainly not me.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And I don't know why Puckster is trying to argue that the Bible is inconsistent. Newguy will be able to twist and pound the words to show that they are consistent.
And the arguement is not about the veracity of the Bible but rather ends up showing Newguys verbal acrobatics.
Yeah, right. I think that normal folks(some pop in here, from time to time) will be able to realize that it is YOU who are "twisting and pounding words" and who is engaging in "verbal acrobatics". Anyhow, let me know when you want to re-examine those verses, won't you? I'll be waiting...
And the arguement is not about the veracity of the Bible but rather ends up showing Newguys verbal acrobatics.
Yeah, right. I think that normal folks(some pop in here, from time to time) will be able to realize that it is YOU who are "twisting and pounding words" and who is engaging in "verbal acrobatics". Anyhow, let me know when you want to re-examine those verses, won't you? I'll be waiting...
Newguy, it seems you made a bit of a straw-man out of buttershug's comment.
You wanted to talk about prototokis...let us talk
In the meantime, I have started drinking some of the delicious Sam Adams Brown Ale...so my responses may degrade over the course of the evening.
You wanted to talk about prototokis...let us talk
In the meantime, I have started drinking some of the delicious Sam Adams Brown Ale...so my responses may degrade over the course of the evening.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2009, 11:19 PM)
What "inconsistency" would that be? I just showed you a precedent for my position...shall we re-examine the verses in question to see which precedent actually applies? Dude, I'm sitting here, salivating, just hoping that you say "Yes". Who ever suggested that the New Testament authors never read the Old Testament? Certainly not me.
...
You say that "first born" in the New Testament indicates Jesus had younger siblings.
In the Old Testament it has no such meaning.
Why did the significance change?
Do you consider the quotes about "bile and vinegar" significant?
If not, then why did you quote them?
They could only be siginificant if the second author didn't know about the first.
...
You say that "first born" in the New Testament indicates Jesus had younger siblings.
In the Old Testament it has no such meaning.
Why did the significance change?
Do you consider the quotes about "bile and vinegar" significant?
If not, then why did you quote them?
They could only be siginificant if the second author didn't know about the first.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You say that "first born" in the New Testament indicates Jesus had younger siblings.
In the Old Testament it has no such meaning.
Why did the significance change?
buttershug: Dude, YOU SCARE ME! Seriously. If anyone could possibly read this response of yours and still question as to why I refer to you as an imbecile(DuzmA, are you listening?), then I can only conclude that they must be an imbecile, too. How the hell could you say that "In the Old Testament it has no such meaning" when you're responding to a post of mine IN WHICH I JUST QUOTED AN OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE IN WHICH IT CLEARLY HAS SUCH A MEANING? Here it is, AGAIN:
"And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction."(Genesis 41:50-52)
Joseph had TWO SONS. The name of THE FIRSTBORN was Manasseh. The name of the FRIGGIN' SECOND BORN was Ephraim. Got it? No? Doesn't surprise me in the least. Here's some more examples FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT for you to insist aren't there:
"And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad."(Genesis 10:15-18)
"And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth..."(Genesis 19:31)
"And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor; Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother..."(Genesis 22:20-21)
"And Laban said, It must not be done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn."(Genesis 29:26)
"The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun..."(Genesis 35:23)
"These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau..."(Genesis 36:15)
Did you see that? Of course, you didn't. Esau had SONS...PLURAL. You can find their names in Genesis 36:10(well, you can't find them, but somebody else just might). Eliphaz was Esau's FIRSTBORN. Somebody please help him out with that. Thanks. Let's continue:
"And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar..."Genesis 38:6)
Keep reading and you'll find the names of Judah's OTHER TWO SONS, Onan and Shelah.
"And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another."(Genesis 43:33)
This is the account of Joseph's ELEVEN BROTHERS sitting before him. Reference is made to THE FIRSTBORN, Reuben, and THE YOUNGEST, Benjamin.
"And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn..."(Genesis 46:8)
Keep reading and you'll find the names of Jacob's OTHER TWELVE CHILDREN(eleven more sons and one daughter).
"And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn."
(Genesis 48:14)
"...the younger...the firstborn". There you have it. ELEVEN EXAMPLES(and I was nice and skipped at least three other examples) FROM JUST THE BOOK OF GENESIS. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER EXAMPLES ALL THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT. And you insist that "In the Old Testament, it(the term firstborn) has no such meaning." What can we conclude from this? That you're an imbecile. Gee, I think that I heard someone suggest that once before. One last thing before I go:
In the Old Testament it has no such meaning.
Why did the significance change?
buttershug: Dude, YOU SCARE ME! Seriously. If anyone could possibly read this response of yours and still question as to why I refer to you as an imbecile(DuzmA, are you listening?), then I can only conclude that they must be an imbecile, too. How the hell could you say that "In the Old Testament it has no such meaning" when you're responding to a post of mine IN WHICH I JUST QUOTED AN OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE IN WHICH IT CLEARLY HAS SUCH A MEANING? Here it is, AGAIN:
"And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction."(Genesis 41:50-52)
Joseph had TWO SONS. The name of THE FIRSTBORN was Manasseh. The name of the FRIGGIN' SECOND BORN was Ephraim. Got it? No? Doesn't surprise me in the least. Here's some more examples FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT for you to insist aren't there:
"And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad."(Genesis 10:15-18)
"And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth..."(Genesis 19:31)
"And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor; Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother..."(Genesis 22:20-21)
"And Laban said, It must not be done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn."(Genesis 29:26)
"The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun..."(Genesis 35:23)
"These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau..."(Genesis 36:15)
Did you see that? Of course, you didn't. Esau had SONS...PLURAL. You can find their names in Genesis 36:10(well, you can't find them, but somebody else just might). Eliphaz was Esau's FIRSTBORN. Somebody please help him out with that. Thanks. Let's continue:
"And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar..."Genesis 38:6)
Keep reading and you'll find the names of Judah's OTHER TWO SONS, Onan and Shelah.
"And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another."(Genesis 43:33)
This is the account of Joseph's ELEVEN BROTHERS sitting before him. Reference is made to THE FIRSTBORN, Reuben, and THE YOUNGEST, Benjamin.
"And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn..."(Genesis 46:8)
Keep reading and you'll find the names of Jacob's OTHER TWELVE CHILDREN(eleven more sons and one daughter).
"And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn."
(Genesis 48:14)
"...the younger...the firstborn". There you have it. ELEVEN EXAMPLES(and I was nice and skipped at least three other examples) FROM JUST THE BOOK OF GENESIS. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER EXAMPLES ALL THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT. And you insist that "In the Old Testament, it(the term firstborn) has no such meaning." What can we conclude from this? That you're an imbecile. Gee, I think that I heard someone suggest that once before. One last thing before I go:
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Do you consider the quotes about "bile and vinegar" significant?
If not, then why did you quote them?
They could only be siginificant if the second author didn't know about the first.
That's NOT the ONLY way that they could be significant. They could ALSO be significant if the second author is pointing to a fulfillment of what was prophesied by the first. You start off with the assumption that "the second author" was a deceiver. Gee, I'm glad that you're not biased. See you around, imbecile.
The rest: If any of you can read my exchanges with buttershug and not see genuine grounds for my use of the term "imbecile" to describe him, then I can only conclude that you suffer(although he seems to enjoy it) from the same exact condition. I've wasted enough time answering "Mr. All Bark and No Bite". If this doesn't suffice, then PM me with any genuine questions. I simply don't have the time to waste on the incorrigibly ignorant.
If not, then why did you quote them?
They could only be siginificant if the second author didn't know about the first.
That's NOT the ONLY way that they could be significant. They could ALSO be significant if the second author is pointing to a fulfillment of what was prophesied by the first. You start off with the assumption that "the second author" was a deceiver. Gee, I'm glad that you're not biased. See you around, imbecile.
The rest: If any of you can read my exchanges with buttershug and not see genuine grounds for my use of the term "imbecile" to describe him, then I can only conclude that you suffer(although he seems to enjoy it) from the same exact condition. I've wasted enough time answering "Mr. All Bark and No Bite". If this doesn't suffice, then PM me with any genuine questions. I simply don't have the time to waste on the incorrigibly ignorant.
But it does not matter if it is fullfilling the prophesy or not.
It being ambiguous makes it useless as evidence.
Do presents under the Christmas Tree offer evidence of Santa Claus?
That's a fullfillment of personal prophesy.
And even in your examples. The special property of the people is that they are firstborn not that there were others.
Read your examples again. Is it pointed out which one is firstborn because they are firstborn not because they have younger siblings.
You gave 11 examples where the primary property was not having older siblings.
That they had younger siblings does not change that.
Firstborn does not preclude having younger siblings but does not necessitate younger siblings.
To make your point you would have to show that someone was an only child and was not called firstborn. Your logic is as usual backwards.
You argue it means more siblings, I argue that it means born first.
edit or find something that points out that someone was not firstborn untill they had siblings.
Think of the first black American President.
Have their been other black presidents after him?
No but he is still called the first.
Edit; and don't pm me with secret questions.
I don't need to hide.
and I try not to engage in insults.
and if someone makes a spelling mistake I don't exploit it, and have even corrected when I reply. Because spelling mistakes are not part of the debate.
And only question my logic not my knowledge of the Bible.
It being ambiguous makes it useless as evidence.
Do presents under the Christmas Tree offer evidence of Santa Claus?
That's a fullfillment of personal prophesy.
And even in your examples. The special property of the people is that they are firstborn not that there were others.
Read your examples again. Is it pointed out which one is firstborn because they are firstborn not because they have younger siblings.
You gave 11 examples where the primary property was not having older siblings.
That they had younger siblings does not change that.
Firstborn does not preclude having younger siblings but does not necessitate younger siblings.
To make your point you would have to show that someone was an only child and was not called firstborn. Your logic is as usual backwards.
You argue it means more siblings, I argue that it means born first.
edit or find something that points out that someone was not firstborn untill they had siblings.
Think of the first black American President.
Have their been other black presidents after him?
No but he is still called the first.
Edit; and don't pm me with secret questions.
I don't need to hide.
and I try not to engage in insults.
and if someone makes a spelling mistake I don't exploit it, and have even corrected when I reply. Because spelling mistakes are not part of the debate.
And only question my logic not my knowledge of the Bible.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 5 2009, 12:53 PM)
Read your examples again. Is it pointed out which one is firstborn because they are firstborn not because they have younger siblings.
You gave 11 examples where the primary property was not having older siblings.
That they had younger siblings does not change that.
Firstborn does not preclude having younger siblings but does not necessitate younger siblings.
To make your point you would have to show that someone was an only child and was not called firstborn. Your logic is as usual backwards.
You argue it means more siblings, I argue that it means born first.
Think of the first black American President.
Have their been other black presidents after him?
No but he is still called the first.
Edit; and don't pm me with secret questions.
I don't need to hide.
and I try not to engage in insults.
and if someone makes a spelling mistake I don't exploit it, and have even corrected when I reply. Because spelling mistakes are not part of the debate.
And only question my logic not my knowledge of the Bible.
Did you miss this post by newguy? It's not conclusive evidence that Jesus had siblings, but it's certainly more than you're giving him credit for.
I might add that you are debating in a thread entitled "genealogy of Jesus". How can you participate in this debate when you're not willing to discuss the Bible? It's a Biblical topic!
You gave 11 examples where the primary property was not having older siblings.
That they had younger siblings does not change that.
Firstborn does not preclude having younger siblings but does not necessitate younger siblings.
To make your point you would have to show that someone was an only child and was not called firstborn. Your logic is as usual backwards.
You argue it means more siblings, I argue that it means born first.
Think of the first black American President.
Have their been other black presidents after him?
No but he is still called the first.
Edit; and don't pm me with secret questions.
I don't need to hide.
and I try not to engage in insults.
and if someone makes a spelling mistake I don't exploit it, and have even corrected when I reply. Because spelling mistakes are not part of the debate.
And only question my logic not my knowledge of the Bible.
Did you miss this post by newguy? It's not conclusive evidence that Jesus had siblings, but it's certainly more than you're giving him credit for.
I might add that you are debating in a thread entitled "genealogy of Jesus". How can you participate in this debate when you're not willing to discuss the Bible? It's a Biblical topic!
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Apr 5 2009, 01:07 PM)
Did you miss this post by newguy? It's not conclusive evidence that Jesus had siblings, but it's certainly more than you're giving him credit for.
I might add that you are debating in a thread entitled "genealogy of Jesus". How can you participate in this debate when you're not willing to discuss the Bible? It's a Biblical topic!
First things first.
If his logic is flawed then it matters not what is in the Bible.
Lack of self-consistency proves the Bible is not completely true.
On the other hand self-consistency does not prove the Bible true.
Once he understands that we can move on.
And we are not talking about Hamlet or Aniken Skywalker. We are talking about someone who is believed to have lived.
I honestly havn't seen him say much outside of the Bible genre.
That includes other holy books.
So unintentionally, you raise a great issue. It's a Biblical topic not an historical topic.
But will you or Newguy admit that?
edit and I never said he was wrong. only that his logic is weak.
That discovery a few years back is some evidence that Jesus did in fact have
siblings. And there are books written that claim James was his twin brother and that he took over the church when Jesus departed.
And logic doesn't have to reach wrong conclusions to be bad.
I might add that you are debating in a thread entitled "genealogy of Jesus". How can you participate in this debate when you're not willing to discuss the Bible? It's a Biblical topic!
First things first.
If his logic is flawed then it matters not what is in the Bible.
Lack of self-consistency proves the Bible is not completely true.
On the other hand self-consistency does not prove the Bible true.
Once he understands that we can move on.
And we are not talking about Hamlet or Aniken Skywalker. We are talking about someone who is believed to have lived.
I honestly havn't seen him say much outside of the Bible genre.
That includes other holy books.
So unintentionally, you raise a great issue. It's a Biblical topic not an historical topic.
But will you or Newguy admit that?
edit and I never said he was wrong. only that his logic is weak.
That discovery a few years back is some evidence that Jesus did in fact have
siblings. And there are books written that claim James was his twin brother and that he took over the church when Jesus departed.
And logic doesn't have to reach wrong conclusions to be bad.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
To make your point you would have to show that someone was an only child and was not called firstborn. Your logic is as usual backwards.
buttershug: Try not to choke on the following:
"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter."
(Judges 11:34)
"O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us."(Jeremiah 6:26)
"Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her."(Luke 7:12)
"For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a-dying. But as he went the people thronged him."(Luke 8:42)
"And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child."(Luke 9:38)
Don't forget to move the goalposts AGAIN after reading this.
buttershug: Try not to choke on the following:
"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter."
(Judges 11:34)
"O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us."(Jeremiah 6:26)
"Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her."(Luke 7:12)
"For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a-dying. But as he went the people thronged him."(Luke 8:42)
"And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child."(Luke 9:38)
Don't forget to move the goalposts AGAIN after reading this.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Edit; and don't pm me with secret questions.
The thought NEVER entered my mind.
The thought NEVER entered my mind.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I don't need to hide.
Dude, YES, YOU DO! I'd like to suggest to you that the "dogpile on the rabbit" crowd is noticeably missing. Their "silence" certainly seems to be "deafening", don't you think? Somebody please explain to him what that means.
Dude, YES, YOU DO! I'd like to suggest to you that the "dogpile on the rabbit" crowd is noticeably missing. Their "silence" certainly seems to be "deafening", don't you think? Somebody please explain to him what that means.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
and I try not to engage in insults.
Try a little harder, would you? Your IGNORANCE, coupled with YOUR BIG MOUTH(you can probably fit both feet in there, can't you?), is rather "insulting" to some.
Try a little harder, would you? Your IGNORANCE, coupled with YOUR BIG MOUTH(you can probably fit both feet in there, can't you?), is rather "insulting" to some.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And only question my logic not my knowledge of the Bible.
And exactly what "logic" would that be? Not only have you been proven wrong at every turn, but as Kaeroll attempted to point out to you, YOU CHOOSE TO engage in a discussion about the Bible and then balk when I mention the Bible. You're a strange bird(well, you've got A LOT of company around here...You know, "birds of a feaher" and all that), indeed.
See you around, imbecile.
And exactly what "logic" would that be? Not only have you been proven wrong at every turn, but as Kaeroll attempted to point out to you, YOU CHOOSE TO engage in a discussion about the Bible and then balk when I mention the Bible. You're a strange bird(well, you've got A LOT of company around here...You know, "birds of a feaher" and all that), indeed.
See you around, imbecile.
Ok finally you are getting it.
I didn't say you were wrong just that your logic is weak.
Those examples work to show that firstborn is used to denote younger siblings.
So the question remains why did you give the other 11 examples first?
Having younger siblings does not preclude that firstborn is used to denote no older siblings.
And I see you included Old Testament quotes as well, very good.
Do you understand why the first 11 quotes do not back you up? (they don't contradict you but also don't back you up)
And why these ones do?
And why they are still not absolutely conclusive?
It is possible that first born means no older siblings but that "only child" trumps that.
But there is the following
This does not say firstborn if there are younger siblings.
It simply says firstborn.
I balk when you only mention the Bible.
You have a real problem with significant distinctions.
It's not the mentioning of the Bible, it's the only mentioning of the genre.
And it's when you act like the Bible proves itself. Nothing proves itself.
I've read people claiming Jesus had younger siblings, even a twin brother. But those people used independant sources. And by independent I don't mean something from Mary and Joeseph's religion.
Edit and I will stop balking at you mentioning the Bible if you tell me that you don't believe it to be 100% accurrate. Because then you would agree your arguements are like trekkers talking about Star Trek. Even those guys talk more about the real world than you do. (I'm not counting social lives, I'm talking how their topic matches reality.)
I didn't say you were wrong just that your logic is weak.
Those examples work to show that firstborn is used to denote younger siblings.
So the question remains why did you give the other 11 examples first?
Having younger siblings does not preclude that firstborn is used to denote no older siblings.
And I see you included Old Testament quotes as well, very good.
Do you understand why the first 11 quotes do not back you up? (they don't contradict you but also don't back you up)
And why these ones do?
And why they are still not absolutely conclusive?
It is possible that first born means no older siblings but that "only child" trumps that.
But there is the following
QUOTE
Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, [both] of man and of beast: it [is] mine.
This does not say firstborn if there are younger siblings.
It simply says firstborn.
I balk when you only mention the Bible.
You have a real problem with significant distinctions.
It's not the mentioning of the Bible, it's the only mentioning of the genre.
And it's when you act like the Bible proves itself. Nothing proves itself.
I've read people claiming Jesus had younger siblings, even a twin brother. But those people used independant sources. And by independent I don't mean something from Mary and Joeseph's religion.
