Still On The Prophetic Agenda

[Investorater]

So,what is left to be fulfilled from the lineup of events the prophets,Jesus Christ and the apostles foretold,and how will their prophecies come to pass upon the earth?To attempt to fully answer such a question certainly leaves one open to the possibility of being a false(or at best,inaccurate)prophet.However it should be clearly understood that I do not claim to be infallible nor am I dogmatic in insisting upon the exact order or fashion in which these events will occur.Rather what follows is simply an attempt to establish as accurately as possible from Scripture,a schedule as I understand it,of still-future key events.This is a synopsis intended to be a broad overview.Furthermore,with the possible exception of Russia's invasion of Israel and the public introduction of the one who becomes the Antichrist,I do not expect to be here upon earth for any of these events,other than the Rapture and the Millennium.I sincerely pray that none of my readers will be here either.1.Millions around the world disappear in the Rapture of the Church.This occurrence is the coming of Christ to take His own(that is all those from around the world and throughout the Church age who have been made righteous by faith in Christ)to meet him in the clouds and so to be with Him forever.This includes both those believers who have died and all who are alive when Christ comes.(1Thess.4:14-18,1 Corin.15:51-58,Titus 2:13)This resurrection of dead saints is called the first resurrection.(John 5:25-29,Daniel 12:2,Rev.20:5,6)It will obviously create quite a stir.The Rapture will be followed(in heaven)by the Judgement Seat of Christ at which believers'works will be reviewed and rewards for faithful service issued to the worthy.The marriage of Christ,the Bridegroom,and His Bride,the Church,will then take place.

[hcap]

The doctrine of the Rapture is a very recent invention within some of the radical fringe churches of Christianity. The Rapture doctrine is first cousin to millennialism, the belief promoted by various groups who have predicted that “the end is near.” Millennialist groups have popped up and burnt out from time to time throughout Christian history.

The Rapture doctrine has no support in the historic Christianity of any of the main traditions - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. The doctrine of the Rapture is cobbled together from several obscure, unrelated comments drawn from the epistles of Paul the Apostle. No credible biblical scholar in two thousand years of Christian history has taken seriously the Rapture doctrine, millennialism, or anything similar to it........

Raymond J. Lawrence Episcopal cleric



Why not continue posting on the threads you have already started. Basically all are saying the same.

Oh yeah, can I have your car when you are raptured. Unless you CAN take it with you. Even boxcar has thrown you under the bus. He has accused you of making all this stuff up. Ironic isn't it? But hey maybe you can give him the deed to your house as well.

[boxcar]

Okay, Investorater, the ball is in your court. Our wanna-be theologian says the rapture is hogwash. You going to let that stand? Were you never taught at your church (assuming you attend one) how to defend the Christian faith? Or is only Dispensationalism taught at your church? Can you do something other than bang out monologues on your keyboard?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Investorator, what about the Jews?

"As Chris Hedges points out in his essay in the May 2005 issue of Harper's Magazine, the Dominionist ( Rapture folks ) belief in the Rapture has a role for Jews that is not very appealing. They believe that "Israel must rule the Biblical land in order for Christ to return, though when he does, all Jews who do not convert to Christianity supposedly will be incinerated as the believers are lifted into heaven."

Gene Lyons, in his November 2004 Harper's Magazine review of the Left Behind novels points out that "Israeli Jews play a strange role in the Left Behind series, existing to be converted or slaughtered. As God's chosen, they are to be protected from harm until the battle of Armageddon, at which point they must accept Jesus as the Messiah or die."

So while many fundamentalist Christians speak of their "Judeo-Christian heritage," one suspects that what they mean by that is not that Jews and Christians are equal partners but merely that the Old Testament is an important part of their religious framework."

.................................................. .....................................

And what about All the other religions in the world? I guess not being brought up a Christian, not being exposed to the Bible thru' no fault of their own is reason enough to be left behind? That means only several billion to be cast down in hell. No biggie.

Then again God could have provided multi-lingual translations of the Bible throughout the world, if he was paying attention to the details of this Rapture extravaganza. But you know the old saying "the Devil is in the details"

God, if not wanting to get personally involved, at least could have provided free copies of Tim LaHayes' Left Behind series. I'm sure Lahaye could explain the details clearly. What are prophets for, if not to sell 100s' of millions of books and not give away a few as well?

[hcap]

Box, the only difference between you and Investorator is punctuation.

Actually I don't want to be a theologian-even tho' almost all mainstream theologians don't buy into this Hollywood conundrum of silliness.

I am being a skeptic, and rightfully so.

[boxcar]

Box, the only difference between you and Investorator is punctuation.

And the only difference between you and earthworm is that the latter has infinitely more sense.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

2.The Holy Spirit-as the restrainer of evil through His indwelling presence in Christ's body,the Church-no longer functions in the unique way He now does through the Church which was born at the time that He came at Pentecost.To restrain evil is one of the functions of the Holy Spirit.He does so in a large measure,through born-again,righteous people who are also called the 'salt of the earth"-a preservative substance.(2Thessalonians 2).



3.The invasion of Israel by Russia and her confederacy occurs,this is one event which could happen as early as three and one-half years before the Church is snatched away or at the time of the Rapture,either immediately before or after it.The reason for this flexibility is the prophecy in Ezekiel 39,which says that after Russia's defeat by God,those who dwell in Israel will burn the remains of her war machine for seven years.This would indicate that it must happen at least 7 years before the Battle of Armageddon and the immediately ensuing millennial reign of Christ.(Ezekiel 38,39) Note:Within the final years of human history prior to the Revelation of Christ,there will be the reconstruction of the ancient city of Babylon.(Could the U.S.represent Babylon).The reason for saying this is that the prophets Isaiah,Jeremiah and John all foretold an end-time destruction of Babylon from which there would never,ever be a recovery.In order to have such a destruction there must of course,be a city of Babylon in existence.Who is quoted as saying:"The one sure lesson that history teaches us is that we do not learn from history."No doubt,ancient Babylon,that magnificent city that stood on the plain of Shinar was the capital of the world with its Tower,and if I recall correctly from a booklet,Nimrod,the father of Babylon,was a Black Man.(Genesis 10:8-10)(Genesis 11:4)By making this announcement,Babylon showed that it believed in and wanted to build a society without God and a city without the Lord.(2 Peter 2:1)(Galatians 1:6-9)(Galatians 3:1)(1 Corinthians 3:11-13).The book of the Revelation brings us to what we can call the final chapters of everything.(Rev.18;1-5)Religious Babylon Rev.17:5-Commercial Babylon Rev.18:5(Rev.18:11)(Rev.18:14)(Ephesians 2:8,9

[hcap]

Two profound posts by the two biblical giants!Box, the only difference between you and Investorator is punctuation.Boy talk about prophecy! But I am beginning to think Investorator makes more sense than you box :eek:

BTW, neither of you have commented on the fate of the Jews come the Rapture. How come?

[OTM Al]

Once again Investorater, I urge you to study the period when these things were written. I will go over this once again. Babylon here is Rome under Domitian. That is Rome of 81-96 AD. The 666 refers to Nero and is the value of his name Nero(n) Caesar in that ancient Hebrew method known as gematria. Nero is refered to because there were many rumors at the time that Domitian was a returned Nero. Nero had become a sort of boogy man in the east. All this was written in allegory because at the time if you openly criticized the Emperor, you would likely end up dead, but it was very acceptable to write in allegorical terms and there is plenty of other texts still surviving to back this up. All this other gooblygook is no better that that Late Great Planet Earth garbage that came out in the 70s that said we'd be done in the 80s. Your faith is obviously strong. Don't let yourself be duped by these preachers. All they are doing is trying to sell you something that you don't really want or need and it has nothing to do with the words or life of Jesus.

[hcap]

In a previous debate with boxcar I quoted this...
Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, biblical interpretation was often dominated by the allegorical method. Looking back to Augustine, the medieval church believed that every biblical passage contained four levels of meaning. These four levels were the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the eschatological. For instance, the word Jerusalem literally referred to the city itself; allegorically, it refers to the church of Christ; morally, it indicates the human soul; and eschatologically it points to the heavenly Jerusalem.(1) Under this school of interpretation it was the church that established what the correct meaning of a passage was for all four levels.

By the time of the reformation, knowledge of the Bible was scarce. However, with a new emphasis on the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, the fourfold method of interpretation was beginning to fade. Martin Luther argued that the church shouldn't determine what the Scriptures mean, the Scriptures should govern what the churches teach. He also rejected the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture.
My view is that the moral and allegorical is where the essence of all religions reside. Symbols are an emotional shorthand that bypasses most of the confusion. My view is that the symbols, parables and fables passed down to us by others continue to resonate with those dormant faculties within our psyche.

The "inner moral allegory" being the most important of all. The City Of Jerusalem exists within all of us. The growth of the lowly mustard seed into the Kingdom Of God-WITHIN US-is more important than literal understandings of end times and damnation. However symbols and parables contain powerful energies that may be appropriated by our own egos, vain personalities, the Freudian ID, and limited understanding as imaginary edifices built on sand. Seeing the Book of revelation in it's true light requires inner understanding. That is all that imagery really refers to an inner struggle, and his wasted in application to prophecy.

This is also the theme of many religions and philosophies. The Bhagavad Gita of Vedic philosophy is about an epic struggle on a battleground that can be examined as existing within. Many Zen stories cover this struggle as well. As do mystics of other religions-including Judaism and The Christian Mystics.