Edit and I will stop balking at you mentioning the Bible if you tell me that you don't believe it to be 100% accurrate. Because then you would agree your arguements are like trekkers talking about Star Trek. Even those guys talk more about the real world than you do. (I'm not counting social lives, I'm talking how their topic matches reality.)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Ok finally you are getting it.
buttershug: I "got it" all along. If anything has changed, then PERHAPS "finally YOU are getting it". We'll see.
buttershug: I "got it" all along. If anything has changed, then PERHAPS "finally YOU are getting it". We'll see.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I didn't say you were wrong just that your logic is weak.
"MY" logic is weak? Are you sure that you don't mean that "the logic that you just arbitrarily attribute to me WITHOUT any justification for doing so" is weak? In other words, you've recently(and in the past) "argued" against points that I've NEVER even made(which is another reason why I've repeatedly referred to you as an imbecile). I could easily cite you some examples...why I could even cite you some examples FROM TODAY. Anyhow...
"MY" logic is weak? Are you sure that you don't mean that "the logic that you just arbitrarily attribute to me WITHOUT any justification for doing so" is weak? In other words, you've recently(and in the past) "argued" against points that I've NEVER even made(which is another reason why I've repeatedly referred to you as an imbecile). I could easily cite you some examples...why I could even cite you some examples FROM TODAY. Anyhow...
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Those examples work to show that firstborn is used to denote younger siblings.
Of course, they do. However, contrary to your claims about me, I NEVER stated or even implied that the term "firstborn" doesn't have other implications attached to it, AT TIMES, as well. In other words, as I already plainly stated in an earlier post, there are at least two different precedents for the use of the term "firstborn" in scripture. Far from just "getting it" recently, I've taught on this topic FOR MANY YEARS...possibly before you were even born.
Of course, they do. However, contrary to your claims about me, I NEVER stated or even implied that the term "firstborn" doesn't have other implications attached to it, AT TIMES, as well. In other words, as I already plainly stated in an earlier post, there are at least two different precedents for the use of the term "firstborn" in scripture. Far from just "getting it" recently, I've taught on this topic FOR MANY YEARS...possibly before you were even born.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
So the question remains why did you give the other 11 examples first?
Because you initially said:
Because you initially said:
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You say that "first born" in the New Testament indicates Jesus had younger siblings.
In the Old Testament it has no such meaning.
In other words, I merely refuted your claims in the order in which they came.
In the Old Testament it has no such meaning.
In other words, I merely refuted your claims in the order in which they came.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Having younger siblings does not preclude that firstborn is used to denote no older siblings.
Say what? If you're suggesting that "firstborns" can have older siblings, then please include some justification for such a claim. I do realize that Jacob, although he was the younger brother, received the blessing of the firstborn. There were, however, other circumstances involved, such as Esau's selling of his birthright to Jacob, that made this possible. Anyhow, like I said, if you have justification for what you're seemingly suggesting, then please provide it.
Say what? If you're suggesting that "firstborns" can have older siblings, then please include some justification for such a claim. I do realize that Jacob, although he was the younger brother, received the blessing of the firstborn. There were, however, other circumstances involved, such as Esau's selling of his birthright to Jacob, that made this possible. Anyhow, like I said, if you have justification for what you're seemingly suggesting, then please provide it.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And I see you included Old Testament quotes as well, very good.
I've NEVER shied away from including the Old Testament, so you're "seeing" nothing new.
I've NEVER shied away from including the Old Testament, so you're "seeing" nothing new.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Do you understand why the first 11 quotes do not back you up? (they don't contradict you but also don't back you up)
And why these ones do?
And why they are still not absolutely conclusive?
It is possible that first born means no older siblings but that "only child" trumps that.
Although I understand what you're getting at, this is one of those situations where you're arbitrarily attributing a viewpoint to "me" that isn't actually my own. I NEVER said or even implied that JUST THESE SCRIPTURES ALONE "back me up". For your information, I look at ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS AVAILABLE and then base my conclusions upon my examination OF THE WHOLE. You, and PuckSR, I might add, have a very bad habit of "jumping the gun" by assuming that A PARTIAL RESPONSE OF MINE is my ENTIRE CASE. Try executing a little patience...it is a virtue, afterall.
I've got to go grocery shopping...
I'll address some more of your post at a later time. Until then...
And why these ones do?
And why they are still not absolutely conclusive?
It is possible that first born means no older siblings but that "only child" trumps that.
Although I understand what you're getting at, this is one of those situations where you're arbitrarily attributing a viewpoint to "me" that isn't actually my own. I NEVER said or even implied that JUST THESE SCRIPTURES ALONE "back me up". For your information, I look at ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS AVAILABLE and then base my conclusions upon my examination OF THE WHOLE. You, and PuckSR, I might add, have a very bad habit of "jumping the gun" by assuming that A PARTIAL RESPONSE OF MINE is my ENTIRE CASE. Try executing a little patience...it is a virtue, afterall.
I've got to go grocery shopping...
I'll address some more of your post at a later time. Until then...
Ah NewGuy, angry as always....
You have conclusively proven that "firstborn" typically indicates other children. Buttershug has referenced several passages where it does not inherently indicate multiple offspring...
Oddly, you two are having this literary debate across the old and new testament. Given that one predates the other by several centuries, was written in a different language, and is the cornerstone of a completely different religion...I don't see why this debate has to be restricted to the bible.
Buttershug, the mention of Obama as the "first black president" was an excellent example of primacy not always indicating a successor.
Of course, this entire conversation would be simpler if we restricted the argument to the Greek word prototokos
I would quote an expert on greek literature during the 1st century AD, but NewGuy would probably consider him an imbecile(for no apparent reason).
You have conclusively proven that "firstborn" typically indicates other children. Buttershug has referenced several passages where it does not inherently indicate multiple offspring...
Oddly, you two are having this literary debate across the old and new testament. Given that one predates the other by several centuries, was written in a different language, and is the cornerstone of a completely different religion...I don't see why this debate has to be restricted to the bible.
Buttershug, the mention of Obama as the "first black president" was an excellent example of primacy not always indicating a successor.
Of course, this entire conversation would be simpler if we restricted the argument to the Greek word prototokos
I would quote an expert on greek literature during the 1st century AD, but NewGuy would probably consider him an imbecile(for no apparent reason).
The idea that Jesus had siblings is, simply, rather popular. Obviously, we will never know for sure. But the current evidence is strong enough that there's no reason to discount the idea. Heck, the author of the book of James is sometimes assumed to be the brother of Jesus; it's not a stretch to think that a sibling of Jesus would write letters regarding such a popular rabbi.
Depends on what you mean "know for sure"
If you are discussing the historicity of Jesus(the historical facts of his existence), then obviously we will never know.
If, however, you are willing to accept the writings of the Bible as factually accurate in regards to the siblings of Jesus...then we know for sure that he had siblings.
Jesus had 4 brothers and multiple sisters..
His brothers were James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
James is mentioned repeatedly as the "brother" of Jesus and actually goes on to become an important father of Christianity.
There is no debate as to the siblings of Jesus.
The question is ...are the siblings the offspring of Mary or the offspring of Joseph...or a mixture of both. This is never explained. If they were not the children of Mary, this would go a long way in explaining why Jesus asked John to take care of Mary(being that Mary had no other living offspring). Its all interesting, and there are several hypothesizes.
The entire debate(as currently framed) is as follows:
Is there "clearly stated" evidence that at least some of the children are the offspring of Mary. Newguy has presented some pretty good evidence to believe that they might be the offspring of Mary...but he hasn't found a biblical passage that is "clearly stated"
Let me give an example
CLEARLY STATED:
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? " Matthew 13:55
That is pretty clear.
"Firstborn" indicating subsequent offspring is not nearly as clear.
It is even more strange that the entire discussion has centered around biblical passages. Given that the entire "first-born" argument centers around a greek word "prototokos"...I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show. Oh well...
I think it is funny that NewGuy quickly abandoned a discussion of greek to find any time that the KJV bible references "firstborn". He did this because it is easier to search the KJV then to do a bit of basic research on the greek term.
If you are discussing the historicity of Jesus(the historical facts of his existence), then obviously we will never know.
If, however, you are willing to accept the writings of the Bible as factually accurate in regards to the siblings of Jesus...then we know for sure that he had siblings.
Jesus had 4 brothers and multiple sisters..
His brothers were James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
James is mentioned repeatedly as the "brother" of Jesus and actually goes on to become an important father of Christianity.
There is no debate as to the siblings of Jesus.
The question is ...are the siblings the offspring of Mary or the offspring of Joseph...or a mixture of both. This is never explained. If they were not the children of Mary, this would go a long way in explaining why Jesus asked John to take care of Mary(being that Mary had no other living offspring). Its all interesting, and there are several hypothesizes.
The entire debate(as currently framed) is as follows:
Is there "clearly stated" evidence that at least some of the children are the offspring of Mary. Newguy has presented some pretty good evidence to believe that they might be the offspring of Mary...but he hasn't found a biblical passage that is "clearly stated"
Let me give an example
CLEARLY STATED:
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? " Matthew 13:55
That is pretty clear.
"Firstborn" indicating subsequent offspring is not nearly as clear.
It is even more strange that the entire discussion has centered around biblical passages. Given that the entire "first-born" argument centers around a greek word "prototokos"...I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show. Oh well...
I think it is funny that NewGuy quickly abandoned a discussion of greek to find any time that the KJV bible references "firstborn". He did this because it is easier to search the KJV then to do a bit of basic research on the greek term.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I think it is funny that NewGuy quickly abandoned a discussion of greek to find any time that the KJV bible references "firstborn". He did this because it is easier to search the KJV then to do a bit of basic research on the greek term.
PuckSR: And I think(know) that it's pretty sad that you're such a delusional idiot. As usual, you pass off your erroneous opinions as some sort of fact. If my memory serves me correctly, then you're somewhere around 24 years old. Just for the record(and certainly not to brag or claim any sort of expertise), I've been researching both the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible for about 20 years or since the time that you were about 4 years old. You know(you don't), you really flatter yourself way too much. You think yourself to be some sort of teacher...I view you as an imbecile. Good night.
PuckSR: And I think(know) that it's pretty sad that you're such a delusional idiot. As usual, you pass off your erroneous opinions as some sort of fact. If my memory serves me correctly, then you're somewhere around 24 years old. Just for the record(and certainly not to brag or claim any sort of expertise), I've been researching both the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible for about 20 years or since the time that you were about 4 years old. You know(you don't), you really flatter yourself way too much. You think yourself to be some sort of teacher...I view you as an imbecile. Good night.
Ah, so age instantly brings wisdom?
You have been studying the bible for 20 years?
I take it that in that time you have become mildly fluent in at least one of the languages in the bible?
You can read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic? Maybe just Latin?
Hmmm...guess not.
Maybe you have taken your 20 years of bible study and researched classic Roman, Middle-Eastern or Hebrew culture? No again?
Does your 20 years of biblical scholarship simply consist of teaching bible school, reading the bible, and reading books written about the bible by fundamentalist hacks?
*************************************************************
Let me be clear, I am not an expert on the bible. I have borrowed liberally from biblical experts. What more do you expect? I don't believe the bible to be historically accurate. Why would I bother to have more than a cursory knowledge of the bible?
I have mentioned at least one of my resources, Dr. Ehrman. Despite having a Master's of Divinity from a highly respected theological seminary...NewGuy has dismissed him as an imbecile.
Let me take the time to ask a question NewGuy. If I wanted to learn more about the bible...what should I read? What historian, theologian, philosopher, or general author do you consider worthy of my time?
One last question. Why would my age matter at all?
Jesus only lived to be about 35...do you consider yourself his superior simply because of age?
Why would seniority of life grant anyone greater clairvoyance of the facts?
You have been studying the bible for 20 years?
I take it that in that time you have become mildly fluent in at least one of the languages in the bible?
You can read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic? Maybe just Latin?
Hmmm...guess not.
Maybe you have taken your 20 years of bible study and researched classic Roman, Middle-Eastern or Hebrew culture? No again?
Does your 20 years of biblical scholarship simply consist of teaching bible school, reading the bible, and reading books written about the bible by fundamentalist hacks?
*************************************************************
Let me be clear, I am not an expert on the bible. I have borrowed liberally from biblical experts. What more do you expect? I don't believe the bible to be historically accurate. Why would I bother to have more than a cursory knowledge of the bible?
I have mentioned at least one of my resources, Dr. Ehrman. Despite having a Master's of Divinity from a highly respected theological seminary...NewGuy has dismissed him as an imbecile.
Let me take the time to ask a question NewGuy. If I wanted to learn more about the bible...what should I read? What historian, theologian, philosopher, or general author do you consider worthy of my time?
One last question. Why would my age matter at all?
Jesus only lived to be about 35...do you consider yourself his superior simply because of age?
Why would seniority of life grant anyone greater clairvoyance of the facts?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 6 2009, 01:52 AM)
Ah, so age instantly brings wisdom?
Unfortunately wisdom does not accompany age. However, the experience can sometimes be helpful.
Unfortunately wisdom does not accompany age. However, the experience can sometimes be helpful.
PuckSR: Congratulations(I might as well commend him)...your level of stupidity has increased. Previously, you stated:
QUOTE (PuckSR+ "The Genealogy of Jesus" March 30 2009)
It doesn't really change much...but glad I forced you to read some Greek.
Additionally, you recently stated:
I have the logical alternative. I also list a forerunner in Scripture with that last verse especially poignant this time of the year{and that first one, a leading indicator}.
monogenerated
3439 Believed to be a combo word form ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee), Strong's #1096
and another that we use as a common prefix in the English language!
Luke 7:12
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. (KJV)
Luke 8:42
42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. (KJV)
Luke 9:38
38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
John 3:18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (KJV)
Hebrew 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, (KJV)
I John 4:9
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (KJV)
#3173 Englishman's Concordance, O.T.'s Strong's
Genesis 22:2
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (KJV)
Genesis 22:12
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (KJV)
Genesis 22:16
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: (KJV)
Judges 11:34
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (KJV)
Psalms 22:20
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. (KJV)
Psalms 25:16
16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted. (KJV)
Psalms 35:17
17 Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only {life} from the lions.
(NAS)
Psalms 68:6
6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land. (KJV)
Proverbs 4:3
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. (KJV)
Jeremiah 6:26
26 O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. (KJV)
Amos 8:10
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day. (KJV)
Zechariah 12:10
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)
Additionally, you recently stated:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I think it is funny that NewGuy quickly abandoned a discussion of greek to find any time that the KJV bible references "firstborn". He did this because it is easier to search the KJV then to do a bit of basic research on the greek term.
To merely counter your erroneous claims that you either "forced me to read some Greek" or that I haven't "done a bit of basic research on the Greek term(prototokos)", I mentioned that I've researched both the Hebrew and Greek underlying texts of the Bible for about the last 20 years. What did you conclude from my response? That "age instantly brings wisdom", that "I'm Jesus' superior because I've lived longer on earth than He did" and that "seniority of life grants me greater clairvoyance of the facts". Like I said, you're an imbecile. Well, here's some "good news" that we both can enjoy...
I'll be gone(THANK GOD!) for about the next 9 or 10 days. Hopefully, by the time that I return, my capacity for handling some more of your stupidity will have increased to the actual level of your stupidity. Until then...
To merely counter your erroneous claims that you either "forced me to read some Greek" or that I haven't "done a bit of basic research on the Greek term(prototokos)", I mentioned that I've researched both the Hebrew and Greek underlying texts of the Bible for about the last 20 years. What did you conclude from my response? That "age instantly brings wisdom", that "I'm Jesus' superior because I've lived longer on earth than He did" and that "seniority of life grants me greater clairvoyance of the facts". Like I said, you're an imbecile. Well, here's some "good news" that we both can enjoy...
I'll be gone(THANK GOD!) for about the next 9 or 10 days. Hopefully, by the time that I return, my capacity for handling some more of your stupidity will have increased to the actual level of your stupidity. Until then...
QUOTE
CLEARLY STATED:
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? " Matthew 13:55
That is pretty clear.
"Firstborn" indicating subsequent offspring is not nearly as clear.
It is even more strange that the entire discussion has centered around biblical passages. Given that the entire "first-born" argument centers around a greek word "prototokos"...I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show. Oh well...
I would think so too. What do you got?"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? " Matthew 13:55
That is pretty clear.
"Firstborn" indicating subsequent offspring is not nearly as clear.
It is even more strange that the entire discussion has centered around biblical passages. Given that the entire "first-born" argument centers around a greek word "prototokos"...I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show. Oh well...
I have the logical alternative. I also list a forerunner in Scripture with that last verse especially poignant this time of the year{and that first one, a leading indicator}.
monogenerated
3439 Believed to be a combo word form ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee), Strong's #1096
and another that we use as a common prefix in the English language!
Luke 7:12
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. (KJV)
Luke 8:42
42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. (KJV)
Luke 9:38
38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
John 3:18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (KJV)
Hebrew 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, (KJV)
I John 4:9
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (KJV)
#3173 Englishman's Concordance, O.T.'s Strong's
Genesis 22:2
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (KJV)
Genesis 22:12
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (KJV)
Genesis 22:16
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: (KJV)
Judges 11:34
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (KJV)
Psalms 22:20
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. (KJV)
Psalms 25:16
16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted. (KJV)
Psalms 35:17
17 Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only {life} from the lions.
(NAS)
Psalms 68:6
6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land. (KJV)
Proverbs 4:3
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. (KJV)
Jeremiah 6:26
26 O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. (KJV)
Amos 8:10
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day. (KJV)
Zechariah 12:10
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| CLEARLY STATED: "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? " Matthew 13:55 That is pretty clear. "Firstborn" indicating subsequent offspring is not nearly as clear. It is even more strange that the entire discussion has centered around biblical passages. Given that the entire "first-born" argument centers around a greek word "prototokos"...I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show. Oh well... |
I would think so too. What do you got?
I have the logical alternative. I also list a forerunner in Scripture with that last verse especially poignant this time of the year{and that first one, a leading indicator}.
monogenerated
3439 Believed to be a combo word form ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee), Strong's #1096
and another that we use as a common prefix in the English language!
Luke 7:12
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. (KJV)
Luke 8:42
42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. (KJV)
Luke 9:38
38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
John 3:18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (KJV)
Hebrew 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, (KJV)
I John 4:9
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (KJV)
#3173 Englishman's Concordance, O.T.'s Strong's
Genesis 22:2
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (KJV)
Genesis 22:12
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (KJV)
Genesis 22:16
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: (KJV)
Judges 11:34
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (KJV)
Psalms 22:20
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. (KJV)
Psalms 25:16
16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted. (KJV)
Psalms 35:17
17 Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only {life} from the lions.