The Book Of Revelations as well as most scriptures have also become distorted over time. We are standing on the shore of a lake and see the fading ripples from events and scriptures composed thousands and thousands of years ago. The initial impact gets lost in many ways. But the symbolic content sometimes remains closer to the original.
"There were three main movements within early Christianity: the Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians and Gnostics. Among them, there were on the order of fifty gospels, probably hundreds of epistles (letters), and many examples of apocalyptic literature similar to Revelation. All were considered authorative by various early Christian groups. When the Bishops fixed the official canon, they selected the Hebrew Scriptures, and 27 books: four gospels, Acts, 21 epistles, and Revelation. The concept of inerrancy requires that they did not err in their selection: that the authors of precisely these 27 books were inspired by God and wrote without error. This would imply that their selection process must have been guided by God so that fraudulent books were not chosen. The Gospel of John was almost rejected by the early Church because of its Gnostic content. Revelation almost did not make it into the Bible either, because it described God in angry, hateful terms that seemed incompatible with the loving Abba (Dad) that Jesus prayed to. When Emperor Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible to be copied, they included The Letter of Barnabas and The Shepard of Hermes -- two books that do not appear in today's Bibles."

It seems the historical background of the understanding and interpretation of the bible is full of twists and turns. Countless seperate groups and factions, compete for the truth, and many claim exclusively to be THE CORRECT way.

The historical context is extremely important, but the underlying allegorical is in my opinion where truth lies. But instead of trying to understand these more subtle truths that are pointed to by all religions we get hung up on the religion itself. Arguing and killing each other over who is the "true believer".

In Zen when the Master points to the moon with his walking stick, and the student fixates on the stick, and mises the moon, the Master uses that same stick to vigorously whack the student upside his head.

[Show Me the Wire]

Investorater:

Let me be succint about your references to the prophetic book of Ezekiel. I would not worry until Russia begins a weapons build-up of [shields and bucklers,] bows and arrows, clubs and lances..EZ, 39:9.

[Investorater]

What has been decreed will be done.Read your Holy Bible.4.The Antichrist will grasp world power.This coming world ruler will have been introduced to the public some time prior to his power grab.He will overthrow three kingdoms and become dominant over the European Union.Daniel calls him the Roman Prince(Daniel 7:24,8:25).He will oppose Russia's reach into Israel and North Africa(Daniel 11).Then this diabolical future fuhrer will sooner or later boldly step into the power vacuum created by the crushing defeat of the Russian-led confederacy in Israel.He will take unprecedented control as the dominant power figure in the world.Apparently this will be accomplished through both diplomacy and military action.Revelation 6).5.The Antichrist makes a seven-year pact with Israel.Among other things this pact will involve permission for Israel to resume the ancient sacrificial system in the Temple,which presupposes that a Temple will be constructed(Daniel 9;27).This will doubtless entail a confrontation with the Arab nations.The patronage of the Antichrist and his power bloc will also stimulate Israel's rebuilding and the development of her natural resources(Ezekiel 38:8

[boxcar]

But the symbolic content sometimes remains closer to the original.

And you would have done well to have added: And additionally, the symbolism gives each student of scripture unfettered license to reach his own private interpretations, thereby effectively reducing truth to a status of mere relativism.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

What has been decreed will be done.

Now this is something upon which we both can agree but only because we have monotheism in common.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

The historical context is extremely important, but the underlying allegorical is in my opinion where truth lies. But instead of trying to understand these more subtle truths that are pointed to by all religions we get hung up on the religion itself. Arguing and killing each other over who is the "true believer".

I totally agree with you on this, but without context and knowledge of the history and writing styles of the time, one is easily led astray. My eyes just start rolling over when I see the, what if the US is Babylon and such and such is the Antichrist silliness. At this point it seems to me most of the message has been completely missed. And then the mixing and matching of verse from very different books of the Bible begins to create something which has no basis whatsoever in either fact or intent of the writers.

[boxcar]

I totally agree with you on this, but without context and knowledge of the history and writing styles of the time, one is easily led astray. My eyes just start rolling over when I see the, what if the US is Babylon and such and such is the Antichrist silliness. At this point it seems to me most of the message has been completely missed. And then the mixing and matching of verse from very different books of the Bible begins to create something which has no basis whatsoever in either fact or intent of the writers.

Very astute observation, Big Al -- whether you reasoned this out or intuitively recognized the problem -- or a combination of both. But you nailed it squarely.

As well meaning as many Dispensationalists (Dispens for short) are, they unwittingly have fallen into the same bad hermeneutical snare as all the cultists. Both form their presuppositions or hypotheses, and then to support these they treat scripture like it was a giant jigsaw puzzle -- pulling one piece from here, another from over there -- another from somewhere else in order to get scripture to say what they want -- in order to support an hypothesis -- and all this is very often done at the expense of the immediate context of each alleged supporting passage. Cultists and Dispens alike cannot allow any one these passages to stand on its own fours, as it were. This is because these individual passages will often conflict with their hypotheses. The proper methodology to interpretation is to start with the immediate context of the passage, then the larger context of the book in which the passage is found, then the largest context of all -- the rest of the bible. But once the more immediate contexts are ignored, then anyone can make the bible say anything they want it to say. Of course, there are other serious hermeneutical rules they break, as well -- but this is [arguably] the top one.

Boxcar

[hcap]

As well meaning as many Dispensationalists (Dispens for short) are, they unwittingly have fallen into the same bad hermeneutical snare as all the cultists. Both form their presuppositions or hypotheses, and then to support these they treat scripture like it was a giant jigsaw puzzle -- pulling one piece from here, another from over there -- another from somewhere else in order to get scripture to say what they want -- in order to support an hypothesis -- and all this is very often done at the expense of the immediate context of each alleged supporting passage. Cultists and Dispens alike cannot allow any one these passages to stand on its own fours, as it were. This is because these individual passages will often conflict with their hypotheses. The proper methodology to interpretation is to start with the immediate context of the passage, then the larger context of the book in which the passage is found, then the largest context of all -- the rest of the bible. But once the more immediate contexts are ignored, then anyone can make the bible say anything they want it to say. Of course, there are other serious hermeneutical rules they break, as well -- but this is [arguably] the top one.

Boxcar1 Samuel 15 King James Bible
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.Your hermeneutical rules gave me this conclusion previously.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16771&page=3&pp=15&highlight=bible

Post# 40
Scripture is quite clear: The whole Earth belongs to the Lord. Therefore, God is the Landlord of the Earth; all its human inhabitants are Tenants! Guess who has every eviction right and authority? WHY THE SUCKLING INFANTS? Ox? Sheep? How did they break the rental contract?

You need more than hermeneutics to understand this.
But once the more immediate contexts are ignored, then anyone can make the bible say anything they want it to sayRight on point.

[hcap]

Referring to Copernicus's theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, Martin Luther exclaimed, "This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. ” (Tischreden, 1743, Vol. 22, page 2260.). Galileo, and others were also persecuted forgoing against existing beliefs.

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain

And you have the hermeneutical rules to support miracles?
Wrong discipline to verify OBJECTIVE truths.
Did Martin Luther use hermeneutics?
Do all the Churces that accept evolution as well as their own faith use hermeneutics? Could hermeneutics be an interpretive discipline used by each practioner to apologize AFTER the fact-like Investorator?
And you?

[OTM Al]

The proper methodology to interpretation is to start with the immediate context of the passage, then the larger context of the book in which the passage is found, then the largest context of all -- the rest of the bible. Boxcar

There's an intermediate step which you've missed here, though I would agree that that is basically the proper way to look at writings of any sort when doing a critical analysis. I would say though that looking at the Bible as a whole really only makes sense if you are trying to either understand the intent of the men that put the Bible together or you are working to understand philosophical changes over the period of time of the writing, roughly 600 BCE (though some pieces may go back as far as 1000 BCE) to perhaps as late as 200 AD. Without that sort of context, you will get a bunch of very conflicting stuff. I would say rather from books one should step up to sections that are closely related, such as the 1st 5 books of the OT or the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew plus Acts.

Why I would say this is that the Bible never was a living growing document that new things were occasionally added to. From a (Western) Christian perspective, it was artificially constructed by a group of church leaders. Had the men with the greatest influence at the Synod of Hippo (among a few other Synods held around the end of the 4th cent.) been born of different traditions, which basically meant you came from a different large city, then the ordering and inclusions may have been very different.

[boxcar]

Your hermeneutical rules gave me this conclusion previously...
Right on point.

You drew the wrong conclusion because you weren't "right on point". The truth of the matter was too inconvenient for you to bother to check out the the larger contexts. I never said that an interpreter should ignore the larger contexts of the bible. Quite the contrary! However, you did. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
(In case you still don't get it, your error is the exact opposite of the kind Dispens are more prone to make.)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Referring to Copernicus's theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, Martin Luther exclaimed, "This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. ” (Tischreden, 1743, Vol. 22, page 2260.). Galileo, and others were also persecuted forgoing against existing beliefs.

To the people of that day, it appeared that sun revolved around the earth. In the Jos 10 narrative, Joshua simply prayed for and commanded on the basis of how the sun always looked to him...from his perspective -- from his vantage point here on the earth. Joshua was a prophet, not a scientist -- nor is the Book of Joshua a science textbook. (For example, from our perspective here on earth, the planet appears to be flat.)

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain

And you have the hermeneutical rules to support miracles?

Are you suggesting that the bible doesn't teach that God is omnipotent?

Wrong discipline to verify OBJECTIVE truths.

Only to those infidels who don't consider the bible to be God's revelation of his absolute truth.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Why I would say this is that the Bible never was a living growing document that new things were occasionally added to. From a (Western) Christian perspective, it was artificially constructed by a group of church leaders. Had the men with the greatest influence at the Synod of Hippo (among a few other Synods held around the end of the 4th cent.) been born of different traditions, which basically meant you came from a different large city, then the ordering and inclusions may have been very different.

Of course, writings were constantly being added to it from around 2000 B.C. to about 95 A.D. The OT anticipates and conceals the New. The NT more fully reveals, fulfills and is fulfilling the Old. In fact, Dispens largely ignore this fact of Progressive Revelation which is why they hold to the belief that God has two plans of salvation for two different peoples -- one for Israel and one for the Church. They refuse to accept that under the New Covenant arrangement, there is only one "Israel" -- consisting of both believing Jews and Gentiles, for example.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Writings were being made, yes, but there was no unified Bible until one was created out of these different books around 400 AD, while other books were rejected. Your dates are a bit off though. Jewish scholars believe the Torah was revealed to Moses around 1280 BCE, but most don't feel that these books were fully put together until after 550 BCE and possibly as late as 400 BCE. And those are just the first 5 books of what would become the Christian Bible.

As to your statement about the Old Testament anticipating the New, I would simply have to say that making that leap is akin to the mixing and matching of which you already said was incorrect. Matthew for example, retrofits the life of Jesus so that it fulfills the old prophecies. It was said that the messiah had to be born in Bethlehem and that he had to come out of Egypt, so a story was made up. It is however most likely that Jesus was born in Nazereth to what we would call upper middle class parents. This doesn't change who he is or what he did. Its just that to be considered a King, one had to satisy certain conditions of birth, so things were arranged thus. The same thing was done with the origin story of Moses using a 1000 year old myth to set the stage for his story. This is just the way things were done in the ancient world and why I say it is so important to understand the history and writing styles of the period if we have any chance to understand what is really being told to us.

[boxcar]

Writings were being made, yes, but there was no unified Bible until one was created out of these different books around 400 AD, while other books were rejected. Your dates are a bit off though. Jewish scholars believe the Torah was revealed to Moses around 1280 BCE, but most don't feel that these books were fully put together until after 550 BCE and possibly as late as 400 BCE. And those are just the first 5 books of what would become the Christian Bible.

As to your statement about the Old Testament anticipating the New, I would simply have to say that making that leap is akin to the mixing and matching of which you already said was incorrect. Matthew for example, retrofits the life of Jesus so that it fulfills the old prophecies. It was said that the messiah had to be born in Bethlehem and that he had to come out of Egypt, so a story was made up. It is however most likely that Jesus was born in Nazereth to what we would call upper middle class parents. This doesn't change who he is or what he did.

The retrofitting is your assumption. It's a biased presupposition that you bring to bear upon scripture. Certainly there is no warrant to believe that from scripture itself. Only if you can't or don't want to believe that God is Sovereign, and that all his eternal decrees will come to past, can you form such an hypothesis. There are literally hundreds of OT prophecies that Christ fulfilled during his first advent. If you throw out this one, then it follows logically that you have to toss them all. You'd have to logically conclude that the OT did not predict or anticipate the Messiah whatsoever.

Mat 21:1-2 fulfills Mic 5:2-5 In fact, Christ fulfilled a few prophecies in just this one OT passage:

The Messiah born in Jerusalem: Mat 21:1-2
The Messiah from everlasting (eternal) Jn 8:58; Rev 1:8
The Messiah shepherds his people (Jn 10:11-14)
The Messiah is a ruler (Lk 19:38; Jn 1:49; 12:13)
The Messiah is Israel's Peace (Jn 14:27; Eph 2:14)

So, now these questions must be raised: Is the bible a huge book of lies -- many, many lies, in fact? Fabrications too numerous to count!? And lies in which Jesus himself participated? Some infidels might try to rationalize that Jesus was a "well-intentioned" chap, but what -- a well-intentioned master of deception!? In order to get his message across, he had to deceive his listeners -- his followers -- his disciples? If the bible is a book of lies, distortions, misrepresentations, fabrications, etc., then at some point we have to conclude that Jesus was certainly not the Lord, but rather a Lunatic or Liar.

So, no, I'm not doing the same thing, hermeneutically, that Dispens and cultists do. It is perfectly reasonable and logical to expect and look for NT fulfillment of OT prophecies. The only reason people reject the prophetic portions of the bible is because they deny the attributes of God -- that God is capable of decreeing from eternity past and having all his decrees come to fruition. These are the same people who deny that the omnipotent Almighty can perform miracles. These are same people who deny that the bible is the living, inspired, inerrant Word of God from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Why does everything have to be so black and white for you? Which version of the Bible do you refer to as unerring? There are several different versions as far as ording and inclusion and exclusion of books go. Are you saying that only one version is the absolute truth and all these other christians are in reality "infidels"?

There is a huge error concerning when Jesus was born when comparing Matthew and Luke. Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary had to return to Bethlehem for a census declared by Augustus. Matthew puts Jesus' birth in the rule of Herod the great. Here's the problem. The census was in what we would call 6 AD. Herod died in 4 BCE. Furthermore, censuses were taken on where the people currently lived, not at their ancestoral homes. All this is documented fact.

Does this make the Bible full of lies? No. Like I've said twice already, to understand the Bible, you have to understand the culture and traditions and history of the people who lived in the ancient world. For Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to fulfill the accepted prophecy. He had to be shown to have kingly lineage. So that's what they gave him. Would everything he said and did have no value to you if these things weren't true? There was certainly other writings of prophecy no longer included among the canon. Big reason would be that our gospel writers did not confirm that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies, so out they went. Those men in the synods around 400 AD most definitely retrofit the bible together in an attempt to make it look just as you seem to perceive it. But again, this does not make it full of lies.

The message is the important part. Would you have no faith in his words if you found that certain events had been embellished by writers who likely never met him in person in life? The Bible is a work of man, one of the greatest ever without a doubt. Man may err. I don't have a problem with that. It's the attempt to gain an understanding of God and the world that counts. It's the message that matters most.

[boxcar]

Why does everything have to be so black and white for you?

Why would you think that "everything" is that for me? Would you settle for some things, though?

And from your straw man-type question, would I be on solid footing if I assumed that nothing is black and white for you? But then...that can't possibly be true, can it? At least not with respect to the bible, right? Aren't you implying that everything in the bible should be colored gray? That we dare not take any of its statements as being absolutely true? Well, if you're intending for us to essentially infer from your above question that all passages must be taken with a big grain of salt, then you, sir, have just made an absolute statement. Or to state it in your terms, the grayness of the bible is a black and white, settled issue for you! Therefore, you do think in terms of "black and white" when deciding that the bible is full or gray, or the bible is full of contradictions, or the bible is full errors, etc.

Which version of the Bible do you refer to as unerring? There are several different versions as far as ording and inclusion and exclusion of books go. Are you saying that only one version is the absolute truth and all these other christians are in reality "infidels"?

You're a typical unbeliever who instead of sticking to the passage you originally brought up (Mat 2 which alludes to Mic 2) and addressing the issues I raised, you load your shotgun up with the buckshot of straw men, hoping that you'll hit something. But I don't play that game.

There is a huge error concerning when Jesus was born when comparing Matthew and Luke. Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary had to return to Bethlehem for a census declared by Augustus. Matthew puts Jesus' birth in the rule of Herod the great. Here's the problem. The census was in what we would call 6 AD. Herod died in 4 BCE. Furthermore, censuses were taken on where the people currently lived, not at their ancestoral homes. All this is documented fact.

Does this make the Bible full of lies? No. Like I've said twice already, to understand the Bible, you have to understand the culture and traditions and history of the people who lived in the ancient world.

Let's tackle the first question: In the fulfillment of the 5 prophecies in Mic 2:2-5, it would certainly appear that it would. You even said yourself that the NT writers (in order to advance their own agenda, essentially), had to do a little bit of retrofitting. Here's what you wrote:

Matthew for example, retrofits the life of Jesus so that it fulfills the old prophecies.

So, if Matthew and certainly other NT writers as well engaged in this retrofitting process, then one must ask some very reasonable questions: Why? What was the motive or motives for this dishonest practice? And if this Jesus was such a great and good man, why was he part of this conspiracy; for it certainly seems that since more than one writer engaged in this nefarious activity, and Jesus took a proactive role in this as well...plus Jesus never corrected or denied the messianic claims made by others about him in his presence. But Jesus was always quick to correct genuine error. Anyway you slice it or dice it, Jesus was complicit in this fraudulent scheme -- a scheme, that according to you, was designed to make him out to be something that he wasn't. To me, that would be highly dishonest practice on all the participants' parts. And yet....we're supposed to trust other parts of the bible? Even though the scriptures are corrupt throughout? Full or errors? Full of distortions? Full of misrepresentations? All designed to have readers believe somthing that isn't true on the face it?

And we haven't even begun to question the motives behind the OT writers as to why the wrote what they wrote. We could have a lot of fun with that!

For Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to fulfill the accepted prophecy. He had to be shown to have kingly lineage. So that's what they gave him. Would everything he said and did have no value to you if these things weren't true? There was certainly other writings of prophecy no longer included among the canon. Big reason would be that our gospel writers did not confirm that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies, so out they went. Those men in the synods around 400 AD most definitely retrofit the bible together in an attempt to make it look just as you seem to perceive it. But again, this does not make it full of lies.

God's word from beginning to end -- right through the process of the canon -- was superintended by Him. So, it's not surprisingly that many books or writings did not make into the canon simply be reason that those works were divinely inspired.

The message is the important part. Would you have no faith in his words if you found that certain events had been embellished by writers who likely never met him in person in life? The Bible is a work of man, one of the greatest ever without a doubt. Man may err. I don't have a problem with that. It's the attempt to gain an understanding of God and the world that counts. It's the message that matters most.

Nothing worse than a half truth. You see you just unwittingly made a black and white statement (absolute), didn't you, i.e. "The Bible is a work of man..." ? God is nowhere to be found in this statement, is he? For certain, once you omit God from the scripture process -- then, yes, it can glibly be said that there are errors throughout the book.