(NAS)
Psalms 68:6
6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land. (KJV)
Proverbs 4:3
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. (KJV)
Jeremiah 6:26
26 O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. (KJV)
Amos 8:10
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day. (KJV)
Zechariah 12:10
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)
I hope this makes it clear. I am not contradicting myself. I am discussing two different things the "facts of reality"(for example, that Luke's genealogy was supposed to be that of Mary) and the "facts of the Bible"(in which Luke states that his genealogy is that of Joseph).
When having a discussion about a piece of literature it is often necessary to restrict yourself to a certain subset of facts.
I have the logical alternative. I also list a forerunner in Scripture with that last verse especially poignant this time of the year{and that first one, a leading indicator}.
monogenerated
3439 Believed to be a combo word form ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee), Strong's #1096
and another that we use as a common prefix in the English language!
Luke 7:12
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. (KJV)
Luke 8:42
42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. (KJV)
Luke 9:38
38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)
John 1:18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
John 3:18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (KJV)
Hebrew 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, (KJV)
I John 4:9
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (KJV)
#3173 Englishman's Concordance, O.T.'s Strong's
Genesis 22:2
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (KJV)
Genesis 22:12
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (KJV)
Genesis 22:16
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: (KJV)
Judges 11:34
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (KJV)
Psalms 22:20
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. (KJV)
Psalms 25:16
16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted. (KJV)
Psalms 35:17
17 Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only {life} from the lions.
(NAS)
Psalms 68:6
6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land. (KJV)
Proverbs 4:3
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. (KJV)
Jeremiah 6:26
26 O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. (KJV)
Amos 8:10
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day. (KJV)
Zechariah 12:10
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)
I hope this makes it clear. I am not contradicting myself. I am discussing two different things the "facts of reality"(for example, that Luke's genealogy was supposed to be that of Mary) and the "facts of the Bible"(in which Luke states that his genealogy is that of Joseph).
When having a discussion about a piece of literature it is often necessary to restrict yourself to a certain subset of facts.
Maybe, alas you were clearly wrong or mistaken about what Luke, as we find it today, actually wrote. So, why in the world should we trust any expertise you have of the koine Greek or whatever of that era? Especially when YOU don't give a website.
MrB.
MrB.
MisterB, given the recent clarity of your post...I feel that I owe you a response.
My source was stated much earlier in this thread. Go back and find it.
I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show.
So, the answer is, you got nothing. What a surprise.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
Whether this site has anything to do with Ehrman, I don't know. As far as I can tell, he hasn't said anything new. The consequential changes in manuscripts seem to be few and far between. For instance, I seriously doubt the Pentecostal movement would be substantially different because something added by a scribe during the collation of the New Testament. In any case, I have seen nothing that remotely touches the foundation of Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection.
Reality is still the name of the game,
MrB.
It is hard to tell sometimes if Buttershug is playing{with a full deck }or not.
I should note for PuckSr etc., that some people say the N. T. was not written in Greek but Aramaic.
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, the end of PART VIII
Plummer's remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): "To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism."
And A.T. Robertson ("Matthew" in Bible for Home and School, 26): "The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels." The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin-- a standing miracle.
If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.
ISBE
MATTHEW, THE GOSPEL OF
The theory of successive redactions of Mt, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?
...
(2) Authorship.-- The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able."
Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24).
The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii. 3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.
...
The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthaean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthaean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses.
...
6. Date of Gospel: According to early and practically universal tradition Mt wrote his Gospel before the other three, and the place assigned to it in New Testament literature favors the acceptance of this tradition. Irenaeus reports that it was written when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (ill. 1), and Eusebius states that this was done when Matthew left Palestine and went to preach to others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24). Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the statement that the presbyters who succeeded each other from the beginning declared that "the gospels containing the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 14). This is, of course, fatal to the current theory of dependence on Mark, and is in consequence rejected. At any rate, there is the best reason for holding that the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (compare 2415?). The most likely date for the Greek Gospel is in the 7th Christian decade. Zahn claims that Matthew wrote his Aramaic Gospel in Palestine in 62 AD, while the Greek Matthew dates from 85 AD, but this latter date is not probable.
ISBE
Mention must here be made of Tatian's Diatessaron which was in essence a Gospel remodelled by the method generally adopted from the beginning in Gospel literature. The Diatessaron was the first Gospel of the Church of Edessa and for long remained official among the Syrian congregations; an interesting fact as showing how little regardful these congregations were, about 170, of the canon which Irenaeus had just vaunted as fixed, and how they could arrange for themselves a Gospel not in liturgical use in the congregations of the Roman world.
It is however certain that Tatian's work was a harmony of the four canonical Gospels with a small number of secondary features seemingly borrowed from the non-canonical. More significant are the omissions and retouches which reveal Tatian's encratism and anti-semitic bias. [72]
The work of the Christian imagination in dealing with the birth of Jesus was not limited to the stories in Matthew and Luke. Some of the gnostics took part in it, and the idea of the virgin birth, with its mixed savour of encratism and docetism, probably came from that source. [73] Among the gospels of the infancy which have most influenced catholic tradition is the Protoevangel of James, a book written to establish the virginity of Mary ante partum, in partu and post partum, and in which the author has amplified both Luke and Matthew. [74] Although Justin's dependence on it is not proved, the core of the book may be dated as far back as the middle of the second century. It was written outside of Palestine and by a writer ignorant of Jewish affairs.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/chapter1.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/index-2.html
MARY
It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life.
ISBE
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
2. Gospel of the Egyptians: Three short and somewhat mystic verses are all that are left of what is known as the Gospel of the Egyptians. They occur in Book III of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, who devoted that book to a refutation of Encratism, that is, the rejection, as absolutely unlawful, of the use of marriage, of flesh meat and of wine. Already in the Pauline Epistles are met parties with the cry <Col 2:21> "Handle not, nor taste, nor touch," and <1 Tim 4:3> "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats." The verses in Clement read as follows: "When Salome asked how long will death prevail? The Lord said, As long as ye women bear children: for I have come to destroy the function of women. And Salome said to him.
Did I not well then in not bearing children? And the Lord answered and said, Eat of every herb, but do not eat of that which is bitter. And when Salome asked when the things would be known about which she had enquired, the Lord said, When ye trample on the garment of shame, and when the two shall be one, and the male with the female neither male nor female." The words assuredly vary much from the usual character of those of our Lord. Modern writers vary as to their encratite tendency and as to how far the Gospel of the Egyptians was practical. With so little to go upon, it is not easy to form a conclusion. It may have contained other passages on account of which Origen deemed it heretical. It was used by the Naassenes and Sabellians. The date of the Gospel is between 130 and 150.
International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database
My source was stated much earlier in this thread. Go back and find it.
QUOTE (newguy+)
To merely counter your erroneous claims that you either "forced me to read some Greek" or that I haven't "done a bit of basic research on the Greek term(prototokos)", I mentioned that I've researched both the Hebrew and Greek underlying texts of the Bible for about the last 20 years. What did you conclude from my response? That "age instantly brings wisdom", that "I'm Jesus' superior because I've lived longer on earth than He did" and that "seniority of life grants me greater clairvoyance of the facts". Like I said, you're an imbecile. Well, here's some "good news" that we both can enjoy...
You still haven't qualified your study.
What exactly did you study?
When a normal and sane person claims that they have studied a foreign language, I would expect that they made an honest attempt to become fluent in the language.
I have the impression that your "research" of Hebrew and Greek consisted of reading books and documents which strictly discussed the translation of particular passages in the bible. If I am incorrect, and you have indeed made an honest attempt to become fluent in Greek or Hebrew, then please correct me.
**********************************************************
I honestly hope you are being purposefully difficult with the rest of your post. When I said "ah, so age instantly brings wisdom?" It was not intended as an interpretation of your post. It was a comment used to highlight the ridiculousness of bringing the difference in our ages into the discussion. I feel fairly confident that one's age has little bearing on one's intelligence. While the onset of age frequently is accompanied by greater wisdom, the underlying intelligence of an individual does not vary greatly. I could cite numerous examples, but I chose the one of your "god-figure" to highlight the ridiculousness of your argument.
It seems that you mistake sarcasm as interpretation. This explains a good deal of your difficulty with other posters on this forum. We aren't misinterpreting you NewGuy, we are mocking you.
I await your silly and dismissive response. I bet it will be full of avoidance and strawman arguments.
You still haven't qualified your study.
What exactly did you study?
When a normal and sane person claims that they have studied a foreign language, I would expect that they made an honest attempt to become fluent in the language.
I have the impression that your "research" of Hebrew and Greek consisted of reading books and documents which strictly discussed the translation of particular passages in the bible. If I am incorrect, and you have indeed made an honest attempt to become fluent in Greek or Hebrew, then please correct me.
**********************************************************
I honestly hope you are being purposefully difficult with the rest of your post. When I said "ah, so age instantly brings wisdom?" It was not intended as an interpretation of your post. It was a comment used to highlight the ridiculousness of bringing the difference in our ages into the discussion. I feel fairly confident that one's age has little bearing on one's intelligence. While the onset of age frequently is accompanied by greater wisdom, the underlying intelligence of an individual does not vary greatly. I could cite numerous examples, but I chose the one of your "god-figure" to highlight the ridiculousness of your argument.
It seems that you mistake sarcasm as interpretation. This explains a good deal of your difficulty with other posters on this forum. We aren't misinterpreting you NewGuy, we are mocking you.
I await your silly and dismissive response. I bet it will be full of avoidance and strawman arguments.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 6 2009, 12:17 PM)
Maybe, alas you were clearly wrong or mistaken about what Luke, as we find it today, actually wrote.
MrB.
Was Luke one of the ones that didn't actually write anything down but had what someone thought he said, written down?
MrB.
Was Luke one of the ones that didn't actually write anything down but had what someone thought he said, written down?
None of the gospels (to the best of my knowledge) are suspected to have been recorded by an actual Disciple.
QUOTE
I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I would think contemporary greek literature would be the star of the show. I would think so too. What do you got? |
So, the answer is, you got nothing. What a surprise.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
Whether this site has anything to do with Ehrman, I don't know. As far as I can tell, he hasn't said anything new. The consequential changes in manuscripts seem to be few and far between. For instance, I seriously doubt the Pentecostal movement would be substantially different because something added by a scribe during the collation of the New Testament. In any case, I have seen nothing that remotely touches the foundation of Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection.
Reality is still the name of the game,
MrB.
It is hard to tell sometimes if Buttershug is playing{with a full deck
}or not. I should note for PuckSr etc., that some people say the N. T. was not written in Greek but Aramaic.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+April 7 2009, 12:18 PM)
None of the gospels (to the best of my knowledge) are suspected to have been recorded by an actual Disciple.
My mind is drawing a blank on Mark at the moment. But on John and Matthew...they were both disciples as far as I know. What Ehrman and others seem to want to point out is that all these eyewitnesses were decades away from the event(s) and that can make their accounts {culturally} suspect. Yeah, all right, point taken...
"The real issue is whether biblical scholarship is prepared to "go public" with the truth about the crucial gap between record and event in the case of these canonical narratives of Christian origins. If we think we have arrived at that point, then we should offer historically dynamic translations such as those here suggested, or we should print in banner headlines across the top of the usual formal equivalence translations of the gospels and Acts that they were written decades after the events recounted and in a quite different situation with regard to Christianity's Jewish origins. The present falsehood, with all the pain and damage it has for centuries caused both Christians and Jews, cannot in good conscience be permitted to continue."
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elemen...ar/sanders2.htm
Linked and quoted (for the first time) in post# 407266 March 29 -------->Showtopic= 25268.
MrB.
Re: MARK
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, PARTS I-VIII
That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname "Boanerges" supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned <Mark 3:17>.
A second point is equally clear-- that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes "Marcus, my son" (<1 Pet 5:13> the King James Version) in this connection. "Disciple" is self-explanatory. "Follower" is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. "Interpreter" is less clear. One view equates it with "translator," because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view-- that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon)-- is that it means "interpreter" simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, PARTS I-VIII
Continuation of PART V
There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.
International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database
My mind is drawing a blank on Mark at the moment. But on John and Matthew...they were both disciples as far as I know. What Ehrman and others seem to want to point out is that all these eyewitnesses were decades away from the event(s) and that can make their accounts {culturally} suspect. Yeah, all right, point taken...
"The real issue is whether biblical scholarship is prepared to "go public" with the truth about the crucial gap between record and event in the case of these canonical narratives of Christian origins. If we think we have arrived at that point, then we should offer historically dynamic translations such as those here suggested, or we should print in banner headlines across the top of the usual formal equivalence translations of the gospels and Acts that they were written decades after the events recounted and in a quite different situation with regard to Christianity's Jewish origins. The present falsehood, with all the pain and damage it has for centuries caused both Christians and Jews, cannot in good conscience be permitted to continue."
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elemen...ar/sanders2.htm
Linked and quoted (for the first time) in post# 407266 March 29 -------->Showtopic= 25268.
MrB.
Re: MARK
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, PARTS I-VIII
That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname "Boanerges" supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned <Mark 3:17>.
A second point is equally clear-- that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes "Marcus, my son" (<1 Pet 5:13> the King James Version) in this connection. "Disciple" is self-explanatory. "Follower" is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. "Interpreter" is less clear. One view equates it with "translator," because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view-- that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon)-- is that it means "interpreter" simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, PARTS I-VIII
Continuation of PART V
There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.
International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database
what I love about this entire debate is that you are arguing about a book that at the very best is nothing more than legends, stories, fantasy, interspersed with historical views from a group of fellows that had it in their best interest to pump up the BS about a teacher.
You tear apart each book word for word, and have the same issue that everyone has had throughout time. it is all in HOW you interpret it. I can read the same 2 books (king james and the later version) and get something totally different than what you get.
Which is EXACTLY what every priest, preacher, and wild eyed christian does. They extract whatever they want, and expound on it as the truth.
Just remember Einstein... It is all relative.....
Of course I always have to laugh about how god suddenly changed his mind and switched from the old testament to the new... Nothing like a little consistency to make your tale solid... or is that inconsistency? I get sooo confused.
Then of course there is the other part... I really have an issue with this point. That an all powerful being capable of rendering the universe would require a bloody human sacrifice for any reason. Have you paid any attention to that at all? If that is what you call love, to hang a guy on a cross, torture him for 3 or 4 days, all in the name of what? love? is that tough love?
There are some truly perverted people out there, and anyone who swallows this bu11shit is as about as twisted and perverted as a person can be.
I love you... let me show you how much. After I drown your a$$es out, I will make a pretty rainbow to show you how much I care! Then I will rape a woman (no penetration required) kill the firstborn of every person in town, raise the kid to be a teacher, then hang and torture him for a few days and bring him back... whoo HOO!
If that is your idea of a great time... well, have fun with that... and keep in the back of your mind.. if this god changed his mind on the books, and was willing to torture his own kid, just what do you think he would be willing to do to you?
MM
You tear apart each book word for word, and have the same issue that everyone has had throughout time. it is all in HOW you interpret it. I can read the same 2 books (king james and the later version) and get something totally different than what you get.
Which is EXACTLY what every priest, preacher, and wild eyed christian does. They extract whatever they want, and expound on it as the truth.
Just remember Einstein... It is all relative.....
Of course I always have to laugh about how god suddenly changed his mind and switched from the old testament to the new... Nothing like a little consistency to make your tale solid... or is that inconsistency? I get sooo confused.
Then of course there is the other part... I really have an issue with this point. That an all powerful being capable of rendering the universe would require a bloody human sacrifice for any reason. Have you paid any attention to that at all? If that is what you call love, to hang a guy on a cross, torture him for 3 or 4 days, all in the name of what? love? is that tough love?
There are some truly perverted people out there, and anyone who swallows this bu11shit is as about as twisted and perverted as a person can be.
I love you... let me show you how much. After I drown your a$$es out, I will make a pretty rainbow to show you how much I care! Then I will rape a woman (no penetration required) kill the firstborn of every person in town, raise the kid to be a teacher, then hang and torture him for a few days and bring him back... whoo HOO!
If that is your idea of a great time... well, have fun with that... and keep in the back of your mind.. if this god changed his mind on the books, and was willing to torture his own kid, just what do you think he would be willing to do to you?
MM
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 7 2009, 01:28 PM)
My mind is drawing a blank on Mark at the moment. But on John and Matthew...they were both disciples as far as I know. What Ehrman and others seem to want to point out is that all these eyewitnesses were decades away from the event(s) and that can make their accounts {culturally} suspect. Yeah, all right, point taken...
And you wonder if I"m playing with a full deck?
Try this scnenario.
The eyewitnesses wrote nothing down. They did however talk to people.
And those people talked to other people and they to others.
Then finally someone clued in that Jesus was going to be a little while coming back so finally someone wrote down what they heard.
Reality is no one who knew Jesus wrote anything about him.
Reality is the "telephone game" gives very poor results.
Reality is you have to start with the assumption that the Bible is true.
You can't accurately say "Luke said". you would have to write someone wrote that someone said that someone said that Luke said.... And that's only if you go by the original material. Otherwise you have to take translations into account.
How would you feel with someone giving the same treatment to the Illiad that you give to the Bible?
And you wonder if I"m playing with a full deck?
Try this scnenario.
The eyewitnesses wrote nothing down. They did however talk to people.
And those people talked to other people and they to others.
Then finally someone clued in that Jesus was going to be a little while coming back so finally someone wrote down what they heard.
Reality is no one who knew Jesus wrote anything about him.
Reality is the "telephone game" gives very poor results.
Reality is you have to start with the assumption that the Bible is true.
You can't accurately say "Luke said". you would have to write someone wrote that someone said that someone said that Luke said.... And that's only if you go by the original material. Otherwise you have to take translations into account.
How would you feel with someone giving the same treatment to the Illiad that you give to the Bible?
Yeah, Mark is considered to be the most reputable and historically reliable source as to what Jesus really did. It was closest to the 'source'. John was clearly made up many years later, and Matthew and Luke had the text of Mark when they were written (to copy from).
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 7 2009, 02:23 PM)
And you wonder if I"m playing with a full deck?
Try this scnenario.
The eyewitnesses wrote nothing down. They did however talk to people.
And those people talked to other people and they to others.
Then finally someone clued in that Jesus was going to be a little while coming back so finally someone wrote down what they heard.
Reality is no one who knew Jesus wrote anything about him.
Reality is the "telephone game" gives very poor results.
Reality is you have to start with the assumption that the Bible is true.
You can't accurately say "Luke said". you would have to write someone wrote that someone said that someone said that Luke said.... And that's only if you go by the original material. Otherwise you have to take translations into account.
How would you feel with someone giving the same treatment to the Illiad that you give to the Bible?