Even though you ignored the issues I raised directly associated with Mat 2/ Mic 2 passages, when I find some time later, I'll address the census issue you raised. But this will be the last one because you infidels have a list of alleged errors/contradictions longer than Route 66. I have no intention of making a career refuting all ill-founded claims.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

Some events are warnings that the culmination of human affairs cannot be too far removed.Now,if you consider these indications weigh them in your mind and agree that unusual events are happening but do nothing to ensure your personal savation,then you are making a tragic mistake.You are gambling with the eternal destiny of your never-dying soul.And you're doing so while the warning rumblings of the impending volcano of God's end time judgements upon earth are rattling the very spot on which you stand.What should you do to avoid making the eternally fatal mistake of failing to listen to the prophetic warnings that God has given?How do you insure your eternal savation?What action should you take?The answer to these questions which are the most important anyone could possibly face in his/her lifetime,can be summarized from the Bible in "ABC" fashion.In order to accept the offer of God's grace and His salvation you must take the steps of:(1)Agreeing(2)Believing and(3)Calling.First Call:Agree,First agree with God in all that He says in His Word the Bible,about the fact that you are separated from God by your sin.Admit that you are a sinner who has broken God's righteous laws.Agree with God that sin deserves His punishment because He is a just,Holy,righteous God.Admit that you are properly under that sentence and that you fully deserve it in all its awesomeness.The Bible makes these facts very clear:(Romans 3:23)(Habakkuk 1:13)(Revelation 21:27)(1 John 5:17)(Romans 6:23).The Bible describes three kinds of death:Physical death(the state experienced when life leaves our bodies):spiritual death(spiritual separation from a Holy God caused by our sin.A person can be alive physically but dead spiritually [Ephesians 2:1],and eternal death(the fixed state entered into by the individual who dies physically while he is dead spiritually).It is eternal death,in particular which is the horrible result of recieving the wages of sin.The Lord Jesus Christ frequently described such a death as being without end (eternal) in a destiny He called hell.He described hell as a literal place of judgement(Matthew 13:41)a place of everlasting fire(Matthew 18:8)(a place of torment(Luke 16:24,28)a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth(Matthew 13;50)a place of remorse(Mark 9:44)of bitter memory(Luke 16:25),and a place originally prepared for the Devil and his angels(Matthew 25:41,46).In fact,Jesus more often warned about hell than He spoke about Heaven.It is not God's will or desire that any person should be consigned to perish in hell(2 Peter 3:7-12),but rather that all should come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth.But God's justice requires that the soul who sins is the one who will die.Ezekiel 18;4)(Matthew 10:28).So,agree with God,admitting that you are a sinner under God's just condemnation for that sin and that you are in need of that salvation.(Matthew 17:26-31),To be continued I think........John 3:16 Jesus Christ,Jesuchristo,1 John 1:7

[hcap]

box you never answered this.
1 Samuel 15 King James Bible
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Your hermeneutical rules gave me this conclusion previously.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/...highlight=bible

Post# 40
Scripture is quite clear: The whole Earth belongs to the Lord. Therefore, God is the Landlord of the Earth; all its human inhabitants are Tenants! Guess who has every eviction right and authority?
So answer my question. Why would the killing of innocents be necessary by Gods' very own decree?

WHY THE SUCKLING INFANTS? Ox? Sheep? How did they break the rental contract?

And how did the diligent study of hermeneutics lead you to this absurd conclusion?

Investorater? SMTW? Why would the killing of innocents be necessary by Gods' very own decree?

[OTM Al]

No Boxcar, everything is black and white to you because there is your opinion and everyone elses and to you the only one that you consider is your own. I thought perhaps for once I was having a reasonable discussion with you, but once again you prove me wrong. You cannot process the question being asked, not as an attack, but as an intellectual exchange, so you go back to your standard bully tactics.

Did I say that passages need to be taken with a grain of salt? No. I said passages need to be understood withing the context and style in which they were written. That is not doubt, that is understanding. That is getting past the magic show and gaining an understanding of what is being said to us.

I think you also should look up what a straw man argument is. There was no straw man here, I was addressing you, you who plays that game more that you describe quite often.

You have no understanding of the points I presented you if you think I said Matthew was part of some nefarious activity. And by the way, Jesus was gone for some time before any of this of the NT was written, so no one is saying he told them what to write. Perhaps if he had things might have been put differently, but I can't speak to that as I wouldn't put words in his mouth.

So if you want to try to refute the issue I brought up in Matthew vs Luke, please do. There have been many arguements in the past 1600 years trying to rectify that. None work. Again I will say this difference doesn't really matter though in the belief. But in a world where if everything is not truth then it must be lies, I can see why you would have a problem with that.

[Greyfox]

Question: What is eternity?

Question: What will we do for eternity?

Question:If, as has already been answered, there will be no horse racing in heaven (too mundane), what will we do for eternity?

[boxcar]

No Boxcar, everything is black and white to you because there is your opinion and everyone elses and to you the only one that you consider is your own. I thought perhaps for once I was having a reasonable discussion with you, but once again you prove me wrong. You cannot process the question being asked, not as an attack, but as an intellectual exchange, so you go back to your standard bully tactics.

Bullied!? How? Because I ask questions?

Did I say that passages need to be taken with a grain of salt? No. I said passages need to be understood withing the context and style in which they were written. That is not doubt, that is understanding. That is getting past the magic show and gaining an understanding of what is being said to us.

To properly understand any given passage, I try to exegete it. I want to know exactly what is being said and what the writer's intentions are -- first and foremost. I want to take as much out of the passage as I can, which means I don't want to read anything into it. Context is obviously extremely important. Other things such as style, culture, historical background etc. can frequently help to understand passages. In addition to these things, I use various extrabiblical tools, such as original language dictionaries, lexicons, expository dictionaries, concordances, etc. And yet, in using all these tools over the years, I have come to an entirely different conclusion about the Book. You have concluded the bible is simply a work of many men. On the other hand, I believe the bible what those human writers claimed it to be -- the divinely inspired Word of God, and that God used human agency to record his words for all mankind.

Essentially you did when you wrote this:

Matthew for example, retrofits the life of Jesus so that it fulfills the old prophecies.

It seems to me that you're saying that ol' Matthew was "cooking the books", as it were! Aren't you at the very least unintentionally implying that Matthew was attributing things to Jesus that weren't truthful or accurate in order to convey false impressions about him to his readers? For example, that Jesus fulfilled numerous OT prophecies even though he really didn't? And the main reason Matthew engaged in this practice was to try to make Jesus be something that he wasn't, i.e. the promised Messiah of the OT? I don't want to put words in your mouth or to misunderstand you. So, please clarify what you meant when you wrote the above.

You have no understanding of the points I presented you if you think I said Matthew was part of some nefarious activity.

No, you didn't say this. This was my conclusion from your "retrofitting" remark.

And by the way, Jesus was gone for some time before any of this of the NT was written, so no one is saying he told them what to write. Perhaps if he had things might have been put differently, but I can't speak to that as I wouldn't put words in his mouth.

As far as I know Jesus never told any of the gospel writers what to write -- (unless you want to try to make a case from silence). Nor did I say that Jesus did. But numerous words are attributed to Jesus by all the gospel writers. So, my question is this: Was Jesus himself part of this "retrofitting" conspiracy, since all the gospel writers claimed he fulfilled OT prophecies? In other words, was Jesus an insider or an outsider? Was Jesus part of the numerous misrepresentations' problem or was Jesus simply victimized by overzealous religious people who were bent on making him be something that he wasn't? If the latter, then the writers were also attributing words to Jesus that he never uttered; therefore there would be no way of knowing for sure what Jesus actually said. (For all we know, nothing in the four gospels may have been uttered by him!) But if the former, and Jesus actually spoke the words these writers recorded for all posterity, then he was part of this grand delusion -- this messianic conspiracy; and therefore, how can any reasonable person find any credibility in anything Jesus said? This chap was a fraud from head to toe -- at least in my book!

So if you want to try to refute the issue I brought up in Matthew vs Luke, please do. There have been many arguements in the past 1600 years trying to rectify that. None work.

Since your mind is already made up, there's no sense in me trying, is there? This is, yet, another black and white issue for you, right? Plus this was one of the issues that drew you off on a tangent and had nothing to do with the original Mat 2 / Mic 2 passages, anyway.

But I would be very interested in you responding to the points I raise in this post. I would really like to understand what you meant by your retrofitting remark and why all these retrofits by all the gospel writers should be considered innocent or maybe even virtuous literary acts? Or in the final analysis, should we all consider the bible to be a work of fiction? In the world of Fiction, anything goes, right?

Boxcar
(your lovable neighborhood bully) ;)

[JustRalph]

new Justralph rule

I stop reading any thread that has the word "suckling" in it :D

[dav4463]

The track is my church. The Daily Racing Form is my Bible.

[boxcar]

box you never answered this.

Your hermeneutical rules gave me this conclusion previously.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/...highlight=bible

Post# 40

So answer my question. Why would the killing of innocents be necessary by Gods' very own decree?

WHY THE SUCKLING INFANTS? Ox? Sheep? How did they break the rental contract?

And how did the diligent study of hermeneutics lead you to this absurd conclusion?

Investorater? SMTW? Why would the killing of innocents be necessary by Gods' very own decree?

Okay, okay, 'cap, keep your shirt on. Turn down the volume. No need for shouting. I know you're hungering and thirsting for the truth :rolleyes: , but you have to wait your turn because I was dealing with OTM first.

Now, if you drew the wrong conclusion from that OT passage, then that's your fault, not mine. You misapplied my hermeneutical rules. As I often stated in the past, the bible should be interpreted in its three-fold context, otherwise it could lead to misunderstandings. By the same token, though, you should avoid the error Dispens often make, i.e. greatly discounting or even dismissing the immediate contexts of passages.

But, Mr. 'Cap, to be brutally honest with you, hermeneutics is not the root cause of your problem with this passage and a host of others, for that matter. (We both know this.) The core to your problem with scripture, generally, is your rejection of theism -- your strong anti-theistic bias. Once anyone tosses out theism, then really -- you have virtually nothing in common with anyone who subscribes to monotheism, as yours truly does. Once you toss out a personal God, there isn't much left, is there? So, whatever I say hereafter will go in one of your ears and out the other, as sure as the morning light will follow the blackness of this night. At the end of this you will still cling to your belief in some Unknown or Unknowable "something greater than me" being. But for the sake of, perhaps, only one person on this forum, I will address your anti-theistic objection.

To fully understand why the Lord wanted to exterminate the Amalekites -- or to put it in biblical terms, to "utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (Ex 17:14), we must try to appreciate the historical context. The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt was no small, insignificant event. Quite the contrary! For starters, the influence of the Exodus upon the religious life of Israel is all but beyond comprehension. The bible's entire redemptive message is rooted firmly in the Exodus. When God called a slave people out of bondage in Egypt and made them a nation for the purpose of redemption in the world, he revealed himself as the Majestic and Sovereign Lord of history and the Redeemer of all those who will call upon him. The Exodus is truly the central event in the OT. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say that the Exodus is to the OT what the Cross is to the NT.

The whole Exodus motif is carried right through to the NT -- the "scarlet thread of redemption" is never broken. The Typology of the bible is positively mind-boggling. The types in the OT were fulfilled in the anti-types in the New. To mention but a very few:

The Hebrews spent 40 years in the wilderness before entering the Promised Land. Christ spent 40 days in the wilderness before embarking upon his messianic mission.

Moses received the Law on the Mount. Jesus gave an exposition of that Law in the Sermon of the Mount.

Israel consisted of 12 tribes. Christ's disciples numbered 12.

The Passover Meal in Exodus is paralleled by the Lord's Supper.

The passing of Israel through the Red Sea is recalled by Christian baptism.

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, Jesus was lifted up in shame and suffering on the Cross, so that all who look and call upon him would have their sins forgiven, etc., etc.

In addition to the incomprehensible influence that the Exodus had upon the Hebrews and all succeeding generations OT and NT believers alike, the events of the Exodus itself also impacted all the surrounding heathen nations in no small way. To put this in more modern terms, the Exodus was front page news in that entire region for a long time to come! And we have biblical proof to support this assertion; and this next passage is one of the pivotal ones in helping to understand why God desired to exterminate the nation of the Amalekites.

After Moses parted the Red Sea and the Hebrews passed through safely to the other side, and then swallowed up the pursuing Egyptians, it appears that shortly thereafter, Moses and the sons of Israel composed a song to the Lord -- a song of praise -- a song extolling the majesty and might of the Lord. Israel, probably in the form of prophecy, predicted in their song that the peoples and nations of the surrounding region would be in terror and trembling and fear and dread of them because the Lord their God crushed Pharaoh and subsequently destroyed his mighty army (Ex 15:14-16).

While Amalek is not specifically mentioned in this song, nonetheless it's hard to imagine that this nation was oblivious to what was going on in their own backyard. Omission of their name isn't surprising because it wasn't necessary to provide a comprehensive list of all the nations who would be in dread of Israel and their God. From various other parts of scripture, we can glean evidence that Amalek was probably a small, nation who seemed to specialize in allying itself with larger and more powerful nations (cf Num 13:39; 14:39-45; Jud 6:3) when going to battle against Israel.

Asaph, in the 83rd Psalm, makes specific mention of Amalek who had the dubious distinction of being listed among the enemies of God in this Psalm. The Psalmist tells us that the nations conspired "together against Thy treasured ones", i.e. Israel. And this is a very important point to grasp because only the nation of Israel did God choose for his own possession. And from other parts of scripture, we learn that God is a "jealous God". He is certainly jealous for that which is his. He specifically called out the Hebrews and made them into a nation for the sole purpose of accomplishing his redemptive plan for mankind, which certainly included his chosen ones bringing forth the promised Messiah.

But the Amalekites had two other dubious distinctions as well -- that distinguished them from the other heathen nations. The next one is that apparently they were the first nation to do battle with the Hebrews in the wilderness. This speaks to their open, unabashed defiance of the God of Israel -- to their audacious temerity -- to their unmitigated gall -- to go up against a people whose God just destroyed the army of a superpower (to use a little modern vernacular).

But the next distinction and second pivotal point to grasp firmly is that in addition to their utter defiance of the Living God, they were cowards to boot! (Small wonder that scripture tells us they often teamed up with other nations when going to battle.) But in this case, apparently they didn't. They, evidently, felt secure in their little battle plan because they attacked only the "stragglers" at the rear of the column when Israel was "faint and weary" due to their sojourn in the wilderness (Deut 25:17-19).

As God promised, he utterly blotted out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens through his chosen people. It appears this was finally accomplished under the reign of Hezekiah (1Chron 4:41-43). In fact, in some extrabiblical works I have, the writers claim that archaeologists have never found any tablets or writings or anything with the name of Amalek or Amalekites on it. It is as though, this people never existed.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

Second Call:Believe,Then believe that God does not want you to perish eternally in the torment of hell because of your sin.Believe that God loves you so much that He provided a way whereby He could still be a Just,Holy,and Righteous God,and yet pardon you-a sinner.Believe that God did not just overlook sin,but that He sent His only begotten Son,the Lord Jesus Christ,to provide salvation by personally paying the penalty for sin.Believe that Jesus Christ whose life,death,burial and resurrection is the best-attested fact of antiquity(Evidence that demands a verdict)(By Josh McDowell)did come to earth to live,die,rise again and ascend to heaven in order to provide justification and salvation for all who trust Him.Believe that He,and He alone,can save you because He has fully satisfied the just demands of God.Believe that you can't become righteous in God's sight by your own effort.Believe that He wants to save you and that He will save you.The Bible provides a solid basis for such belief:(2 Peter 3:9)(John 3:16)(Romans 5:8)(Romans 3:25,26)(1 Corinthians 15:1-4)(Acts 4:12)(John 14;6)(Matthew 11:28)(John 6:37)(Rev.3:20).

[OTM Al]

Well boxcar, I am back to continue discussion. Took yesterday off to watch one last day of NY baseball and read some of Cicero's first oration against Cataline. Wonderful stuff by the way.

So, where were we? It seems that you still were not understanding my point about writing styles of the period and my contention that you were making black and white assertions. What I glean from your statements that if I am saying that every word in the Bible is not exact historic truth, then I am saying that there was some grand conspiracy of fabrications. Well, I'm not saying that. This was not malicious intent in any way. These writers belived he was the Messiah and if he was to be the Messiah, he had to conform to the messianic traditions that had been established and they made it so that he did.

The writers of Luke and Matthew likely never met Jesus. They were most likely not "the" Matthew and "the" Luke. This was also a common literary device of the time. Authors would try to create a piece in the style of another person and attribute it to that person (very popular with Aristotle btw). This was not considered forgery as we would today, but rather as simply a literary style. The Letters of Paul to Timothy, 1st and 2nd, to the Ephesians, to Titus, and to the Hebrews are well established not to have been written by Paul. Hebrews as a matter of fact has long been been questioned as to who the actual author was, as early as 210 BCE, and despite this it was included in the Bible. Again though, this doesn't make the Bible some grand conspiracy. Its just the way things were. He was the Messiah, the Messiah had been prophesised and was expected to conform to certain aspects, no one really knew much about Jesus' birth, so since he was the Messiah, they filled in the blanks with what they understood must have been true about his birth.

As to what did Jesus say, Mark is probably your best guide. It was likely the earliest of the Gospels. It was likely written in Rome by one Mark who served as an interpreter for Peter. Thus, he was getting his information second hand, but that's about as close as it got. So in reality it was a Gospel of what Peter had said about what Jesus had said. Both Luke and Matthew tend to draw heavily on this work. It is also believed that there was an extensive "gospel" that contained the sayings of Jesus, referred to as the "Q" gospel ("Q" being the first letter of the word in "Quelle", or "Source" in German as the writer that brought the theories together into a cohesive whole was German), but unfortunately, that gospel is lost.

So nothing nefarious here. Nothing fraudulant, at least as fraudulant would be considered when the works were written. Jesus certainly didn't come to create some new religion, which is clear by the fact that there was a debate among his followers for some time whether the followers must still conform to Jewish custom or not. They also took a very long time to settle on a human or divine interpretation for Jesus, btw.

I again have to say though in your response to hcap, you seem to be doing some matching of old and new testament sources in the same way as Investorator. If I am wrong, then do explain the difference.

"Moses received the Law on the Mount. Jesus gave an exposition of that Law in the Sermon of the Mount."

One was a real mountain (Moses) which had long been held as a holy place. Gods lived on moutain peaks in the polytheistic religions of the time. The other (Jesus) was a rise so that all the listeners could see and hear what he had to say.

"Israel consisted of 12 tribes. Christ's disciples numbered 12."

We accept 12 disciples. 12 is a number that often appears in things with mystical meaning, but were these instances the chicken or the egg, so to speak. I don't see any real connection in this that is not forcing the point.

"The Passover Meal in Exodus is paralleled by the Lord's Supper."

That's because the last supper was the passover meal. They were Jewish after all.

"The passing of Israel through the Red Sea is recalled by Christian baptism."

This also seems a stretch to me. Baptism is a purification ritual. I see nothing of that in the Red Sea parting.

In fact, on that note, some very interesting scholarship is being done recently concerning the Exodus story. One train of thought now is that the Hebrews were never enslaved in large numbers in Egypt. Archeological evidence has long supported this was so. However, the Egytians at that time had conquered the homeland of the Hebrews and subjugated the population there. The Exodus then was not the Hebrews leaving Egypt, but the Hebrews forcing the Egyptians out of their homeland. Thus the "forty years" wandering in the desert was once again an allegory for a peoples trying to find their way in the world and the will of God. Very interesting and promissing work, though in no way complete.