Bravo buttershug Bravo... that seems to be yet another point(s) that many theologians miss. I honestly don't know if there are any writings from anyone who was actually there. then you have the The First Council of Nicea that made the choices of what was truth and what was heresy.... add that all together, and you have a nice legend. story. whatever you choose to call it.
MM
Try this scnenario.
The eyewitnesses wrote nothing down. They did however talk to people.
And those people talked to other people and they to others.
Then finally someone clued in that Jesus was going to be a little while coming back so finally someone wrote down what they heard.
Reality is no one who knew Jesus wrote anything about him.
Reality is the "telephone game" gives very poor results.
Reality is you have to start with the assumption that the Bible is true.
You can't accurately say "Luke said". you would have to write someone wrote that someone said that someone said that Luke said.... And that's only if you go by the original material. Otherwise you have to take translations into account.
How would you feel with someone giving the same treatment to the Illiad that you give to the Bible?
Bravo buttershug Bravo... that seems to be yet another point(s) that many theologians miss. I honestly don't know if there are any writings from anyone who was actually there. then you have the The First Council of Nicea that made the choices of what was truth and what was heresy.... add that all together, and you have a nice legend. story. whatever you choose to call it.
MM
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, the end of PART VIII
Plummer's remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): "To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism."
And A.T. Robertson ("Matthew" in Bible for Home and School, 26): "The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels." The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin-- a standing miracle.
If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.
ISBE
MATTHEW, THE GOSPEL OF
The theory of successive redactions of Mt, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?
...
(2) Authorship.-- The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able."
Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24).
The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii. 3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.
...
The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthaean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthaean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses.
...
6. Date of Gospel: According to early and practically universal tradition Mt wrote his Gospel before the other three, and the place assigned to it in New Testament literature favors the acceptance of this tradition. Irenaeus reports that it was written when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (ill. 1), and Eusebius states that this was done when Matthew left Palestine and went to preach to others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24). Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the statement that the presbyters who succeeded each other from the beginning declared that "the gospels containing the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 14). This is, of course, fatal to the current theory of dependence on Mark, and is in consequence rejected. At any rate, there is the best reason for holding that the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (
ISBE
When I was little, I prayed every night for a new bike. I then realized God doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Apr 7 2009, 04:18 PM)
When I was little, I prayed every night for a new bike. I then realized God doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me.
Some individuals need a god to tell them what is right or wrong. The child that had his bike stolen, lost his bike.
Some individuals need a god to tell them what is right or wrong. The child that had his bike stolen, lost his bike.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Apr 7 2009, 04:18 PM)
When I was little, I prayed every night for a new bike. I then realized God doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me.
But did you ax Jeeeeeeezuuuuuuuuussssss to enter yer life? Make ewe a better person? luuuuuuuuuuv yer neeeeybor? and give yer siiiiiiiiiins and inequities over to jjjjjjjjjeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuus?
YER SAVED!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
MM
But did you ax Jeeeeeeezuuuuuuuuussssss to enter yer life? Make ewe a better person? luuuuuuuuuuv yer neeeeybor? and give yer siiiiiiiiiins and inequities over to jjjjjjjjjeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuus?
YER SAVED!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
MM
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 7 2009, 04:00 PM)
MATTHEW, THE GOSPEL OF
The theory of successive redactions of Mt, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?
...
ISBE
What choice would the Church have?
To loudly announce that they have many contradictory stories?
And when people die they tend to stop passing on their oral stories.
And if there is a written redacted story that will replace the oral ones.
The theory of successive redactions of Mt, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?
...
ISBE
What choice would the Church have?
To loudly announce that they have many contradictory stories?
And when people die they tend to stop passing on their oral stories.
And if there is a written redacted story that will replace the oral ones.
QUOTE
Additionally, YOU IMBECILE, this very same Apocryphal book partially explains why Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Jesus(since YOU asked how they get around the fact that the Bible states that Jesus had brothers and sisters). Had you bothered to click on the link that I provided for you in an earlier response, then you would have/should have noticed the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150. The Gospel of James may be the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary by stating her perpetual virginity and presenting her as the New Eve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
The Gospel of James, also sometimes known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 150. The Gospel of James may be the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary by stating her perpetual virginity and presenting her as the New Eve.
Mention must here be made of Tatian's Diatessaron which was in essence a Gospel remodelled by the method generally adopted from the beginning in Gospel literature. The Diatessaron was the first Gospel of the Church of Edessa and for long remained official among the Syrian congregations; an interesting fact as showing how little regardful these congregations were, about 170, of the canon which Irenaeus had just vaunted as fixed, and how they could arrange for themselves a Gospel not in liturgical use in the congregations of the Roman world.
It is however certain that Tatian's work was a harmony of the four canonical Gospels with a small number of secondary features seemingly borrowed from the non-canonical. More significant are the omissions and retouches which reveal Tatian's encratism and anti-semitic bias. [72]
The work of the Christian imagination in dealing with the birth of Jesus was not limited to the stories in Matthew and Luke. Some of the gnostics took part in it, and the idea of the virgin birth, with its mixed savour of encratism and docetism, probably came from that source. [73] Among the gospels of the infancy which have most influenced catholic tradition is the Protoevangel of James, a book written to establish the virginity of Mary ante partum, in partu and post partum, and in which the author has amplified both Luke and Matthew. [74] Although Justin's dependence on it is not proved, the core of the book may be dated as far back as the middle of the second century. It was written outside of Palestine and by a writer ignorant of Jewish affairs.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/chapter1.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/index-2.html
MARY
It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life.
ISBE
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
2. Gospel of the Egyptians: Three short and somewhat mystic verses are all that are left of what is known as the Gospel of the Egyptians. They occur in Book III of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, who devoted that book to a refutation of Encratism, that is, the rejection, as absolutely unlawful, of the use of marriage, of flesh meat and of wine. Already in the Pauline Epistles are met parties with the cry <Col 2:21> "Handle not, nor taste, nor touch," and <1 Tim 4:3> "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats." The verses in Clement read as follows: "When Salome asked how long will death prevail? The Lord said, As long as ye women bear children: for I have come to destroy the function of women. And Salome said to him.
Did I not well then in not bearing children? And the Lord answered and said, Eat of every herb, but do not eat of that which is bitter. And when Salome asked when the things would be known about which she had enquired, the Lord said, When ye trample on the garment of shame, and when the two shall be one, and the male with the female neither male nor female." The words assuredly vary much from the usual character of those of our Lord. Modern writers vary as to their encratite tendency and as to how far the Gospel of the Egyptians was practical. With so little to go upon, it is not easy to form a conclusion. It may have contained other passages on account of which Origen deemed it heretical. It was used by the Naassenes and Sabellians. The date of the Gospel is between 130 and 150.
International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database
MisterBelfry
Fact??? More like myth lifted whole from previous religious traditions. Virgin birth being just one of the embellishments tacked on to the story of Jesus to "prove" his supernatural origins.
Jesus's message does not need such obviously false additions to be valuable, but that's what religions do.
Gr
umpy
QUOTE
The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships.
Fact??? More like myth lifted whole from previous religious traditions. Virgin birth being just one of the embellishments tacked on to the story of Jesus to "prove" his supernatural origins.
Jesus's message does not need such obviously false additions to be valuable, but that's what religions do.
Gr
umpy
I think David Hume said it best:
"Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?" - David Hume.
"Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?" - David Hume.
QUOTE (April 3+)
MisterBelfry March 24 2009, 11:11 AM
...
http://www.keyofdavid.com <------This would be the importance of Matthew's genealogy & this of the flesh------->
http://www.gracecentered.com/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm
What is curious to me is not so much the Jewish need to continue the book of Chronicles (which as I understand it ends the Scripture that Mishnah comments on and then you have the "whole" commentary on the commentary with the Talmund thingy which if memory serves the Jerusalem one is the smaller of the two—the Babylonian being the longerbut I may have that backwards—I don't). No, what I would like to know is Luke's sources(remember he was a Greek doctor|historian, not a Jew). And how or to what extent this is the reason the early manuscripts vary widely? I suspect it is on just a few names, but I don't know for sure. <-------------Showtopic= 25268
MrB.
"Any time he[the materialist claimed scientist] offers a scientific explanation, avoids self-interest, or seeks the truth, he plagarizes the biblical worldview."--David Coppedge, April 2009, vol. 38, Acts & Facts.
...
http://www.keyofdavid.com <------This would be the importance of Matthew's genealogy & this of the flesh------->
http://www.gracecentered.com/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm
What is curious to me is not so much the Jewish need to continue the book of Chronicles (which as I understand it ends the Scripture that Mishnah comments on and then you have the "whole" commentary on the commentary with the Talmund thingy which if memory serves the Jerusalem one is the smaller of the two—the Babylonian being the longer
MrB.
"Any time he[the materialist claimed scientist] offers a scientific explanation, avoids self-interest, or seeks the truth, he plagarizes the biblical worldview."--David Coppedge, April 2009, vol. 38, Acts & Facts.
QUOTE (newguy+)
To merely counter your erroneous claims that you either "forced me to read some Greek" or that I haven't "done a bit of basic research on the Greek term(prototokos)", I mentioned that I've researched both the Hebrew and Greek underlying texts of the Bible for about the last 20 years. What did you conclude from my response? That "age instantly brings wisdom", that "I'm Jesus' superior because I've lived longer on earth than He did" and that "seniority of life grants me greater clairvoyance of the facts". Like I said, you're an imbecile. Well, here's some "good news" that we both can enjoy...
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You still haven't qualified your study.
What exactly did you study?
When a normal and sane person claims that they have studied a foreign language, I would expect that they made an honest attempt to become fluent in the language.
I have the impression that your "research" of Hebrew and Greek consisted of reading books and documents which strictly discussed the translation of particular passages in the bible. If I am incorrect, and you have indeed made an honest attempt to become fluent in Greek or Hebrew, then please correct me.
**********************************************************
I honestly hope you are being purposefully difficult with the rest of your post. When I said "ah, so age instantly brings wisdom?" It was not intended as an interpretation of your post. It was a comment used to highlight the ridiculousness of bringing the difference in our ages into the discussion. I feel fairly confident that one's age has little bearing on one's intelligence. While the onset of age frequently is accompanied by greater wisdom, the underlying intelligence of an individual does not vary greatly. I could cite numerous examples, but I chose the one of your "god-figure" to highlight the ridiculousness of your argument.
It seems that you mistake sarcasm as interpretation. This explains a good deal of your difficulty with other posters on this forum. We aren't misinterpreting you NewGuy, we are mocking you.
I await your silly and dismissive response. I bet it will be full of avoidance and strawman arguments.
PuckSR: I read this response of yours earlier today and I just had to comment before checking out of my hotel. I literally wish that you were a sock puppet of someone's making instead of just a genuine imbecile. As usual, I didn't know whether I should laugh or cry when reading yet another asinine response of yours. HOW IRONIC that you should be demanding to know my background in either Hebrew or Greek when it's bloody obvious(well, maybe not around here) that you can't even understand/comprehend PLAIN OLD ENGLISH. I told you that I merely mentioned how I've been researching the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible for the last 20 years TO COUNTER YOUR ERRONEOUS CLAIMS and you're still going on about our age differences?
Dewed, eye thawed ewe whirr inn call edge?(Probably the only sentence that he'll understand in my post).
And YOU are mocking ME?
Since it's obvious(once again, probably not around here where imbeciles are called "scientists") that your downward spiral is continuing, I'll make a deal with you...
Get at least one(two, if the only one is buttershug) other poster to request that I give a dissertation on "prototokos" and I will gladly oblige. It has to be a real poster...no sock puppets allowed. If you can't get one, then your "demands"(save them for the women whom you tie up, you friggin' weirdo) will go unheeded.
P.S. Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll mention the following. If you had ANY REASONING SKILLS WHATSOEVER, then you would drop YOUR ridiculous attempts to make me seem like some sort of "one trick pony" whose only "research" focuses on the translation of particular Biblical passages and especially only those that appear within the King James Version of the Bible. As ANYONE with a brain bigger than a pea should have recognized by now, I not only REGULARLY cite from dictionaries, encyclopedias, etymological dictionaries, etc., but I'm also a fairly well-read man. When it comes to Bible "translations", I've studied the different translations rather extensively for almost the last 20 years. I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of getting into such detailed discussions with the likes of you. For those "in the peanut gallery" who might find that a little harsh, I'll be glad to document some of our past discussions along these lines which have led me to conclude that you're not only an imbecile, but an incorrigible imbecile at that. Like I said, I'll gladly document what has caused me to conclude such. On top of this, I have studied other cultures in an attempt to better understand the meanings of "controversial" words within the Bible. In fact, I've taught along these lines on numerous occasions as well. Anyway, that was more for the aforementioned "peanut gallery" than for you(since you're incapable of understanding anything...well, you're probably pretty good at picking out leather thongs and the such).
What exactly did you study?
When a normal and sane person claims that they have studied a foreign language, I would expect that they made an honest attempt to become fluent in the language.
I have the impression that your "research" of Hebrew and Greek consisted of reading books and documents which strictly discussed the translation of particular passages in the bible. If I am incorrect, and you have indeed made an honest attempt to become fluent in Greek or Hebrew, then please correct me.
**********************************************************
I honestly hope you are being purposefully difficult with the rest of your post. When I said "ah, so age instantly brings wisdom?" It was not intended as an interpretation of your post. It was a comment used to highlight the ridiculousness of bringing the difference in our ages into the discussion. I feel fairly confident that one's age has little bearing on one's intelligence. While the onset of age frequently is accompanied by greater wisdom, the underlying intelligence of an individual does not vary greatly. I could cite numerous examples, but I chose the one of your "god-figure" to highlight the ridiculousness of your argument.
It seems that you mistake sarcasm as interpretation. This explains a good deal of your difficulty with other posters on this forum. We aren't misinterpreting you NewGuy, we are mocking you.
I await your silly and dismissive response. I bet it will be full of avoidance and strawman arguments.
PuckSR: I read this response of yours earlier today and I just had to comment before checking out of my hotel. I literally wish that you were a sock puppet of someone's making instead of just a genuine imbecile. As usual, I didn't know whether I should laugh or cry when reading yet another asinine response of yours. HOW IRONIC that you should be demanding to know my background in either Hebrew or Greek when it's bloody obvious(well, maybe not around here) that you can't even understand/comprehend PLAIN OLD ENGLISH. I told you that I merely mentioned how I've been researching the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible for the last 20 years TO COUNTER YOUR ERRONEOUS CLAIMS and you're still going on about our age differences?
Dewed, eye thawed ewe whirr inn call edge?(Probably the only sentence that he'll understand in my post).
And YOU are mocking ME?
Since it's obvious(once again, probably not around here where imbeciles are called "scientists") that your downward spiral is continuing, I'll make a deal with you...
Get at least one(two, if the only one is buttershug) other poster to request that I give a dissertation on "prototokos" and I will gladly oblige. It has to be a real poster...no sock puppets allowed. If you can't get one, then your "demands"(save them for the women whom you tie up, you friggin' weirdo) will go unheeded.
P.S. Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll mention the following. If you had ANY REASONING SKILLS WHATSOEVER, then you would drop YOUR ridiculous attempts to make me seem like some sort of "one trick pony" whose only "research" focuses on the translation of particular Biblical passages and especially only those that appear within the King James Version of the Bible. As ANYONE with a brain bigger than a pea should have recognized by now, I not only REGULARLY cite from dictionaries, encyclopedias, etymological dictionaries, etc., but I'm also a fairly well-read man. When it comes to Bible "translations", I've studied the different translations rather extensively for almost the last 20 years. I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of getting into such detailed discussions with the likes of you. For those "in the peanut gallery" who might find that a little harsh, I'll be glad to document some of our past discussions along these lines which have led me to conclude that you're not only an imbecile, but an incorrigible imbecile at that. Like I said, I'll gladly document what has caused me to conclude such. On top of this, I have studied other cultures in an attempt to better understand the meanings of "controversial" words within the Bible. In fact, I've taught along these lines on numerous occasions as well. Anyway, that was more for the aforementioned "peanut gallery" than for you(since you're incapable of understanding anything...well, you're probably pretty good at picking out leather thongs and the such).
And everything you do can be done with the Illiad.
There has even been some evidence of having found Troy.
So that is even one step ahead of you.
There has even been some evidence of having found Troy.
So that is even one step ahead of you.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And everything you do can be done with the Illiad.
There has even been some evidence of having found Troy.
So that is even one step ahead of you.
buttershug: As usual, you make no sense. Let me explain...
Around here, imbeciles(sometimes you) consistently make erroneous claims about what is contained within the pages of scripture. I, IN TURN, simply point out to such imbeciles what the scriptures actually say to those who can both read(as opposed to the mindless imbeciles around here who can only parrot what they've borrowed from another imbecile's website, book, etc.) and actually comprehend what they are reading. What is the inevitable outcome of my attempts to correct your errors? You accuse me of circular reasoning or using the Bible to prove the Bible. Will you EVER comprehend that I'm not attempting to prove the Bible at all in these debates? Rather, I'm simply attempting to show how imbeciles LIKE YOU have no comprehension skills whatsoever and therefore ought not expect others(well, except around here, of course) to put too much stock in their "*AHEM* "scientific research skills". Additionally, will you EVER learn that THE BURDEN OF PROOF ACTUALLY LIES ON YOU and that YOU FAIL TERRIBLY EVERY TIME THAT YOU TWIST THE PLAIN MEANINGS OF SCRIPTURE? I assume, based upon past dialogue with you, that you're incapable of comprehending such things, but someone will hopefully understand.
P.S. Can anyone understand why I asked for someone other than buttershug to request a dissertation on "prototokos" from me?
P.P.S. Should anyone genuinely desire such a dissertation from me, then it will be at least 4 days before it comes.
"Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity." Kaeroll
There has even been some evidence of having found Troy.
So that is even one step ahead of you.
buttershug: As usual, you make no sense. Let me explain...
Around here, imbeciles(sometimes you) consistently make erroneous claims about what is contained within the pages of scripture. I, IN TURN, simply point out to such imbeciles what the scriptures actually say to those who can both read(as opposed to the mindless imbeciles around here who can only parrot what they've borrowed from another imbecile's website, book, etc.) and actually comprehend what they are reading. What is the inevitable outcome of my attempts to correct your errors? You accuse me of circular reasoning or using the Bible to prove the Bible. Will you EVER comprehend that I'm not attempting to prove the Bible at all in these debates? Rather, I'm simply attempting to show how imbeciles LIKE YOU have no comprehension skills whatsoever and therefore ought not expect others(well, except around here, of course) to put too much stock in their "*AHEM* "scientific research skills". Additionally, will you EVER learn that THE BURDEN OF PROOF ACTUALLY LIES ON YOU and that YOU FAIL TERRIBLY EVERY TIME THAT YOU TWIST THE PLAIN MEANINGS OF SCRIPTURE? I assume, based upon past dialogue with you, that you're incapable of comprehending such things, but someone will hopefully understand.
P.S. Can anyone understand why I asked for someone other than buttershug to request a dissertation on "prototokos" from me?
P.P.S. Should anyone genuinely desire such a dissertation from me, then it will be at least 4 days before it comes.
"Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity." Kaeroll
The Illiad has contents.
The Bible has contents.
The treatment you give the Bible can also be given to the Illiad.
THAT IS MY ONLY POINT.
I'm talking not specifically what is in each only the treatment of such.
Your burden of proof to prove the Illiad false is equal my burden of proof to prove the Bible false.
Why would the Bible has special status over the Illiad?
Or instead of the Illiad go with the Koran.
There are Muslim versions of you out there.
If you don't want to prove the Bible then I think more people would be as interested in the Illiad, because it would be as meaningfull to them.
Basically if you are going to preach to the choir, then make sure you are talking to the choir.
Don't forget you are talking to a prove it crowd.
The Bible has contents.
The treatment you give the Bible can also be given to the Illiad.
THAT IS MY ONLY POINT.
I'm talking not specifically what is in each only the treatment of such.
Your burden of proof to prove the Illiad false is equal my burden of proof to prove the Bible false.
Why would the Bible has special status over the Illiad?
Or instead of the Illiad go with the Koran.
There are Muslim versions of you out there.
If you don't want to prove the Bible then I think more people would be as interested in the Illiad, because it would be as meaningfull to them.
Basically if you are going to preach to the choir, then make sure you are talking to the choir.
Don't forget you are talking to a prove it crowd.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The Illiad has contents.
buttershug: Yes, and...?
buttershug: Yes, and...?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The Bible has contents.
Yes, and...?
Yes, and...?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The treatment you give the Bible can also be given to the Illiad.
In certain aspects, yes, but overall, no. If you want to discuss ONLY things such as manuscripts and word meanings, then yes. If you want to discuss what the Bible is actually about, then no. What's that? You don't know what the Bible is actually about? Didn't think so. Perhaps the following words of Jesus, spoken to some of the religious Jews of His day, will help:
"Seach the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"(John 5:39-47)
Jesus said that the scriptures testify of Him. Not only that, but He specifically referred to the writings of Moses or to the first five books of the Old Testament. That's probably somewhat of a shock to a willful ignoramus(I tried to deal with his ignorance a few times, but he refuses to let it go) like MaskedMarauder, but it's pretty basic knowledge to those of us who actually understand scripture. Jesus didn't stop with the writings of Moses, though. Since the resurrection of Jesus is on a lot of people's minds today, I thought that I'd add the following:
"And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:13-27)
These men whose "eyes were holden that they should not know Jesus" had the scriptures expounded unto them by Jesus. Yep and He showed them how that not only Moses, but also ALL THE PROPHETS, had written of Him. Here's a hearty suggestion:
Why don't you ask God to help YOUR eyesight and to expound the scriptures to YOU that YOU might see Jesus?
Just a suggestion...
Anyhow, later that same day:
"And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures..."(Luke 24:36-45)
Once again, I ask:
Why not ask Jesus TO OPEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING so that you might actually understand what the scriptures are all about?
Not only did Moses and the prophets write of Jesus, but so did the Psalmists. Now, in case you mistakenly think that I don't understand, I know exactly how your argument goes...
"The New Testament writers were familiar with the Old Testament and they simply wrote their writings in such a way as to make Jesus look like He fulfilled earlier writings."
How's that? Pretty close? Whatever. Although that would be a possibility, it is certainly not the only possibility. It is possible that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah and some of us know this to be so. How do I know this, personally? Many ways. I've already spoken freely about one way in the past...should you ever decide to read my posting history, then you'll understand what that one way is(and it's only ONE WAY OF SEVERAL WAYS). This may be a good time to briefly comment on something that PuckSR said in regard to our(yours and mine) dialogue:
In certain aspects, yes, but overall, no. If you want to discuss ONLY things such as manuscripts and word meanings, then yes. If you want to discuss what the Bible is actually about, then no. What's that? You don't know what the Bible is actually about? Didn't think so. Perhaps the following words of Jesus, spoken to some of the religious Jews of His day, will help:
"Seach the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"(John 5:39-47)
Jesus said that the scriptures testify of Him. Not only that, but He specifically referred to the writings of Moses or to the first five books of the Old Testament. That's probably somewhat of a shock to a willful ignoramus(I tried to deal with his ignorance a few times, but he refuses to let it go) like MaskedMarauder, but it's pretty basic knowledge to those of us who actually understand scripture. Jesus didn't stop with the writings of Moses, though. Since the resurrection of Jesus is on a lot of people's minds today, I thought that I'd add the following:
"And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:13-27)
These men whose "eyes were holden that they should not know Jesus" had the scriptures expounded unto them by Jesus. Yep and He showed them how that not only Moses, but also ALL THE PROPHETS, had written of Him. Here's a hearty suggestion:
Why don't you ask God to help YOUR eyesight and to expound the scriptures to YOU that YOU might see Jesus?
Just a suggestion...
Anyhow, later that same day:
"And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures..."(Luke 24:36-45)
Once again, I ask:
Why not ask Jesus TO OPEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING so that you might actually understand what the scriptures are all about?
Not only did Moses and the prophets write of Jesus, but so did the Psalmists. Now, in case you mistakenly think that I don't understand, I know exactly how your argument goes...
"The New Testament writers were familiar with the Old Testament and they simply wrote their writings in such a way as to make Jesus look like He fulfilled earlier writings."
How's that? Pretty close? Whatever. Although that would be a possibility, it is certainly not the only possibility. It is possible that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah and some of us know this to be so. How do I know this, personally? Many ways. I've already spoken freely about one way in the past...should you ever decide to read my posting history, then you'll understand what that one way is(and it's only ONE WAY OF SEVERAL WAYS). This may be a good time to briefly comment on something that PuckSR said in regard to our(yours and mine) dialogue:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Oddly, you two are having this literary debate across the old and new testament. Given that one predates the other by several centuries, was written in a different language, and is the cornerstone of a completely different religion...I don't see why this debate has to be restricted to the bible.
Of course, being the ignoramus that he is, it would seem "odd" to have a "literary debate across the Old and New Testaments", seeing how he doesn't understand how the two relate to each other. Far from being "the cornerstone of a completely different religion", the Old Testament is the cornerstone(in that it speaks of the True Cornerstone, Jesus Christ) of Biblical Christianity. Now, don't be suprised if some idiot like Physfan comes along and starts talking about stoning children and the like... By the way, where is Physfan? Probably out behind his tent shooting wombats. What's that? Why did I refer to "his tent"? I don't know...he just reminds me of one of those "ignorant tent dwellers" that I've heard so much about on this forum. You?
Of course, being the ignoramus that he is, it would seem "odd" to have a "literary debate across the Old and New Testaments", seeing how he doesn't understand how the two relate to each other. Far from being "the cornerstone of a completely different religion", the Old Testament is the cornerstone(in that it speaks of the True Cornerstone, Jesus Christ) of Biblical Christianity. Now, don't be suprised if some idiot like Physfan comes along and starts talking about stoning children and the like... By the way, where is Physfan? Probably out behind his tent shooting wombats. What's that? Why did I refer to "his tent"? I don't know...he just reminds me of one of those "ignorant tent dwellers" that I've heard so much about on this forum. You?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
THAT IS MY ONLY POINT.
BALONEY! or, if you prefer, BOLOGNA!
You've made several UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS about what the Bible teaches....claims that I've easily refuted. Do I have to remind you of them?
BALONEY! or, if you prefer, BOLOGNA!
You've made several UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS about what the Bible teaches....claims that I've easily refuted. Do I have to remind you of them?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I'm talking not specifically what is in each only the treatment of such.
More BALONEY! You've made SEVERAL SPECIFIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS...must you resort to LYING? Apparently so. Pity.
More BALONEY! You've made SEVERAL SPECIFIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS...must you resort to LYING? Apparently so. Pity.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Your burden of proof to prove the Illiad false is equal my burden of proof to prove the Bible false.
And yet more BALONEY! Dude, you're making me hungry. Seeing how I've NEVER even read the Iliad and seeing how I've also NEVER commented on what is contained within that writing, I have no such "burden of proof" at all. Nice try, though. You, however, have made SEVERAL SPECIFIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS...do you notice a pattern, yet? Probably not. Pity.
And yet more BALONEY! Dude, you're making me hungry. Seeing how I've NEVER even read the Iliad and seeing how I've also NEVER commented on what is contained within that writing, I have no such "burden of proof" at all. Nice try, though. You, however, have made SEVERAL SPECIFIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS...do you notice a pattern, yet? Probably not. Pity.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Why would the Bible has special status over the Illiad?
If you understood what I previously wrote in this response(you probably didn't), then you should already have the answer to this question. As I've plainly stated MANY TIMES BEFORE, the purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to bring one into direct contact with "the Lord of the book". Somebody please explain to him what that means. Thanks.
If you understood what I previously wrote in this response(you probably didn't), then you should already have the answer to this question. As I've plainly stated MANY TIMES BEFORE, the purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to bring one into direct contact with "the Lord of the book". Somebody please explain to him what that means. Thanks.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Or instead of the Illiad go with the Koran.
There are Muslim versions of you out there.
Find me a Muslim who wants to put his "god", Allah, up against my God in a spiritual showdown and I'll gladly oblige. Here are the guidelines, though...
Let's see what his "god" can do FIRST and then I'll show how my God is greater.
By the way, do you honestly think that I've never been "challenged" by Muslims before? In my experience, they're ALL TALK(well, some of them will either kill you or attempt to kill you if you persist in showing them how their "god" is impotent)...
There are Muslim versions of you out there.
Find me a Muslim who wants to put his "god", Allah, up against my God in a spiritual showdown and I'll gladly oblige. Here are the guidelines, though...
Let's see what his "god" can do FIRST and then I'll show how my God is greater.
By the way, do you honestly think that I've never been "challenged" by Muslims before? In my experience, they're ALL TALK(well, some of them will either kill you or attempt to kill you if you persist in showing them how their "god" is impotent)...
QUOTE (buttershug+)
If you don't want to prove the Bible then I think more people would be as interested in the Illiad, because it would be as meaningfull to them.
Basically if you are going to preach to the choir, then make sure you are talking to the choir.
Don't forget you are talking to a prove it crowd.
As usual, YOU are very confused. Aside from the fact that the vast majority of my recent posts have been IN RESPONSE to what ATHEISTS have written and been unable to substantiate(in other words, who's really "preaching"?), I have absolutely nothing to "prove" to any of you but the following:
I've clearly proven, on many occasions, that you so-called "scientists" are imbeciles. I've done this NOT to somehow prove the Bible by default, but rather to hopefully get some of you to SHUT YOUR BIG IGNORANT MOUTHS AND TO GO TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT YOURSELVES IN THE MIRROR.
Haven't had too much success where my desired outcome is concerned, have I? No surprise. Don't forget to color your Easter eggs today and to don your bunny suit. See you around...
Basically if you are going to preach to the choir, then make sure you are talking to the choir.
Don't forget you are talking to a prove it crowd.
As usual, YOU are very confused. Aside from the fact that the vast majority of my recent posts have been IN RESPONSE to what ATHEISTS have written and been unable to substantiate(in other words, who's really "preaching"?), I have absolutely nothing to "prove" to any of you but the following:
I've clearly proven, on many occasions, that you so-called "scientists" are imbeciles. I've done this NOT to somehow prove the Bible by default, but rather to hopefully get some of you to SHUT YOUR BIG IGNORANT MOUTHS AND TO GO TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT YOURSELVES IN THE MIRROR.
Haven't had too much success where my desired outcome is concerned, have I? No surprise. Don't forget to color your Easter eggs today and to don your bunny suit. See you around...
Hi Beer w/Straw, Derek1148,
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw @ Apr 7 2009+ 04:18 PM)
When I was little, I prayed every night for a new bike. I then realized God doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me.
>>> BALONEY! or, if you prefer, BOLOGNA! <<<
I would tend to give Buttershug the beneficial role as a pedagogic ambassador as probable a doubtless troll-ignoramus! It is the season...------>Luke23:24.
QUOTE (PuckSR @ Feb 19 2008, 03:51 AM)
Wow...it is as if the bible has answers for everything....
Or, if you are a fundamentalist you can twist the bible for anything.
Theologists have struggled over this question for centuries, and the Catholic Church went as far as to ignore the problem(Limbo is not a real place, but rather is a theological construct meant to remove the problem).
Amazing, with a poor translation of 2,000 year old text...you have figured everything out. My goodness, I bet there was a training seminar or poorly written guidebook that provides you with these answers. Maybe you just memorized the bible yourself(which would explain the poor quality of the explanations).
[The newbie "Bwick" User#= 19527 responded:]
You are more ignorant on this topic than I thought. The New Testament is more accurately translated than any other book from antiquity! Indeed, when one compares the documents side by side, they are more than 99% accurately translated. The New Testament also has earlier, as well as more, manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. The New Testament is survived by more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts (compared to 643 manuscripts of Homer's Iliad).
Perhaps you should do you reading, pal.
[The "Flood" never happened (thread(recently brought forward)) Showtopic= 2115]
Insyght July 21 2005, 04:47 PM
QUOTE [Evolutionist July 21 4:25pm]
It is not fact
Prove it.
As has been pointed out so many times, belief in the Christian God is based on the Bible. Prove the Bible wrong, you prove the non-existance of the Christian God.
Sounds simple, but it is not. People have been trying to shoot down the Bible for centuries. They cannot.
I've seen various attempts: scribal errors, indoctorination, deliberate additions/subtractions, the Appocrytha, attacks on the prophets, attacks on the order of Books, attacks on dates books were penned (to deal with prophecy), attacks on the history of Biblical time lines, attacks on the mathematics it contains, attempted contradiction been verses, etc. etc. The attacks mostly come from people, as a result of Googling a scripture, finding something which looks at face value as a contradicton.
Not really worth going here again. Nice to know you are still about though EV.
[A muslim website, I found recently:]
We have seen misquoted claims, misrepresented claims, incorrect claims, fraudulent claims and even claims that are mathematically impossible. None of these fantastic claims (normally in the form of percentages) show the procedure utilised to arrive at such magnificent figures. We can see that the modern day textual critics portray a very different set of statistics quite contrary to the over-hyped claims of those and apologists. The Alands, discussing the differences between seven popular critical editions of the New Testament, excluding orthographic differences and differences of only one word, calculate that 62.9%
of the verses of the entire New Testament are in agreement with each other. Similarly, if we look at the statistics for the gospels, we find that there is a 54.5% agreement. If we look at the textual "certainty" of the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament, a text which is based on the decisions of a committee, the result is close to 83.5%. There is no mention of 99.5%, 99.8% or 99.9% agreement here. In a twist of irony further compounding the foolishness of those' and apologists' position, the Bibles they use (normally the NIV version) are based on the very same critical editions of the New Testament by the very same people who have calculated the above percentages!
It's a codified and edited mythology. It's actually about institutionalized superstition.
It's a codified and edited mythology. It's actually about institutionalized superstition.
well put.
The believers of this faith require faith to follow an entity they have never met, spoke to, heard, or seen, yet will doggedly follow based on "faith" delivered by someone elses interpretation of a book they have not truly read.
When I make that statement, "not truly read", I mean to put aside emotional judgment, faith, and any other mindset, and actually read it as to whether or not it is fact. Then to look at what is written from many different angles.
For a god to require a human sacrifice to enter into nirvana should be discussed, evaluated, and measured.
I believe the Incas used to believe in the same thing, different approach. Human sacrifice to achieve Nirvana.
2 cents worth.
MM
with no due respect, I find this statement to be a severe over-generalization of my arguments. I have consistently attempted to use the "bible" to debate NewGuy.
As far as my frequent "you don't know Greek" comments, they are relevant to a specific line of argument. NewGuy, like many Christians, frequently tries to expose underlying meaning in the text of the KJV version of the bible(i.e. Jesus had siblings because it says firstborn). I mention the original greek language of most of the texts to remind him the bible is translated. I am trying to point out that trying to 'read between the lines' is nearly impossible with a translation. It just isn't very smart. It is fine to read a narrative and argue that you know the story, but you cannot dissect the wording of a translation like you can the original text.
Almost all of my argument is trying to force NewGuy to actually study the bible. I believe it is the fastest path to atheism. He doesn't study the bible. He memorizes and discusses the bible with others. He reads books that discuss translation. That is far different from STUDYING something.
with no due respect, I find this statement to be a severe over-generalization of my arguments. I have consistently attempted to use the "bible" to debate NewGuy.
As far as my frequent "you don't know Greek" comments, they are relevant to a specific line of argument. NewGuy, like many Christians, frequently tries to expose underlying meaning in the text of the KJV version of the bible(i.e. Jesus had siblings because it says firstborn). I mention the original greek language of most of the texts to remind him the bible is translated. I am trying to point out that trying to 'read between the lines' is nearly impossible with a translation. It just isn't very smart. It is fine to read a narrative and argue that you know the story, but you cannot dissect the wording of a translation like you can the original text.
Almost all of my argument is trying to force NewGuy to actually study the bible. I believe it is the fastest path to atheism. He doesn't study the bible. He memorizes and discusses the bible with others. He reads books that discuss translation. That is far different from STUDYING something.
With regard to interpretation - theories like the big bang are interpretations of data. If every Christian is expected to read the Bible end to end and formulate their views on it without any outside input, why is the same logic not applied to scientists? I can honestly say I've never even read the abstract of, say, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, yet it and its interpretation is one of the founding stones of my field of study.
That is a bit of a bad comparison...
Why?
His paper has a few VERY DEFINITE conclusions. I am sure that you know E=mc^2
So how do you know that the conclusion is valid? At the time the paper was published lots of people read it. They checked it, they tested it, they validated it.
You just aren't trusting Einstein. You are trusting thousands of other people to validate it. And guess what else? They almost all agreed. It might have taken them awhile and there might still be a rare dissenting voice...but it is generally accepted as proven.(He did win a Nobel prize for it)
Now, the bible is a different animal.
There have been many different 'bibles' over the years, and they still don't all agree. There are also numerous documents which people base the bible on. Some diverge significantly. There also isn't a standard conclusion, because it is a narrative. Most people can agree about the narrative, but not the theological conclusions...
Some individuals need a god to tell them what is right or wrong. The child that had his bike stolen, lost his bike.
Actually... That original statement is "profound". I realize the child that lost his bike would view this as a tragedy... But it is a "hypothetical tragedy" since the replacement of the bike by his father or through the sweat of his brow may be a further joy. To overcome odds in life is a substantial joy in itself. Life is really not about having things, it is about receiving things that we can be grateful for. If you said that you stole the bike and you sold it for money then I would have been far more upset.