Again, you might question that I am claiming this is a fabrication, a deliberate falsehood to deceive, but again I am not. Did not Jesus himself create stories to teach his followers about God? He was a learned man and such was a way of teaching in those times. No one would call the stories of Jesus fabrications. We call them parables.

[Cangamble]

OTM, there is no evidence that Hebrews existed in Egypt. In fact, there is no evidence that Jews (the people who lived in ancient Israel) were monotheistic prior to 800 BC, and really not until around 650-450 BC.
The first OT (Torah) writings didn't happen until around 450 BC.

A false history of the people was created around then, which included Abraham, the flood, and the Exodus.

I'm sure the people who were spreading the false history, by then, actually believed it, as it was a culmination of many myths that were prevelent at the time.

[OTM Al]

I disagree with those assertions Cangamble. Jews have existed in Egypt for a very long time, just not in the numbers and conditions as described in Exodus, The first "modern" Torah may not have appeared until 450 BCE but there are pieces of inscriptions that have been found dating to around 1000 BCE that very closely match parts of the books. The tradition existed. Nothing is just simply made up like that (....well maybe outside Scientology....). Perhaps things were evolved from older traditions, which is very clear when one compares the origin story of Moses to that of Sargon the Akkadian for example, but they weren't just made up out of thin air. We remember our stories long after we have forgotten the contexts they were told in.

[Cangamble]

I disagree with those assertions Cangamble. Jews have existed in Egypt for a very long time, just not in the numbers and conditions as described in Exodus, The first "modern" Torah may not have appeared until 450 BCE but there are pieces of inscriptions that have been found dating to around 1000 BCE that very closely match parts of the books. The tradition existed. Nothing is just simply made up like that (....well maybe outside Scientology....). Perhaps things were evolved from older traditions, which is very clear when one compares the origin story of Moses to that of Sargon the Akkadian for example, but they weren't just made up out of thin air. We remember our stories long after we have forgotten the contexts they were told in.
I didn't say they were made up out of thin air. They did evolve from a mish mash of older traditions, and myths.
I'm not sure what evidence you are citing from 1000 BCE, but I'd like to see it.
Again, I've stated here before that a great video to watch is the series about the book The Bible Unearthed:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+bible+unearthed&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___CA215&um=1&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

The Jewish Mitzvos/10 Commandments are quite similar to the Hammurabi Code which originated in Persia in the 1700 BCE times.
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/613_Mitzvos.htm

There was a huge Persian/Israeli conflict around 650BC, and it was then that maybe the Hammurabi codes slowly morphed into the the Moses laws. There was a return of the people to the region that happened shortly thereafter, and by 450 BC, a new history was created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadrezzar_II

[boxcar]

Well boxcar, I am back to continue discussion. Took yesterday off to watch one last day of NY baseball and read some of Cicero's first oration against Cataline. Wonderful stuff by the way.

So, where were we? It seems that you still were not understanding my point about writing styles of the period and my contention that you were making black and white assertions. What I glean from your statements that if I am saying that every word in the Bible is not exact historic truth, then I am saying that there was some grand conspiracy of fabrications. Well, I'm not saying that. This was not malicious intent in any way. These writers belived he was the Messiah and if he was to be the Messiah, he had to conform to the messianic traditions that had been established and they made it so that he did.

Okay...let's stop here because more clarification is needed. Here is what I would like to understand better:

These writers belived he was the Messiah and if he was to be the Messiah, he had to conform to the messianic traditions that had been established and they made it so that he did.

What I'd like to understand is why did those writers believe Jesus in particular to be the Messiah? Did they have have any grounds for believing this? Or was it largely wishful thinking on their part?

Secondly, when "they made it so that he did", i.e. do their "retrofit" thing, were they not aware that fabricating facts from thin air (which from your perspective would be perpetuating OT messianic myths, perhaps?) would mislead numerous readers into [mistakenly] believing the same thing about Jesus that they did? These writers were totally oblivious to or unconcerned with how their writings would or could influence their readers?

And finally, according to you, we really don't know for certain what Jesus said and what he didn't say, do we? That's something that's very much up in the air? Up for debate? Very uncertain? Some words may have been his, others merely attributed to him due to the writers' personal agenda (as "innocent" as it may have been) of fitting square pegs into round holes, i.e. making him conform to messianic traditions even though he really didn't? For example, when Jesus made himself to be equal to God the Father, did he speak those words or were they simply attributed to him by the writers in order to foster their personal but misguided messianic agenda (cf. Jn 14:6ff)?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

What I'd like to understand is why did those writers believe Jesus in particular to be the Messiah? Did they have have any grounds for believing this? Or was it largely wishful thinking on their part?

This touches on the true "$64000 question" doesn't it? It was a messianic age. The Jewish faith was underging a great upheaval which would eventually replace the old ways with the beginings of what is now Rabbinical Judaism. There were others around the same time who were out preaching as well and who many also had proclaimed as that possible messiah. In particular those that survive in texts were a fellow named Judas, who was much more militaristic in his doings, and therefore probably had a great appeal because the messiah seemed to be portrayed as a new conquering king. There was a fellow named Jesus from Egypt that acquired a following as well. And as the Bible says, some even thought John the baptist to be the messiah before he refuted the claim. For that matter the Hassidim thought their Grand Rebbe who died a few years ago to be the mesiah at long last, so perhaps that age is still not over. Regardless, I think this question really isn't answerable other than to say something about him touched them and so they believed. His message gave them hope and comfort above all others. So their reasons for believing couldn't be much different than those you or I would hold I would expect.

Secondly, when "they made it so that he did", i.e. do their "retrofit" thing, were they not aware that fabricating facts from thin air (which from your perspective would be perpetuating OT messianic myths, perhaps?) would mislead numerous readers into [mistakenly] believing the same thing about Jesus that they did? These writers were totally oblivious to or unconcerned with how their writings would or could influence their readers?

I don't think they felt they were fabricating anything and they certainly weren't doing it to mislead. Again, readers of that time would recognize the literary style of the times as well. I would say that perpetuating the OT messaianic myths may be close to the mark, though I'm not sure the word "myths" may have too negative a connotation for what I'm trying to express. Remember they were Jews and their tradition told them that the messiah would be X, Y and Z. Like I said, they accepted him as the messiah, so these things must be true in their way of thinking.

And finally, according to you, we really don't know for certain what Jesus said and what he didn't say, do we? That's something that's very much up in the air? Up for debate? Very uncertain? Some words may have been his, others merely attributed to him due to the writers' personal agenda (as "innocent" as it may have been) of fitting square pegs into round holes, i.e. making him conform to messianic traditions even though he really didn't? For example, when Jesus made himself to be equal to God the Father, did he speak those words or were they simply attributed to him by the writers in order to foster their personal but misguided messianic agenda (cf. Jn 14:6ff)?

I would say that John would probably be furthest from original sources of all the Gospels, so much had gone on by the time of the writing. Compare also the focus of this Gospel as opposed to the other 3. In this one it is clearly stated that Jesus is divine whereas in the others it is the message that Jesus is delivering that is divine. As I said before, there was a split among his followers whether Jesus was a man who had been sent from God or he was divine. The Gospel of John falls in the latter group, which would be the group that eventually won out. It wasn't that there was an agenda per se, that's just what they belived. Had it been reversed, perhaps we would have the Gospel of Thomas instead of John. So to get to your question in a round about way, I would be more uncertain about quotes of Jesus from a work like John than I would from the authentic letters of Paul (these would be the earliest written accounts in the NT) , Mark, and Acts. Its just that the words and deeds had been passed around orally or in shorter writings and we know what happens when primary sources go second third and fouth hand. Again, I do not say this to mean that the writer was not inspired by his faith and his belief in Jesus when he wrote these things. On the contrary, the writer was clearly inspired by his faith, but that still does not mean that what is stated there is 100% fact, nor do I think it important that it has to be.

[boxcar]

This touches on the true "$64000 question" doesn't it?

And I think I may have others as well. :)

Regardless, I think this question really isn't answerable other than to say something about him touched them and so they believed. His message gave them hope and comfort above all others. So their reasons for believing couldn't be much different than those you or I would hold I would expect.

Yet, these same believers very often appealed to the OT scriptures as a way of affirming their faith. But you seem to deny the validity of biblical prophecy.
Instead you substitute "tradition" for prophecy. Why couldn't the simple, straightforward explanation be that those writers believed him to be the Messiah because he actually did fulfill those OT prophecies? Plus Jesus himself claimed that he did! Jesus very often appealed to those OT scriptures and even interpreted them for us. In fact, my hermeneutics are taken from his examples! And from the examples of other NT writers who also appealed to the OT to support their arguments or make their points.

For example, in Jn 7:17; 8:26-28; 12:50, Jesus tells his disciples that the iwords he spoke were not his own -- but were words from God the Father. In Mat 4:4 and Lk 4:4, Jesus told Satan during the temptation that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Obviously, these two latter passages are consistent with what he taught in John. But even more than this -- in Matthew and Luke, Jesus appealed to the authority of the OT in his rebuke to Satan -- in this case, specifically to Deut 8:3. (In fact, Jesus appealed to the authority of the OT during every temptation.) But I am perplexed by this if what you claim below is true:

I don't think they felt they were fabricating anything and they certainly weren't doing it to mislead. Again, readers of that time would recognize the literary style of the times as well.