The first boy would have liked his bike but until it was lost it would not have been really appreciated. The boy (Beer w/Straw) really wanted a bike and would necessarily have appreciated it but would always be mindful of how he had obtained it.... Hence the story here and now! In a way I think that was worth the price of a bike. In that future both boys may appreciate the worth of a bike and the true cost of acquisition.
Cheers and thanks!
The first boy would have liked his bike but until it was lost it would not have been really appreciated. The boy (Beer w/Straw) really wanted a bike and would necessarily have appreciated it but would always be mindful of how he had obtained it.... Hence the story here and now! In a way I think that was worth the price of a bike. In that future both boys may appreciate the worth of a bike and the true cost of acquisition.
Cheers and thanks!
>>> BALONEY! or, if you prefer, BOLOGNA! <<<
I would tend to give Buttershug the beneficial role as a pedagogic ambassador as probable a doubtless troll-ignoramus! It is the season...------>Luke23:24.
QUOTE (PuckSR @ Feb 19 2008, 03:51 AM)
Wow...it is as if the bible has answers for everything....
Or, if you are a fundamentalist you can twist the bible for anything.
Theologists have struggled over this question for centuries, and the Catholic Church went as far as to ignore the problem(Limbo is not a real place, but rather is a theological construct meant to remove the problem).
Amazing, with a poor translation of 2,000 year old text...you have figured everything out. My goodness, I bet there was a training seminar or poorly written guidebook that provides you with these answers. Maybe you just memorized the bible yourself(which would explain the poor quality of the explanations).
[The newbie "Bwick" User#= 19527 responded:]
You are more ignorant on this topic than I thought. The New Testament is more accurately translated than any other book from antiquity! Indeed, when one compares the documents side by side, they are more than 99% accurately translated. The New Testament also has earlier, as well as more, manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. The New Testament is survived by more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts (compared to 643 manuscripts of Homer's Iliad).
Perhaps you should do you reading, pal.
[The "Flood" never happened (thread(recently brought forward)) Showtopic= 2115]
Insyght July 21 2005, 04:47 PM
QUOTE [Evolutionist July 21 4:25pm]
It is not fact
Prove it.
As has been pointed out so many times, belief in the Christian God is based on the Bible. Prove the Bible wrong, you prove the non-existance of the Christian God.
Sounds simple, but it is not. People have been trying to shoot down the Bible for centuries. They cannot.
I've seen various attempts: scribal errors, indoctorination, deliberate additions/subtractions, the Appocrytha, attacks on the prophets, attacks on the order of Books, attacks on dates books were penned (to deal with prophecy), attacks on the history of Biblical time lines, attacks on the mathematics it contains, attempted contradiction been verses, etc. etc. The attacks mostly come from people, as a result of Googling a scripture, finding something which looks at face value as a contradicton.
Not really worth going here again. Nice to know you are still about though EV.
[A muslim website, I found recently:]
We have seen misquoted claims, misrepresented claims, incorrect claims, fraudulent claims and even claims that are mathematically impossible. None of these fantastic claims (normally in the form of percentages) show the procedure utilised to arrive at such magnificent figures. We can see that the modern day textual critics portray a very different set of statistics quite contrary to the over-hyped claims of those and apologists. The Alands, discussing the differences between seven popular critical editions of the New Testament, excluding orthographic differences and differences of only one word, calculate that 62.9%
of the verses of the entire New Testament are in agreement with each other. Similarly, if we look at the statistics for the gospels, we find that there is a 54.5% agreement. If we look at the textual "certainty" of the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament, a text which is based on the decisions of a committee, the result is close to 83.5%. There is no mention of 99.5%, 99.8% or 99.9% agreement here. In a twist of irony further compounding the foolishness of those' and apologists' position, the Bibles they use (normally the NIV version) are based on the very same critical editions of the New Testament by the very same people who have calculated the above percentages!
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 12 2009, 02:55 PM)
Hi Beer w/Straw, Derek1148,
Some individuals need a god to tell them what is right or wrong. The child that had his bike stolen, lost his bike. [/QUOTE]Actually... That original statement is "profound". I realize the child that lost his bike would view this as a tragedy... But it is a "hypothetical tragedy" since the replacement of the bike by his father or through the sweat of his brow may be a further joy. To overcome odds in life is a substantial joy in itself. Life is really not about having things, it is about receiving things that we can be grateful for. If you said that you stole the bike and you sold it for money then I would have been far more upset.
The first boy would have liked his bike but until it was lost it would not have been really appreciated. The boy (Beer w/Straw) really wanted a bike and would necessarily have appreciated it but would always be mindful of how he had obtained it.... Hence the story here and now! In a way I think that was worth the price of a bike. In that future both boys may appreciate the worth of a bike and the true cost of acquisition.
Cheers and thanks!
So, in your convoluted world the victim of a crime should thank the perpetrator for providing him with the insight to appreciate loss. Are you serious?
Some individuals need a god to tell them what is right or wrong. The child that had his bike stolen, lost his bike. [/QUOTE]Actually... That original statement is "profound". I realize the child that lost his bike would view this as a tragedy... But it is a "hypothetical tragedy" since the replacement of the bike by his father or through the sweat of his brow may be a further joy. To overcome odds in life is a substantial joy in itself. Life is really not about having things, it is about receiving things that we can be grateful for. If you said that you stole the bike and you sold it for money then I would have been far more upset.
The first boy would have liked his bike but until it was lost it would not have been really appreciated. The boy (Beer w/Straw) really wanted a bike and would necessarily have appreciated it but would always be mindful of how he had obtained it.... Hence the story here and now! In a way I think that was worth the price of a bike. In that future both boys may appreciate the worth of a bike and the true cost of acquisition.
Cheers and thanks!
So, in your convoluted world the victim of a crime should thank the perpetrator for providing him with the insight to appreciate loss. Are you serious?
QUOTE
You don't know what the Bible is actually about?
It's a codified and edited mythology. It's actually about institutionalized superstition.
QUOTE (MrB+)
Perhaps you should do you reading, pal.
Alright MisterBelfry...let me use this recent post to make a point.
First, you quoted a conversation that is over a year old!!!
Then, I don't understand the quoted sentence above.
Was that from my conversation or Bwicks? I don't know, since that conversation is so old.
I am assuming you posted the response yourself, but who is the response targeted at? Me? Bwick? Someone else?
Most of us wouldnt mind having a conversation with you, but you require that the any potential reader of one of your posts sorts through half a dozen non-hyperlinked websites just to figure out what you are quoting. He has to do this, because you do not clearly delineate your quotes from your original interjections.
It is particularly annoying, because you seem to go out of your way to make your posts convoluted. Why are you posting responses to year old threads in a different thread?
Alright MisterBelfry...let me use this recent post to make a point.
First, you quoted a conversation that is over a year old!!!
Then, I don't understand the quoted sentence above.
Was that from my conversation or Bwicks? I don't know, since that conversation is so old.
I am assuming you posted the response yourself, but who is the response targeted at? Me? Bwick? Someone else?
Most of us wouldnt mind having a conversation with you, but you require that the any potential reader of one of your posts sorts through half a dozen non-hyperlinked websites just to figure out what you are quoting. He has to do this, because you do not clearly delineate your quotes from your original interjections.
It is particularly annoying, because you seem to go out of your way to make your posts convoluted. Why are you posting responses to year old threads in a different thread?
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 12 2009, 04:41 PM)
It's a codified and edited mythology. It's actually about institutionalized superstition.
well put.
The believers of this faith require faith to follow an entity they have never met, spoke to, heard, or seen, yet will doggedly follow based on "faith" delivered by someone elses interpretation of a book they have not truly read.
When I make that statement, "not truly read", I mean to put aside emotional judgment, faith, and any other mindset, and actually read it as to whether or not it is fact. Then to look at what is written from many different angles.
For a god to require a human sacrifice to enter into nirvana should be discussed, evaluated, and measured.
I believe the Incas used to believe in the same thing, different approach. Human sacrifice to achieve Nirvana.
2 cents worth.
MM
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Apr 12 2009, 06:10 PM)
The believers of this faith require faith to follow an entity they have never met, spoke to, heard, or seen, yet will doggedly follow based on "faith" delivered by someone elses interpretation of a book they have not truly read.
I genuinely believe that many of the posters here are in precisely the same position with most scientific concepts. Many of the atheists on this forum are armchair scientists/philosophers, making sweeping statements about the nature of science and religion (and their adherents) without anything to back it up.
With regard to interpretation - theories like the big bang are interpretations of data. If every Christian is expected to read the Bible end to end and formulate their views on it without any outside input, why is the same logic not applied to scientists? I can honestly say I've never even read the abstract of, say, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, yet it and its interpretation is one of the founding stones of my field of study.
I suspect this will be one of my last posts here; in this and the "puzzling questions" sections, the two I post most regularly in (as I am not a physicist), it seems that most of the topics are either inane or insane (cf. Bruce Voight or voodoochile's threads for the latter). Newguy is probably the most vocal Christian here these days; while I disagree with his beliefs, he's shown integrity and a great knowledge of his religion.
As an onlooker in most of the debates here, it seems to go like this: a criticism of religion is made; newguy offers his two cents; his posts are "refuted" based on a few vague, hand-wavey statements of "Oh, the Illiad is just as valid as the Bible" or "You don't know Greek" or "Your beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence" (in the case of the latter- sh*t, do you think so? That's kinda the point). A common argument against newguy's posts seems to be, "You're arguing using the Bible. Use evidence!" - this during arguments about Christianity. What other evidence is there?!
The armchair science bugs me more than this. Quite frequently, statements along the lines of "Science is X" are made, and they strike me as the voices of inexperience. This is not a criticism in itself; inexperience is the baseline for human existence. I am very inexperienced in almost all fields of study. I have my private opinions on the nature of science (if anyone's interested, I'll share) but I don't claim to know The Truth About Science as some here seem to think they do.
Please don't take this post as me saying "You guys are idiots". However, some of your arguments are weak and show a real lack of thought. (Mine probably do too). Half the time, debates here descend into insult slinging from all parties. Why? It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Anyway, that's my rambly two cents. Let me reiterate; I'm not trying to insult anyone.
tl;dr?
Summary of the above rant: Armchair science sucks. Arguing about Christianity, then calling for the Bible not to be referred to, is redundant. I strongly suspect most of the proponents of science here are arguing from ignorance of their beloved field.
I genuinely believe that many of the posters here are in precisely the same position with most scientific concepts. Many of the atheists on this forum are armchair scientists/philosophers, making sweeping statements about the nature of science and religion (and their adherents) without anything to back it up.
With regard to interpretation - theories like the big bang are interpretations of data. If every Christian is expected to read the Bible end to end and formulate their views on it without any outside input, why is the same logic not applied to scientists? I can honestly say I've never even read the abstract of, say, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, yet it and its interpretation is one of the founding stones of my field of study.
I suspect this will be one of my last posts here; in this and the "puzzling questions" sections, the two I post most regularly in (as I am not a physicist), it seems that most of the topics are either inane or insane (cf. Bruce Voight or voodoochile's threads for the latter). Newguy is probably the most vocal Christian here these days; while I disagree with his beliefs, he's shown integrity and a great knowledge of his religion.
As an onlooker in most of the debates here, it seems to go like this: a criticism of religion is made; newguy offers his two cents; his posts are "refuted" based on a few vague, hand-wavey statements of "Oh, the Illiad is just as valid as the Bible" or "You don't know Greek" or "Your beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence" (in the case of the latter- sh*t, do you think so? That's kinda the point). A common argument against newguy's posts seems to be, "You're arguing using the Bible. Use evidence!" - this during arguments about Christianity. What other evidence is there?!
The armchair science bugs me more than this. Quite frequently, statements along the lines of "Science is X" are made, and they strike me as the voices of inexperience. This is not a criticism in itself; inexperience is the baseline for human existence. I am very inexperienced in almost all fields of study. I have my private opinions on the nature of science (if anyone's interested, I'll share) but I don't claim to know The Truth About Science as some here seem to think they do.
Please don't take this post as me saying "You guys are idiots". However, some of your arguments are weak and show a real lack of thought. (Mine probably do too). Half the time, debates here descend into insult slinging from all parties. Why? It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Anyway, that's my rambly two cents. Let me reiterate; I'm not trying to insult anyone.
tl;dr?
Summary of the above rant: Armchair science sucks. Arguing about Christianity, then calling for the Bible not to be referred to, is redundant. I strongly suspect most of the proponents of science here are arguing from ignorance of their beloved field.
I think it would be better to compare the Illiad to one book of the Bible, instead of comparing it to the entire Bible. Though, obviously, that's not really the point.
I can't really think of other well-codified mythologies
I can't really think of other well-codified mythologies
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Apr 12 2009, 06:30 PM)
I can honestly say I've never even read the abstract of, say, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, yet it and its interpretation is one of the founding stones of my field of study.
With all due respect no it isn't.
What is the founding stone of your field of study, is reality.
Take away anything Eintstein said about the photvolatic effect and everything else about it remains.
Take away the Bible and not much remains of Evangelical Christianity.
Take away Darwin and you still have Evolution.
As I"ve said Newguy is as honest as he can be considering he won't be honest with himself about how much blind faith is at the foundation of his beliefs.
And his views of the Koran are lower than most of the rest of us have regarding the Bible, so he can't critize anyone views of the Bible.
@ El Machina, what about the Lancelot stories?
My understanding is that King Arthur is only a small part of it all.
Edit I"m not arguing about Chritianity and saying not refer to the Bible I"m arguing about reality.
If Newguy wants to admit he arguing in the manner of Trekkers then no problem.
Except it would be kinda strange.
But if he wants to preach to the choir then he should make sure his audience is in fact the choir. This audience is not.
With all due respect no it isn't.
What is the founding stone of your field of study, is reality.
Take away anything Eintstein said about the photvolatic effect and everything else about it remains.
Take away the Bible and not much remains of Evangelical Christianity.
Take away Darwin and you still have Evolution.
As I"ve said Newguy is as honest as he can be considering he won't be honest with himself about how much blind faith is at the foundation of his beliefs.
And his views of the Koran are lower than most of the rest of us have regarding the Bible, so he can't critize anyone views of the Bible.
@ El Machina, what about the Lancelot stories?
My understanding is that King Arthur is only a small part of it all.
Edit I"m not arguing about Chritianity and saying not refer to the Bible I"m arguing about reality.
If Newguy wants to admit he arguing in the manner of Trekkers then no problem.
Except it would be kinda strange.
But if he wants to preach to the choir then he should make sure his audience is in fact the choir. This audience is not.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 12 2009, 08:52 PM)
With all due respect no it isn't.
What is the founding stone of your field of study, is reality.
Take away anything Eintstein said about the photvolatic effect and everything else about it remains.
Take away the Bible and not much remains of Evangelical Christianity.
Take away Darwin and you still have Evolution.
I didn't say it's the Ultimate Truth underpinning everything, I said it was a founding stone of my field of study (namely chemistry). You utterly missed my point; if you would like clarification I'll gladly provide it, but I suspect it's a waste of both our time. Have a good one.
Kaeroll
What is the founding stone of your field of study, is reality.
Take away anything Eintstein said about the photvolatic effect and everything else about it remains.
Take away the Bible and not much remains of Evangelical Christianity.
Take away Darwin and you still have Evolution.
I didn't say it's the Ultimate Truth underpinning everything, I said it was a founding stone of my field of study (namely chemistry). You utterly missed my point; if you would like clarification I'll gladly provide it, but I suspect it's a waste of both our time. Have a good one.
Kaeroll
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Apr 12 2009, 09:58 PM)
I didn't say it's the Ultimate Truth underpinning everything, I said it was a founding stone of my field of study (namely chemistry). You utterly missed my point; if you would like clarification I'll gladly provide it, but I suspect it's a waste of both our time. Have a good one.
Kaeroll
It's the founding stone of human study of the field. Are you studying Chemistry or the history of Chemistry? Einstien's work is relevent to the history of Photovoltaics.
Chemistry can withstand the blank slate test.
Christianity can not.
Chemistry and most especially photovoltaics would still exist without Einstiens work. So how can that be a founding stone?
Don't confuse chemistry with the study of chemistry.
The greatest thing you can do in your field of study is to prove something you are taught is wrong. Well actualy that would be second best, best would developing and proving the replacement.
I think you missed the point that the study of Chemistry is a part of the search of the Ultimate Truth underpinning everything.
Christianity however is not because they believe they have already found it.
My main point is we have no choice in what the raw data is. Theists have to choose which book to study. You don't have to accept one word that Einstien said. You can confirm it. you can buy a solar cell if you want to. but Newguy can not get a fresh copy of the Commandments as given to Moses.
Do you really see no difference in interpretation of data that is reprocible, and data you have to accept on faith?
I say the Study of Jesus is closer to the study of Achilles than it is to the study of the Big Bang data.
Edit if this were a debating forum you would be right. Logic and debate would be all that would matter. But it's a physics forum, therefore the raw data must be demonstrated to be accurate before aruements begin. Newguy has not done that.
He accepts the Bible but has not given reproducible evidence of it's accurracy.
Kaeroll
It's the founding stone of human study of the field. Are you studying Chemistry or the history of Chemistry? Einstien's work is relevent to the history of Photovoltaics.
Chemistry can withstand the blank slate test.
Christianity can not.
Chemistry and most especially photovoltaics would still exist without Einstiens work. So how can that be a founding stone?
Don't confuse chemistry with the study of chemistry.
The greatest thing you can do in your field of study is to prove something you are taught is wrong. Well actualy that would be second best, best would developing and proving the replacement.
I think you missed the point that the study of Chemistry is a part of the search of the Ultimate Truth underpinning everything.
Christianity however is not because they believe they have already found it.
My main point is we have no choice in what the raw data is. Theists have to choose which book to study. You don't have to accept one word that Einstien said. You can confirm it. you can buy a solar cell if you want to. but Newguy can not get a fresh copy of the Commandments as given to Moses.
Do you really see no difference in interpretation of data that is reprocible, and data you have to accept on faith?
I say the Study of Jesus is closer to the study of Achilles than it is to the study of the Big Bang data.
Edit if this were a debating forum you would be right. Logic and debate would be all that would matter. But it's a physics forum, therefore the raw data must be demonstrated to be accurate before aruements begin. Newguy has not done that.
He accepts the Bible but has not given reproducible evidence of it's accurracy.
QUOTE
As an onlooker in most of the debates here, it seems to go like this: a criticism of religion is made; newguy offers his two cents; his posts are "refuted" based on a few vague, hand-wavey statements of "Oh, the Illiad is just as valid as the Bible" or "You don't know Greek" or "Your beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence" (in the case of the latter- sh*t, do you think so? That's kinda the point). A common argument against newguy's posts seems to be, "You're arguing using the Bible. Use evidence!" - this during arguments about Christianity. What other evidence is there?!
with no due respect, I find this statement to be a severe over-generalization of my arguments. I have consistently attempted to use the "bible" to debate NewGuy.
As far as my frequent "you don't know Greek" comments, they are relevant to a specific line of argument. NewGuy, like many Christians, frequently tries to expose underlying meaning in the text of the KJV version of the bible(i.e. Jesus had siblings because it says firstborn). I mention the original greek language of most of the texts to remind him the bible is translated. I am trying to point out that trying to 'read between the lines' is nearly impossible with a translation. It just isn't very smart. It is fine to read a narrative and argue that you know the story, but you cannot dissect the wording of a translation like you can the original text.
Almost all of my argument is trying to force NewGuy to actually study the bible. I believe it is the fastest path to atheism. He doesn't study the bible. He memorizes and discusses the bible with others. He reads books that discuss translation. That is far different from STUDYING something.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As an onlooker in most of the debates here, it seems to go like this: a criticism of religion is made; newguy offers his two cents; his posts are "refuted" based on a few vague, hand-wavey statements of "Oh, the Illiad is just as valid as the Bible" or "You don't know Greek" or "Your beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence" (in the case of the latter- sh*t, do you think so? That's kinda the point). A common argument against newguy's posts seems to be, "You're arguing using the Bible. Use evidence!" - this during arguments about Christianity. What other evidence is there?! |
with no due respect, I find this statement to be a severe over-generalization of my arguments. I have consistently attempted to use the "bible" to debate NewGuy.
As far as my frequent "you don't know Greek" comments, they are relevant to a specific line of argument. NewGuy, like many Christians, frequently tries to expose underlying meaning in the text of the KJV version of the bible(i.e. Jesus had siblings because it says firstborn). I mention the original greek language of most of the texts to remind him the bible is translated. I am trying to point out that trying to 'read between the lines' is nearly impossible with a translation. It just isn't very smart. It is fine to read a narrative and argue that you know the story, but you cannot dissect the wording of a translation like you can the original text.
Almost all of my argument is trying to force NewGuy to actually study the bible. I believe it is the fastest path to atheism. He doesn't study the bible. He memorizes and discusses the bible with others. He reads books that discuss translation. That is far different from STUDYING something.
With regard to interpretation - theories like the big bang are interpretations of data. If every Christian is expected to read the Bible end to end and formulate their views on it without any outside input, why is the same logic not applied to scientists? I can honestly say I've never even read the abstract of, say, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, yet it and its interpretation is one of the founding stones of my field of study.
That is a bit of a bad comparison...
Why?
His paper has a few VERY DEFINITE conclusions. I am sure that you know E=mc^2
So how do you know that the conclusion is valid? At the time the paper was published lots of people read it. They checked it, they tested it, they validated it.
You just aren't trusting Einstein. You are trusting thousands of other people to validate it. And guess what else? They almost all agreed. It might have taken them awhile and there might still be a rare dissenting voice...but it is generally accepted as proven.(He did win a Nobel prize for it)
Now, the bible is a different animal.
There have been many different 'bibles' over the years, and they still don't all agree. There are also numerous documents which people base the bible on. Some diverge significantly. There also isn't a standard conclusion, because it is a narrative. Most people can agree about the narrative, but not the theological conclusions...
>>> First, you quoted a conversation that is over a year old!!! <<<
Yes.
And here is another, just (one post number) before...
QUOTE (PuckSR @ Feb 16 2008, 09:18 PM)
There aren't any....
The only reason to believe in the resurrection is because of some misleading, conflicted, and warped manuscripts from 2000 years ago by religious zealots. I guess it also makes you feel warm and safe, but that is about it.
This is just bull****. Look, if you don't believe in the resurrection--fine, but don't go around saying that there isn't any evidence, because this is just crap. Yeah, there's no evidence, which is why book after book has been written on the topic (including a 700 page book by NT Wright a couple of years ago)
Actually, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that, over his 30 years in the field of New Testament scholarship, more than half of all New Testament scholars today believe in the resurrection. Virtually all critical scholars today agree on some basic facts from which a resurrection can be logically deduced.
By the way, I am an agnostic.
<---------Showtopic= 19715 Post= #312854
Yes.
And here is another, just (one post number) before...
QUOTE (PuckSR @ Feb 16 2008, 09:18 PM)
There aren't any....
The only reason to believe in the resurrection is because of some misleading, conflicted, and warped manuscripts from 2000 years ago by religious zealots. I guess it also makes you feel warm and safe, but that is about it.
This is just bull****. Look, if you don't believe in the resurrection--fine, but don't go around saying that there isn't any evidence, because this is just crap. Yeah, there's no evidence, which is why book after book has been written on the topic (including a 700 page book by NT Wright a couple of years ago)
Actually, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that, over his 30 years in the field of New Testament scholarship, more than half of all New Testament scholars today believe in the resurrection. Virtually all critical scholars today agree on some basic facts from which a resurrection can be logically deduced.
By the way, I am an agnostic.
<---------Showtopic= 19715 Post= #312854
MisterBelfry
Not according to the stuff you post.
Not according to the stuff you post.
This is just bull****. Look, if you don't believe in the resurrection--fine, but don't go around saying that there isn't any evidence, because this is just crap. Yeah, there's no evidence, which is why book after book has been written on the topic (including a 700 page book by NT Wright a couple of years ago)
Actually, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that, over his 30 years in the field of New Testament scholarship, more than half of all New Testament scholars today believe in the resurrection. Virtually all critical scholars today agree on some basic facts from which a resurrection can be logically deduced.
None of which is EVIDENCE. There is no logic in BELIEVING supernatural, magical non-sense, no matter how fine you chop it, nor how many words you use to say you believe it. Don't worry, the same rules apply to vampires, about which many books have also been written.
That Jesus existed, I really have little doubt. That the non-natural things claimed about him are religious non-sense I also have no doubt. That is what religions do, tart up the real story with miraculous blarney trying to make it more SPECIAL than mundane reality. Jesus's message really needs no such embellishment and would take a scourge to the money changers of the worlds religions for what they have done in his name.
Grumpy
This is just bull****. Look, if you don't believe in the resurrection--fine, but don't go around saying that there isn't any evidence, because this is just crap. Yeah, there's no evidence, which is why book after book has been written on the topic (including a 700 page book by NT Wright a couple of years ago) rolleyes.gif
Actually, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that, over his 30 years in the field of New Testament scholarship, more than half of all New Testament scholars today believe in the resurrection. Virtually all critical scholars today agree on some basic facts from which a resurrection can be logically deduced.
Are you trying to restart an old argument?
Umm...ok
NT Wright wrote a book on the Resurrection a few years ago...
JK Rowling wrote a whole series of books about a little magician
Writing "book after book" about something doesn't make it true. Is that confusing to you?
Do you know how many books are written about UFOs? Atlantis? Big Foot?
Writing and talking about something is not evidence
QUOTE
By the way, I am an agnostic.
Not according to the stuff you post.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, I am an agnostic. |
Not according to the stuff you post.
This is just bull****. Look, if you don't believe in the resurrection--fine, but don't go around saying that there isn't any evidence, because this is just crap. Yeah, there's no evidence, which is why book after book has been written on the topic (including a 700 page book by NT Wright a couple of years ago)
Actually, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that, over his 30 years in the field of New Testament scholarship, more than half of all New Testament scholars today believe in the resurrection. Virtually all critical scholars today agree on some basic facts from which a resurrection can be logically deduced.
None of which is EVIDENCE. There is no logic in BELIEVING supernatural, magical non-sense, no matter how fine you chop it, nor how many words you use to say you believe it. Don't worry, the same rules apply to vampires, about which many books have also been written.
That Jesus existed, I really have little doubt. That the non-natural things claimed about him are religious non-sense I also have no doubt. That is what religions do, tart up the real story with miraculous blarney trying to make it more SPECIAL than mundane reality. Jesus's message really needs no such embellishment and would take a scourge to the money changers of the worlds religions for what they have done in his name.
Grumpy
QUOTE
This is just bull****. Look, if you don't believe in the resurrection--fine, but don't go around saying that there isn't any evidence, because this is just crap. Yeah, there's no evidence, which is why book after book has been written on the topic (including a 700 page book by NT Wright a couple of years ago) rolleyes.gif
Actually, New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that, over his 30 years in the field of New Testament scholarship, more than half of all New Testament scholars today believe in the resurrection. Virtually all critical scholars today agree on some basic facts from which a resurrection can be logically deduced.
Are you trying to restart an old argument?
Umm...ok
NT Wright wrote a book on the Resurrection a few years ago...
JK Rowling wrote a whole series of books about a little magician
Writing "book after book" about something doesn't make it true. Is that confusing to you?
Do you know how many books are written about UFOs? Atlantis? Big Foot?
Writing and talking about something is not evidence
Hi Derek1148,
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
So, in your convoluted world the victim of a crime should thank the perpetrator for providing him with the insight to appreciate loss. Are you serious?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25402&st=60#
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25402&st=60#
Not at all... I am serious... In an imperfect world this outcome is better than a legally adjudicated outcome given all aspects. Not that I believe in "Christianity"... Jesus (the man) would have approved of my proposed "imperfect" course of action since "no harm was done". I do not believe that there are any "ideal solutions" to the world problems and that also includes the so called Return of "Jesus" for instance.... It would solve nothing since there would be some who would do all the same things all over again. I also think a "coming in glory with power" to slaughter those who oppose your will an equally unacceptable alternative to the solution of our mutual problems. Governments of all political persuasions have tried that too and have all failed miserably. The "application of even more force" does not solve that problem either.
There are no perfect solutions to the inequity in the world there is only a hate for those who have by those who have not. If "Jesus" has a bicycle and "Beer w/Straw" had asked him for it because he did not have one I would expect Jesus to weigh up the good done by handing him his bike vs the harm done by denying him this resource. A lot depends on the intent... is it to menace or is this a simple petition made between individuals... a boy or child to a "grown up" for instance? In the overall social contract we "should" all have with our society Jesus probably would hand over the bike because he knows that his followers will soon give him another simply by asking them. Jesus is simply acting as a "middle man" in a larger transaction. No harm done there! In this case "Beer w/Straw" understands this "transaction" and will find a value in this version of the social contract. In a "better society" "Beer w/Straw" would have asked for a bicycle and he should get one. In some places this is what happens such as in some "enlightened" Scandinavian Countries when a family needs a washing machine they simply apply for one and they will be give none "by society" as part of a social contract. This approach 'works". I am assuming that "Beer w/Straw" is not "evil" here, in the original story he is a boy with a need (every deed needs to be judged on it's individual merits). If ever "Beer w/Straw", in later live, comes across a similar "transaction" it may be that he will choose to reinforce this contract with his own actions.
The "eye for an eye" attitude enforced by a self interested legal community and enforcement apparatus may be "brutally satisfying" to some but does great harm considering the outcomes in society that flow from it such as incarceration for long periods and sodomy and brutality in penal institutions etc...
For instance here in Australia it is customary that items that we no longer need and have some value (and I personally include a bicycle among these items) are left on the footpath, and overnight they "mysteriously disappear"... this occurs with the "full blessing" of the community. Nobody gets arrested for this. I don't think anyone around here doesn't do this from time to time with their surplus effects. We have a strong Somalian presence in our neighborhood and I note the kids all have bikes!
... and this process includes lots of other items too including larger fully operational and functional domestic items. So there is a little clutter on our footpaths from time to time? It saves a trip to the dump or accumulating unwanted items under the house or basement to simply deterioate. We do not have any social problems I know of "yet".
Cheers
There are no perfect solutions to the inequity in the world there is only a hate for those who have by those who have not. If "Jesus" has a bicycle and "Beer w/Straw" had asked him for it because he did not have one I would expect Jesus to weigh up the good done by handing him his bike vs the harm done by denying him this resource. A lot depends on the intent... is it to menace or is this a simple petition made between individuals... a boy or child to a "grown up" for instance? In the overall social contract we "should" all have with our society Jesus probably would hand over the bike because he knows that his followers will soon give him another simply by asking them. Jesus is simply acting as a "middle man" in a larger transaction. No harm done there! In this case "Beer w/Straw" understands this "transaction" and will find a value in this version of the social contract. In a "better society" "Beer w/Straw" would have asked for a bicycle and he should get one. In some places this is what happens such as in some "enlightened" Scandinavian Countries when a family needs a washing machine they simply apply for one and they will be give none "by society" as part of a social contract. This approach 'works". I am assuming that "Beer w/Straw" is not "evil" here, in the original story he is a boy with a need (every deed needs to be judged on it's individual merits). If ever "Beer w/Straw", in later live, comes across a similar "transaction" it may be that he will choose to reinforce this contract with his own actions.
The "eye for an eye" attitude enforced by a self interested legal community and enforcement apparatus may be "brutally satisfying" to some but does great harm considering the outcomes in society that flow from it such as incarceration for long periods and sodomy and brutality in penal institutions etc...
For instance here in Australia it is customary that items that we no longer need and have some value (and I personally include a bicycle among these items) are left on the footpath, and overnight they "mysteriously disappear"... this occurs with the "full blessing" of the community. Nobody gets arrested for this. I don't think anyone around here doesn't do this from time to time with their surplus effects. We have a strong Somalian presence in our neighborhood and I note the kids all have bikes!
... and this process includes lots of other items too including larger fully operational and functional domestic items. So there is a little clutter on our footpaths from time to time? It saves a trip to the dump or accumulating unwanted items under the house or basement to simply deterioate. We do not have any social problems I know of "yet".Cheers
QUOTE (Kaeroll+)
...or "Your beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence" (in the case of the latter- sh*t, do you think so? That's kinda the point). A common argument against newguy's posts seems to be, "You're arguing using the Bible. Use evidence!" - this during arguments about Christianity. What other evidence is there?!
Kaeroll: I'm not sure what to say. On the one hand, I'd love to commend you...NOT for coming to my defense in any sense, but rather for simply having the courage to speak up against some of the "armchair scientists" who frequent this forum. On the other hand, I must confess that I TOTALLY DISAGREE with your comments that I quoted. There is PLENTY of evidence available to Christians and not just "faith". Additionally, as I've discussed so many times that it makes me wonder if any of you can understand plain English, the type of "faith" that you all describe and the type of "faith" that is spoken of within the confines of scripture are worlds apart. Quite frankly, most of the people around here remind me of little children who stamp/stomp their feet and demand that things be done their way. God decides how things are done and He has clearly laid out guidelines to receive the types of evidences that are described within scripture. That none of you desire to follow those guidelines whilst simultaneously complaining about lack of evidence is actually somewhat amusing. Perhaps if ONE OF YOU would step up to the plate like a real man...I won't hold my breath awaiting that day to arrive. My plain dealings aside, I still respect you...I am, however, somewhat disappointed in your apparent lack of understanding of everything that I've stated over the years. Take care.
buttershug: You still lack the ability to comprehend anything that I say. With such being the case, I see no need for further attempts to dialogue with you.
PuckSR: You're even worse than buttershug. You're trying to get me to study the Bible? Dude, I'd wipe the floor with your ignorant @ss with both hands tied behind my back(ooh, didn't mean to excite you, you freak) while wearing a blindfold(not that this would be any great accomplishment). Although you'll simply dismiss this as some sort of "parting shot", I can honestly say that you are the biggest idiot that I've ever encountered in my entire life. For that, you'll always be remembered. I wish you the best, whilst expecting the worst. Farewell.
Kaeroll: I'm not sure what to say. On the one hand, I'd love to commend you...NOT for coming to my defense in any sense, but rather for simply having the courage to speak up against some of the "armchair scientists" who frequent this forum. On the other hand, I must confess that I TOTALLY DISAGREE with your comments that I quoted. There is PLENTY of evidence available to Christians and not just "faith". Additionally, as I've discussed so many times that it makes me wonder if any of you can understand plain English, the type of "faith" that you all describe and the type of "faith" that is spoken of within the confines of scripture are worlds apart. Quite frankly, most of the people around here remind me of little children who stamp/stomp their feet and demand that things be done their way. God decides how things are done and He has clearly laid out guidelines to receive the types of evidences that are described within scripture. That none of you desire to follow those guidelines whilst simultaneously complaining about lack of evidence is actually somewhat amusing. Perhaps if ONE OF YOU would step up to the plate like a real man...I won't hold my breath awaiting that day to arrive. My plain dealings aside, I still respect you...I am, however, somewhat disappointed in your apparent lack of understanding of everything that I've stated over the years. Take care.
buttershug: You still lack the ability to comprehend anything that I say. With such being the case, I see no need for further attempts to dialogue with you.
PuckSR: You're even worse than buttershug. You're trying to get me to study the Bible? Dude, I'd wipe the floor with your ignorant @ss with both hands tied behind my back(ooh, didn't mean to excite you, you freak) while wearing a blindfold(not that this would be any great accomplishment). Although you'll simply dismiss this as some sort of "parting shot", I can honestly say that you are the biggest idiot that I've ever encountered in my entire life. For that, you'll always be remembered. I wish you the best, whilst expecting the worst. Farewell.
NewGuy....
You have taught me the truth of Christianity. Anger, bitterness, and a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with you. You will truly be missed, if only as an example of why I am not a Christian
You have taught me the truth of Christianity. Anger, bitterness, and a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with you. You will truly be missed, if only as an example of why I am not a Christian
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
NewGuy....
You have taught me the truth of Christianity. Anger, bitterness, and a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with you. You will truly be missed, if only as an example of why I am not a Christian.
PuckSR: And yet more empirical evidence of your stupidity. Kaeroll just finished saying:
You have taught me the truth of Christianity. Anger, bitterness, and a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with you. You will truly be missed, if only as an example of why I am not a Christian.
PuckSR: And yet more empirical evidence of your stupidity. Kaeroll just finished saying:
QUOTE (Kaeroll+)
Newguy is probably the most vocal Christian here these days; while I disagree with his beliefs, he's shown integrity and a great knowledge of his religion.
and I just finished responding:
and I just finished responding:
QUOTE (newguy+)
My plain dealings aside, I still respect you
By this, you have concluded that I have "a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with me." Great job, idiot. And YOU want to teach ME about "studying"? WHAT A FRIGGIN' JOKE! As far as your claims of either anger or bitterness are concerned, I suppose that Kaeroll won't mind if I publicly share something that I recently confided to him privately via the PM function. In regards to my dealings with both you and buttershug, I told him that I'm ofttimes reminded of a news story that I followed some time back whilst dealing with the two of you. The news story centered around 4 high school students in Glen Ridge, NJ who sexually abused a retarded girl with a baseball bat. I told him that I ofttimes feel "guilty" after responding to the two of you...I somehow feel that I've abused a couple of retards whilst doing so. As I told you before, you flatter yourself way too much. I've encountered quite a number of real opponents in my life and you're nowhere near their league. Anyhow, reality means nothing to you...believe whatever you'd like to. Far from anger and bitterness, I feel genuine pity for you. Farewell.