Well, Jesus flew in the face of conventional wisdom, didn't he!? He certainly went against the grain of "the literary style of the times", didn't he? According to you, the writers did not mislead their readers because the readers would certainly have had the "key to interpretation", i.e the "literary style" of their day. According to you, the readers of those times would have also understood that Jesus really didn't fulfill OT prophecies, correct? The readers would have been on the same wave length as the writers, yes? The readers would understand because they had the "inside track", the "straight skinny", etc.? Yet, Jesus time after time after time (and I could provide plenty of examples) flew in the face of this "literary style of the times" whenever he appealed to the authority of the OT by interpreting and applying one OT passage after another in a very literal, straightforward manner for the most part. Yet...the readers of today -- we're not supposed to follow Jesus' brand of hermeneutics or any of the apostles' for that matter. Readers throughout all these subsequent centuries were and still are supposed to discover, understand and follow the "literary style of the times", right? This is "the big key" to enlightenment? We're not supposed to hang on Jesus' words -- or on every word that proceeds from God's mouth, right? We're not supposed to take his words in the aforementioned passages at face value? Literally?

This brings me to the OT writers. What in the world were they thinking when they wrote all their prophecies? What was their motive? What agenda did they have? Were they actually looking for and expecting the appearance of a "messiah"? In their day or some other time? Why did Jesus so frequently appeal to the authority of the OT scriptures? Or did he really? Maybe all those words attributed to him were just put into his mouth by the apostles and gospel writers because it made for a more convincing "messianic" case?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Yet, these same believers very often appealed to the OT scriptures as a way of affirming their faith. But you seem to deny the validity of biblical prophecy.
Instead you substitute "tradition" for prophecy. Why couldn't the simple, straightforward explanation be that those writers believed him to be the Messiah because he actually did fulfill those OT prophecies? Plus Jesus himself claimed that he did! Jesus very often appealed to those OT scriptures and even interpreted them for us. In fact, my hermeneutics are taken from his examples! And from the examples of other NT writers who also appealed to the OT to support their arguments or make their points.

I use tradition instead of prophecy on purpose. That is because there were 3 major traditions in Judaism at the time of Jesus. The Pharasees, the Saducees, and the Essenes. Each tradition had a different emphasis on prophecy. Jesus and his followers are believed to have been of the Essene sect, not only due to their actions, but also given that it was predominent in the area of Nazareth. Given the description of the use of such things as water purification ritual and communal activity, it very much sounds like the basis of early Christianity. It would be their interptration of prophecy that would be brought forward.

Well, Jesus flew in the face of conventional wisdom, didn't he!? He certainly went against the grain of "the literary style of the times", didn't he?

No he didn't. Not really on either account. He flew in the face of the other Jewish sects (none liked the other two) but was very consistant with Essene ways. As to going against literary style, we don't know if he ever wrote anything (only evidence of writing may have been when it was noted he was drawing in the dirt), though he certainly was well educated by his being allowed to speak in temple.

According to you, the writers did not mislead their readers because the readers would certainly have had the "key to interpretation", i.e the "literary style" of their day. According to you, the readers of those times would have also understood that Jesus really didn't fulfill OT prophecies, correct? The readers would have been on the same wave length as the writers, yes? The readers would understand because they had the "inside track", the "straight skinny", etc.? Yet, Jesus time after time after time (and I could provide plenty of examples) flew in the face of this "literary style of the times" whenever he appealed to the authority of the OT by interpreting and applying one OT passage after another in a very literal, straightforward manner for the most part. Yet...the readers of today -- we're not supposed to follow Jesus' brand of hermeneutics or any of the apostles' for that matter. Readers throughout all these subsequent centuries were and still are supposed to discover, understand and follow the "literary style of the times", right? This is "the big key" to enlightenment? We're not supposed to hang on Jesus' words -- or on every word that proceeds from God's mouth, right? We're not supposed to take his words in the aforementioned passages at face value? Literally?

Here I believe lies the core of our current debate, so I offer a proposition. Let's have a look at a set of these prophecies maybe 4 or 5 sets of the OT prophecy passage coupled with the NT fulfillment passage. I'll let you choose as you say you have plenty of examples, though I ask since we already brought it up that the prophecy that the messiah will be of the line of David and be born in Bethlehem be one you include. I leave it to you if you want to provide first commentary on each couplet or wish me to, thus giving you first response. I think may be a good way to get to not only give a good flex to our brain muscles but also provide concrete example of what each of us is talking about.

[hcap]

Jews have existed in Egypt for a very long time, just not in the numbers and conditions as described in Exodus, The first "modern" Torah may not have appeared until 450 BCE but there are pieces of inscriptions that have been found dating to around 1000 BCE that very closely match parts of the books. The tradition existed. Nothing is just simply made up like that (....well maybe outside Scientology....).
The archaeological, historical support for events spoken about in the bible, for the most part are lacking. Exodus may have happened in a broad sense, but for instance the surreptitious raising and growth of Moses within Egypt itself and the plagues visited on Pharaoh and the Egyptians are embroideries and parables created by the writers of the Old Testament to impart a strong long-lasting teaching story.

I think that the 3 of us, Boxcar, OTM Al, and myself agree to the power and influence of the bible, and its' overall effect on the world and western civilization. But understanding the culture and the intent of biblical writers as Al points out, or the study of hermeneutics as you support box , does not however verify the events in the bible as factual. I don't believe Al is claiming this, but you-box are. I am saying understanding symbols and the parable itself is independent of whether all events as described really happened.

You speak of hermeneutics as the key. But hermeneutics has no way of connecting external events of the world with the inner consistencies and workings of any scripture. Only if you take everything literally and as inerrant

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07271a.htm

LIMITS OF HERMENEUTICS...

"Though the influence of hermeneutics is so far-reaching, its efficiency must not be overestimated. Hermeneutics does not supply a deficiency of natural ability, nor does it rectify false philosophical principles or perverse passions, nor again does it impart the needed philological and historical erudition. Secondly, of itself hermeneutics does not investigate the objective truth of a writer's meaning, which has been established by its canons; it does not inquire what is true or false, but only what the writer intended to say. Hence a hermeneutic truth may be an objective falsehood, unless the writing subjected to the hermeneutic rules be endowed with the prerogative of inerrancy. "

I brought up the Biblical account of Amalek, and God demanding the murder of infants and the slaughter of animals as a contradiction in emphasis between the OT and the NT, and also questioning your ability to understand God's intent. All you have done is to indicate revenge. The OTs' theme of wrath.
the Amalekites had two other dubious distinctions as well -- that distinguished them from the other heathen nations. The next one is that apparently they were the first nation to do battle with the Hebrews in the wilderness. This speaks to their open, unabashed defiance of the God of Israel -- to their audacious temerity -- to their unmitigated gall -- to go up against a people whose God just destroyed the army of a superpower (to use a little modern vernacular).

In terms of hermeneutics, where you claim a larger context is required how do you reconcile the Sermon on the Mount, the crowning point of Christianity with the vengeful wrath of God expressed many times in the Old Testament?

The Hebrews spent 40 years in the wilderness before entering the Promised Land. Christ spent 40 days in the wilderness before embarking upon his messianic mission.Okay start, but missing the point. And echoing what I told you.

we discussed this in 2004.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16771&highlight=bible


I said

It is not necessary to know for a fact that God assigned plagues to Egypt, killing real firstborn Egyptian males, only that this takes place in ones inner growth. The separation of the wheat from the chaff is spoken about in other scriptures as well. Inwardly Egypt represents all that hinders inner growth, Moses is like Jesus a "good sheperd" that leads the children of Israel out, and towards the promised land.

Noah saving "all that is good and holy" is the same theme.
It is not important whether or not all 2 million species of beetles were collected, or where they were housed. Or if the African elephant slept with the Indian elephant. Or if in fact it really occurred. The men or women who inscribed and recorded this story encoded the same image as Moses and that of Jesus. Not exactly the same, but formulated each for its time

40 days and nights for the flood
40 days of tribulation for Jesus
40 years of wandering for the children of Israel

In other words you are not one unified being.There are different persona, different aspects of what you call "I" The divisions are generally created in childhood, and tend to crystallize as we age. You may not even be aware of all the divisions that you walk around with. In the new testament when Jesus asks a man who is possessed by demons "What is thy name" The man answers "legion" that there are a multitude or a host of demons. This is also the symbol that occurs in other scriptures. A fragmented mirror, unable to reflect the light of God. Unification within is needed to mend the mirror.

And.....

"The ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle: Totally fascinated by the realm of the senses, it swings from one desire to the next, one conflict to the next, one self-centered idea to the next. If you threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go. Let desires go. Let conflicts go. Let ideas go. Let the fiction of life and death go. Just remain in the center, watching. And then forget that you are there."


To be a "witness", to this constant chatter, is not easy.
It requires one part of your mind, normally dormant and only awake at generally brief periods in your life to sort of guide the process. This part is not very strong or unified in itself, but at least remembers a larger goal-to spread the word, and awaken some of the other parts of your psyche, and to bring a common goal to your "inner landscape".

Overcoming bad habits, such as giving up smoking or losing weight, is kind of a microcosm of this process.

Moses, Jesus, Noah, are christian symbols for that part which must awaken first and then lead what is salvageable within to unity. Yes the cold reality is that not everything is salvageable. There are many Pharoahs, within that have to be discarded. An extremely painful and difficult task. Not only Pharoahs, but all of Pharoahs little inner descendents. Those infants and babes not yet developed will take their poppas place. If you don't "smite" them before they are strong enough to "smite you" you might as well have left Pharoah in place.

The killing of the suckling babes and the innocents I brought up back in Amalek. They are what's left after you think you have successfully cleaned house. Try giving up habitual pattens. And you will see that what you may accomplish innitially is follwed shortly by tiny little voices saying "hey just one more"
Not so innocent.

This why God cleans house entirely. But its' your house.

[IBCNU]

Referring to Copernicus's theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, Martin Luther exclaimed, "This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. ” (Tischreden, 1743, Vol. 22, page 2260.). Galileo, and others were also persecuted forgoing against existing beliefs.