By this, you have concluded that I have "a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with me." Great job, idiot. And YOU want to teach ME about "studying"? WHAT A FRIGGIN' JOKE! As far as your claims of either anger or bitterness are concerned, I suppose that Kaeroll won't mind if I publicly share something that I recently confided to him privately via the PM function. In regards to my dealings with both you and buttershug, I told him that I'm ofttimes reminded of a news story that I followed some time back whilst dealing with the two of you. The news story centered around 4 high school students in Glen Ridge, NJ who sexually abused a retarded girl with a baseball bat. I told him that I ofttimes feel "guilty" after responding to the two of you...I somehow feel that I've abused a couple of retards whilst doing so. As I told you before, you flatter yourself way too much. I've encountered quite a number of real opponents in my life and you're nowhere near their league. Anyhow, reality means nothing to you...believe whatever you'd like to. Far from anger and bitterness, I feel genuine pity for you. Farewell.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 13 2009, 02:11 AM)
Hi Derek1148,
Not at all... I am serious... In an imperfect world this outcome is better than a legally adjudicated outcome given all aspects. Not that I believe in "Christianity"... Jesus (the man) would have approved of my proposed "imperfect" course of action since "no harm was done". I do not believe that there are any "ideal solutions" to the world problems and that also includes the so called Return of "Jesus" for instance.... It would solve nothing since there would be some who would do all the same things all over again. I also think a "coming in glory with power" to slaughter those who oppose your will an equally unacceptable alternative to the solution of our mutual problems. Governments of all political persuasions have tried that too and have all failed miserably. The "application of even more force" does not solve that problem either.
There are no perfect solutions to the inequity in the world there is only a hate for those who have by those who have not. If "Jesus" has a bicycle and "Beer w/Straw" had asked him for it because he did not have one I would expect Jesus to weigh up the good done by handing him his bike vs the harm done by denying him this resource. A lot depends on the intent... is it to menace or is this a simple petition made between individuals... a boy or child to a "grown up" for instance? In the overall social contract we "should" all have with our society Jesus probably would hand over the bike because he knows that his followers will soon give him another simply by asking them. Jesus is simply acting as a "middle man" in a larger transaction. No harm done there! In this case "Beer w/Straw" understands this "transaction" and will find a value in this version of the social contract. In a "better society" "Beer w/Straw" would have asked for a bicycle and he should get one. In some places this is what happens such as in some "enlightened" Scandinavian Countries when a family needs a washing machine they simply apply for one and they will be give none "by society" as part of a social contract. This approach 'works". I am assuming that "Beer w/Straw" is not "evil" here, in the original story he is a boy with a need (every deed needs to be judged on it's individual merits). If ever "Beer w/Straw", in later live, comes across a similar "transaction" it may be that he will choose to reinforce this contract with his own actions.
The "eye for an eye" attitude enforced by a self interested legal community and enforcement apparatus may be "brutally satisfying" to some but does great harm considering the outcomes in society that flow from it such as incarceration for long periods and sodomy and brutality in penal institutions etc...
For instance here in Australia it is customary that items that we no longer need and have some value (and I personally include a bicycle among these items) are left on the footpath, and overnight they "mysteriously disappear"... this occurs with the "full blessing" of the community. Nobody gets arrested for this. I don't think anyone around here doesn't do this from time to time with their surplus effects. We have a strong Somalian presence in our neighborhood and I note the kids all have bikes! ... and this process includes lots of other items too including larger fully operational and functional domestic items. So there is a little clutter on our footpaths from time to time? It saves a trip to the dump or accumulating unwanted items under the house or basement to simply deterioate. We do not have any social problems I know of "yet".
Cheers
Amazingly illogical argument. Without evil there cannot be good. So good cannot exist without evil. Therefore, evil is good. And what does Christ have do with a stolen bicycle? (But you don't believe in Christ.) By all means let's continue this debate.
Not at all... I am serious... In an imperfect world this outcome is better than a legally adjudicated outcome given all aspects. Not that I believe in "Christianity"... Jesus (the man) would have approved of my proposed "imperfect" course of action since "no harm was done". I do not believe that there are any "ideal solutions" to the world problems and that also includes the so called Return of "Jesus" for instance.... It would solve nothing since there would be some who would do all the same things all over again. I also think a "coming in glory with power" to slaughter those who oppose your will an equally unacceptable alternative to the solution of our mutual problems. Governments of all political persuasions have tried that too and have all failed miserably. The "application of even more force" does not solve that problem either.
There are no perfect solutions to the inequity in the world there is only a hate for those who have by those who have not. If "Jesus" has a bicycle and "Beer w/Straw" had asked him for it because he did not have one I would expect Jesus to weigh up the good done by handing him his bike vs the harm done by denying him this resource. A lot depends on the intent... is it to menace or is this a simple petition made between individuals... a boy or child to a "grown up" for instance? In the overall social contract we "should" all have with our society Jesus probably would hand over the bike because he knows that his followers will soon give him another simply by asking them. Jesus is simply acting as a "middle man" in a larger transaction. No harm done there! In this case "Beer w/Straw" understands this "transaction" and will find a value in this version of the social contract. In a "better society" "Beer w/Straw" would have asked for a bicycle and he should get one. In some places this is what happens such as in some "enlightened" Scandinavian Countries when a family needs a washing machine they simply apply for one and they will be give none "by society" as part of a social contract. This approach 'works". I am assuming that "Beer w/Straw" is not "evil" here, in the original story he is a boy with a need (every deed needs to be judged on it's individual merits). If ever "Beer w/Straw", in later live, comes across a similar "transaction" it may be that he will choose to reinforce this contract with his own actions.
The "eye for an eye" attitude enforced by a self interested legal community and enforcement apparatus may be "brutally satisfying" to some but does great harm considering the outcomes in society that flow from it such as incarceration for long periods and sodomy and brutality in penal institutions etc...
For instance here in Australia it is customary that items that we no longer need and have some value (and I personally include a bicycle among these items) are left on the footpath, and overnight they "mysteriously disappear"... this occurs with the "full blessing" of the community. Nobody gets arrested for this. I don't think anyone around here doesn't do this from time to time with their surplus effects. We have a strong Somalian presence in our neighborhood and I note the kids all have bikes!
... and this process includes lots of other items too including larger fully operational and functional domestic items. So there is a little clutter on our footpaths from time to time? It saves a trip to the dump or accumulating unwanted items under the house or basement to simply deterioate. We do not have any social problems I know of "yet".Cheers
Amazingly illogical argument. Without evil there cannot be good. So good cannot exist without evil. Therefore, evil is good. And what does Christ have do with a stolen bicycle? (But you don't believe in Christ.) By all means let's continue this debate.
>>> Although you'll simply dismiss this as some sort of "parting shot", I can honestly say that you are the biggest idiot that I've ever encountered in my entire life. <<<
Ahh, I don't know who is parting or who is not, but it was in fact a search yesterday morning for "parthians" that I found and have posted from Showtopic= 19715.
But this is weird(I happened to have this on my harddrive, i don't know why(except maybe to read later))...
Posted in Showtopic= 4289: newguy Jan. 12 2006, 09:43 PM
Thomas the Gardener: No history lessons needed at this end. I've done all of the necessary research in the past and I've also been genuinely reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ. I've also, as I've testified plainly many times in the past, cast out demons in Jesus Christ's name on more than a thousand different occasions. Find yourself another pupil. I'll continue to set the captives free through Jesus Christ. <<<
Too bad Newguy can't reach through the Internet and grab and cure some guys\gals here, it tis.
>>> [A muslim website, I found recently:] <<< Here's another find(vantage point), minutes ago:
Responses to "Islamic Information"
A Critical Analysis of Shabir Ally's Misuse of Bruce M. Metzger's Writings
In some of Shabir Ally's debates one will find him citing Bruce M. Metzger, a world renowned authority on the manuscripts and transmission of the Greek New Testament (NT) text, to support his argument that the NT text has been corrupted.
The impression Shabir gives is that Metzger seemingly believes that the variants within the ancient manuscripts of the NT prove that scribes corrupted the text. Hence, Shabir gives his audience the impression that Metzger feels that Christians cannot confidently assert that today's NT is a faithful replica of the original autographs.
In this article we will quote Metzger's views on the variant readings of the NT text and how this effects its preservation. The following quotations are taken from Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ (Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids, MI 1998 pocket size edition). In chapter two of his book, Strobel personally interviewed Metzger on the reliability and preservation of the NT text. Strobel opens up the interview with Metzger on the issue of alleged "errors" of the NT text:
EXAMINING THE ERRORS
"With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text,' I said.
"Quite so," Metzger conceded.
"And in fact, aren't there literally tens of thousands of variations among the ancient manuscripts that we have?"
"Quite so."
"Doesn't that therefore mean we can't trust them?" I asked, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive.
"No sir, it does not," Metzger replied firmly. "First let me say this: Eyeglasses weren't invented until 1373 in Venice, and I'm sure that astigmatism 
existed among the ancient scribes 
. That was compounded by the fact that it was difficult under any circumstances to read faded manuscripts on which some of the ink had flaked away. And there were other hazards - inattentiveness on the part of scribes, for example. So yes, although for the most part scribes were scrupulously careful, errors did creep in.
"But," he was quick to add, "there are factors counteracting that. For example, sometimes the scribe's memory would play tricks on him. Between the time it took for him to look at the text and then to write down the words, the order of words might get shifted. He may write down the right words but in the wrong sequence. This is nothing to be alarmed at, because Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language."
"Meaning...," I prompted him.
"Meaning it makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' - sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence; consequently, the meaning of the sentence isn't distorted if the words are out of what we consider to be the right order. So yes, some variations among manuscripts exist, but generally they're inconsequential variations like that. Differences in spelling would be another example."
Still, the high number of "variants," or differences among manuscripts, was troubling. I had seen estimates as high as two hundred thousand of them. However, Metzger downplayed the significance of that figure.
"The number sounds big, but it's a bit misleading because of the way variants are counted," he said. He explained that if a single word is misspelled in two thousand manuscripts, that's counted as two thousand variants.
I keyed in on the most important issue. "How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?"
"I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy," he responded confidently.
"None?"
"None," he repeated. "Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door and say, 'Your Bible is wrong in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8, where it talks about "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They'll say, 'That's not in the earliest manuscripts.'
"And that's true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write.
"But that does not dislodge the firmly witnessed testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the Trinity***. At the baptism of Jesus, the Father speaks, his beloved Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends on him. At the ending of 2 Corinthians Paul says, 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' There are many places where the Trinity is represented."
"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"
"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But, again, these are rare." (Strobel, pp. 82-85)
Strobel continues:
THE "UNRIVALED" NEW TESTAMENT
Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. One of Metzger's distinguished predecessors at Princeton Theological Seminary, Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught systematic theology, until his death in 1921, put it this way:
If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must... declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied- a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words... The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use. (Strobel, p. 91)
...
More bold no gifsin the original and about another 7kb.
Trinity***.
Well, I would disagree with a capital T. ------>Showtopic= 24172.
A lower case less dogmatic trinity is fine with me and evidently the late B.M. Metzger {although he may have been more Roman Catholic then I or even the later Sir Isaac Newton will ever be}. Speaking of Newton, since most of his Bible work was only made quasi-public recently ... I think how it squares with what must have been independently derived (say, starting with the Millerites) interpretations of Bible prophecies for the latter times pretty impressive. When it comes to the Bible and the more interesting third, geniuses are studied not born.
MrB.
Lot's wife became salt, the coalition of the willing organics can't just stand still, they look forward and become knowledgeable of history before it even happens.
Ahh, I don't know who is parting or who is not, but it was in fact a search yesterday morning for "parthians" that I found and have posted from Showtopic= 19715.
But this is weird(I happened to have this on my harddrive, i don't know why(except maybe to read later))...
Posted in Showtopic= 4289: newguy Jan. 12 2006, 09:43 PM
Thomas the Gardener: No history lessons needed at this end. I've done all of the necessary research in the past and I've also been genuinely reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ. I've also, as I've testified plainly many times in the past, cast out demons in Jesus Christ's name on more than a thousand different occasions. Find yourself another pupil. I'll continue to set the captives free through Jesus Christ. <<<
Too bad Newguy can't reach through the Internet and grab and cure some guys\gals here, it tis.
>>> [A muslim website, I found recently:] <<< Here's another find(vantage point), minutes ago:
Responses to "Islamic Information"
A Critical Analysis of Shabir Ally's Misuse of Bruce M. Metzger's Writings
In some of Shabir Ally's debates one will find him citing Bruce M. Metzger, a world renowned authority on the manuscripts and transmission of the Greek New Testament (NT) text, to support his argument that the NT text has been corrupted.
The impression Shabir gives is that Metzger seemingly believes that the variants within the ancient manuscripts of the NT prove that scribes corrupted the text. Hence, Shabir gives his audience the impression that Metzger feels that Christians cannot confidently assert that today's NT is a faithful replica of the original autographs.
In this article we will quote Metzger's views on the variant readings of the NT text and how this effects its preservation. The following quotations are taken from Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ (Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids, MI 1998 pocket size edition). In chapter two of his book, Strobel personally interviewed Metzger on the reliability and preservation of the NT text. Strobel opens up the interview with Metzger on the issue of alleged "errors" of the NT text:
EXAMINING THE ERRORS
"With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text,' I said.
"Quite so," Metzger conceded.
"And in fact, aren't there literally tens of thousands of variations among the ancient manuscripts that we have?"
"Quite so."
"Doesn't that therefore mean we can't trust them?" I asked, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive.
"No sir, it does not," Metzger replied firmly. "First let me say this: Eyeglasses
weren't invented until 1373 in Venice, and I'm sure that astigmatism existed among the ancient scribes . That was compounded by the fact that it was difficult under any circumstances to read faded manuscripts on which some of the ink had flaked away. And there were other hazards - inattentiveness on the part of scribes, for example. So yes, although for the most part scribes were scrupulously careful, errors did creep in. "But," he was quick to add, "there are factors counteracting that. For example, sometimes the scribe's memory would play tricks on him. Between the time it took for him to look at the text and then to write down the words, the order of words might get shifted. He may write down the right words but in the wrong sequence. This is nothing to be alarmed at, because Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language."
"Meaning...," I prompted him.
"Meaning it makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' - sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence; consequently, the meaning of the sentence isn't distorted if the words are out of what we consider to be the right order. So yes, some variations among manuscripts exist, but generally they're inconsequential variations like that. Differences in spelling would be another example."
Still, the high number of "variants," or differences among manuscripts, was troubling. I had seen estimates as high as two hundred thousand of them. However, Metzger downplayed the significance of that figure.
"The number sounds big, but it's a bit misleading because of the way variants are counted," he said. He explained that if a single word is misspelled in two thousand manuscripts, that's counted as two thousand variants.
I keyed in on the most important issue. "How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?"
"I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy," he responded confidently.
"None?"
"None," he repeated. "Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door and say, 'Your Bible is wrong in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8, where it talks about "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They'll say, 'That's not in the earliest manuscripts.'
"And that's true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write.
"But that does not dislodge the firmly witnessed testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the Trinity***. At the baptism of Jesus, the Father speaks, his beloved Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends on him. At the ending of 2 Corinthians Paul says, 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' There are many places where the Trinity is represented."
"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"
"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But, again, these are rare." (Strobel, pp. 82-85)
Strobel continues:
THE "UNRIVALED" NEW TESTAMENT
Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. One of Metzger's distinguished predecessors at Princeton Theological Seminary, Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught systematic theology, until his death in 1921, put it this way:
If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must... declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied- a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words... The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use. (Strobel, p. 91)
...
More bold no gifs
in the original and about another 7kb.Trinity***.
Well, I would disagree with a capital T. ------>Showtopic= 24172.
A lower case less dogmatic trinity is fine with me and evidently the late B.M. Metzger {although he may have been more Roman Catholic then I or even the later Sir Isaac Newton will ever be}. Speaking of Newton, since most of his Bible work was only made quasi-public recently ... I think how it squares with what must have been independently derived (say, starting with the Millerites) interpretations of Bible prophecies for the latter times pretty impressive. When it comes to the Bible and the more interesting third, geniuses are studied not born.
MrB.
Lot's wife became salt, the coalition of the willing organics can't just stand still, they look forward and become knowledgeable of history before it even happens.
If it's alright by you gents, I'll reply to each of you individually...
buttershrug-
You're splitting hairs over semantics, I feel. I explicitly referred to my field of study, rather than the physical phenomena underpinning it. Of course gravity would exist without Newton (much to the chagrin of the Velcro company
), and the photoelectric effect would occur whether man knew of it or not. The photoelectric effect is a founding stone insofar as the ideas Einstein presented, namely the quantisation of energy in light, are (in part) the basis of quantum theory - the bedrock of chemical theory.
My point is not to debate the nature of science - I'll leave that to much smarter men - but to argue that the criteria you (collectively) have been holding newguy to are much more stringent, it seems, than you would hold a scientist to. More on that in my response to Puck.
Completely agreed. I do differ on the point that "chemistry is the search for ultimate truth" - to me, most of chemistry has nothing to say to god or the universe and is the attempt at prediction. Most chemical theory is irrelevant to philosophy, but very useful synthetically. However, that's a philosophical difference and I do understand the idea of science as a search for god or truth.
Puck-
buttershrug-
You're splitting hairs over semantics, I feel. I explicitly referred to my field of study, rather than the physical phenomena underpinning it. Of course gravity would exist without Newton (much to the chagrin of the Velcro company
), and the photoelectric effect would occur whether man knew of it or not. The photoelectric effect is a founding stone insofar as the ideas Einstein presented, namely the quantisation of energy in light, are (in part) the basis of quantum theory - the bedrock of chemical theory.My point is not to debate the nature of science - I'll leave that to much smarter men - but to argue that the criteria you (collectively) have been holding newguy to are much more stringent, it seems, than you would hold a scientist to. More on that in my response to Puck.
QUOTE
The greatest thing you can do in your field of study is to prove something you are taught is wrong. Well actualy that would be second best, best would developing and proving the replacement.
Completely agreed. I do differ on the point that "chemistry is the search for ultimate truth" - to me, most of chemistry has nothing to say to god or the universe and is the attempt at prediction. Most chemical theory is irrelevant to philosophy, but very useful synthetically. However, that's a philosophical difference and I do understand the idea of science as a search for god or truth.
Puck-
QUOTE (->