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain

And you have the hermeneutical rules to support miracles?
Wrong discipline to verify OBJECTIVE truths.
Did Martin Luther use hermeneutics?
Do all the Churces that accept evolution as well as their own faith use hermeneutics? Could hermeneutics be an interpretive discipline used by each practioner to apologize AFTER the fact-like Investorator?
And you?


The Bible and Earth's Free-float in Space
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). Science didn't discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650

The Scriptures Speak of an Invisible Structure
Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of things that we cannot see -- invisible atoms. In Hebrews 11:3, written 2,000 years ago, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The Bible Reveals that the Earth is Round
The Scriptures tell us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit" or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched -- not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 B.C. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere. It was another 2,000 years later (at a time when science believed that the earth was flat) that the Scriptures inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.

Please remember that until recent times, the scientific community thought that the universe had always existed. It took the efforts of Edwin Hubble (who proved through the redshift of light that the universe was expanding) and Albert Einstein (who demonstrated, theoretically, the curvature of spacetime, among others) that the universe had a beginning creation event. Or Big Bang. Without going into exhaustive detail, the amount of fine tuned constants neccessary from this event to create the perfect conditions for us to exist is astronomical. (pun intended). Even modern day quantum theory c has theorized that a particle can be both a particle And a wave (Heisenberg uncertainty principle). The theory goes that until the act of actually attempting to ascertain a particles position or velocity (can't do both at the same time) the particle exist as a probabilty wave. In other words, the darn thing doesn't exist until the act of measuring it "brings it" into existence. And this is modern quantem theory.

As far as evolution is concerned, is it entirely possible that a "higher power" created life with the pre-programmed ability to adapt to its enviroment? It is even harder for me to accept that this type of complex organism just "popped" into existence.

[OTM Al]

Actually they knew the earth was round in Columbus' day. That flat earth thing is taken from a very popular book about him that was written in 1828 by Washington Irving. Fiction became accepted as fact.

Now back to topic.....

[IBCNU]

Actually they knew the earth was round in Columbus' day. That flat earth thing is taken from a very popular book about him that was written in 1828 by Washington Irving. Fiction became accepted as fact.

Now back to topic.....

Really? No kidding.....what was the book titled?

[OTM Al]

The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Washington Irving was one of the most popular authors of his day and was widely read. It catapulted the legends of Columbus much in the same way as Longfellow's Midnight Ride of Paul Revere catapulted Revere in the American concious, though Revere travelled only a few miles that fateful night. I would believe that we probably would not have a Columbus Day celebrated without this book.


and back to topic..... :)

[boxcar]

Geesh, 'cap, so much verbiage in #44, yet so little meaningful content. The heart of your objection is the following, I believe:

I brought up the Biblical account of Amalek, and God demanding the murder of infants and the slaughter of animals as a contradiction in emphasis between the OT and the NT, and also questioning your ability to understand God's intent. All you have done is to indicate revenge. The OTs' theme of wrath.

In terms of hermeneutics, where you claim a larger context is required how do you reconcile the Sermon on the Mount, the crowning point of Christianity with the vengeful wrath of God expressed many times in the Old Testament?

There is no contradiction, inconsistency or incongruity of any kind between the Amalek accounts and the Sermon on the Mount. It's all imagined inside your head. In fact, I'll go further and state that these NT and OT accounts actually complement one another! The Sermon on the Mount is a sermon that emphasizes man's moral duty toward God and his fellow man. The Amalek narratives in the OT focus primarily on divine prerogative -- specifically that of justice.

Everywhere in the bible it is taught that God is a righteous judge. That he will righteously judge the wicked very often in this age and in the next to come. Even in the Sermon, Jesus mentioned punishment twice (Mat 5:30; 7:13).

Even Reality as we know it teaches us that laws alone within societies would provide no incentive for obedience. This is why all societies have a justice system -- and even then, such systems are ineffective in producing perfect obedience.

It has often been said by conservative bible scholars, that Jesus taught more about hell, condemnation and eternal damnation than he did about heaven or rewards and paradise. Personally, I have never "counted", but I do have to agree that he taught an awful lot about the former three. Nothing inconsistent or contradictory here because the bible also teaches that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow -- that there is no shadow, or turning or variance with him. What God required of Man in the OT is still required of us today. And God will judge all of us who live today just as righteously as he did with those who lived in prior times. To save space and time, I am omitting citations -- mainly because you would brush them aside, anyway.

Let us consider the facts about Amalek:

There was no fear of God in his heart. He defied God in spite of the wonders he performed in Egypt.

His attack upon Israel wasn't even in Canaan. It was in the hostile and all but inhabitable wilderness, so land wasn't the motive.

His attack was premeditated, unprovoked and senseless. The Amalekite had no reason to attack the Israelites.
He attacked the most vulnerable Israelites -- the stragglers who were faint and weary.

You have often cried out on this forum against the U.S. military and its commander-in-chief Bush whenever U.S. forces inadvertently and unintentionally killed innocent civilians. You have condemned our forces and our president and you demanded that justice be done. Yet, when God in the OT executes his righteous judgments upon the truly wicked, you cry "foul"!?

Your anti-theism world view has blinded you, 'cap. You're not even able to understand the fundamental difference between man's spiritual/moral duty toward God and his fellow man and divine prerogative, and how both of these actually complement one another. You're in a bad way, and the very sad thing is that you don't even realize it.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The Bible and Earth's Free-float in Space

The Scriptures Speak of an Invisible Structure

The Bible Reveals that the Earth is Round

All this proves is that earth was indeed visited by extraterrestrials with superior intelligence who revealed these remarkable scientific facts to caveman-like mentalities by comparison. :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

Everywhere in the bible it is taught that God is a righteous judge. That he will righteously judge the wicked very often in this age and in the next to come. Even in the Sermon, Jesus mentioned punishment twice (Mat 5:30; 7:13).
Matthew|5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew|5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Punishment? You miss the point. Again taken from a inner psychological viewpoint, this illustrates ones inner struggle towards God.

But in order to understand this and MOST of the symbolic meaning, you must know something about yourself. That you have observed your own foibles and judgmental ego. The righteous judge is sitting inside us, and keeps a silent tally on our hypocrisy and pretensions. The wicked are those parts within us that either ignore the path to understanding, or more often, think they have "arrived" at Gods' right hand.

Those wicked little selfish, grasping at straws segments of raging ego are the ones that are "offending thee"

There is no contradiction, inconsistency or incongruity of any kind between the Amalek accounts and the Sermon on the Mount. It's all imagined inside your head.
...The Sermon on the Mount is a sermon that emphasizes man's moral duty toward God and his fellow man. The Amalek narratives in the OT focus primarily on divine prerogative -- specifically that of justice.
Sorry box there is a change in emphasis from the OT to the NT.
Jesus, The Son of God (or man), is speaking for God, and I assume is not saying Don't do as I did as in slaughtering infants then, but rather as I say now?

Matthew|5:3Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew|5:7 Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Matthew|5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Matthew|5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Matthew|5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Please tell me what poor in spirit means?
Peacemakers?
And mercy?
And turn the other cheek?
BTW, God had very little to lose in turning the other cheek to Amalek
Unless you project your own anger and vengeance up unto God.
Scriptures are much like a Rorschach test. :rolleyes:

1 Samuel 15 King James Bible
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Seems to me there is a shift from vengeance to understanding, and dare I say it and not be accused of being a bleeding heart, love.

[boxcar]

Sorry box there is a change in emphasis from the OT to the NT. Jesus, The Son of God (or man), is speaking for God, and I assume is not saying Don't do as I did as in slaughtering infants then, but rather as I say now?

Now you're wrong on two counts. First, you said there was a "contradiction" in emphasis, which itself was an absurd statement. Now you say there was a "change" in emphasis. There was no change. These are simply two sets of passages with different emphases. There's no change of emphasis between the OT and NT. Both the Old and New present a cohesive and and unified soteriological message. Both are Christocentric at their core.

The OT writers very often spoke to God's longsuffering, his tender mercies, his lovingkindeness, his willingness to forgive sin, etc. And the NT writers frequently speak to damnation, condemnation and hell. You have a very warped, distorted view of scripture.

Moreover, God never -- anywhere in the bible -- delegated or assigned his divine prerogatives to mere, sinful mortals. Nowhere in the bible does God delegate to man his office of Judge of the World. Therefore, that is not what Jesus is teaching. Yes, God used his Old Covenant people as instruments of his righteous judgments -- but only by his command. Therefore, the Israelites, when carrying out those commands, were held blameless. Conversely, when they didn't, then God exacted his justice upon his own people! (Good case in point was with Saul because he didn't exterminate Amalek as God had commanded.)

Rom 12:19
19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.
NASB

(Wonder how this passage ever made it into the NT.) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[wes]

THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. IT HAPENS TO RESIDE IN THE HEARTS OF MAN. QUIT TEACHING HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN AND TEACH HOW TO LIVE HERE ON EARTH AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER. WHEN THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED YOU WILL HAVE GAINED GODS APPROVAL.


WES

[boxcar]

THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. IT HAPENS TO RESIDE IN THE HEARTS OF MAN. QUIT TEACHING HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN AND TEACH HOW TO LIVE HERE ON EARTH AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER. WHEN THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED YOU WILL HAVE GAINED GODS APPROVAL.


WES

The bible addresses your concern about the practical issue of true spiritual living here on earth in no small way.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Big Al, I'm seeing you post on other threads and wondering why you haven't posted anything more on this one. Then I double-checked and see that my post in answer to your #43 never made up here! It just disappeared through a black hole. Sorry for this long delay. I swore I posted it but don't know what happened to it.

Let me recap what I wrote a few days ago. Basically, I thought the injection of the various traditions you mentioned wouldn't be helpful to the discussion. For one thing it begs the question because I think I can show that Jesus and the apostles, evidently, were all of one "tradition", since they all appear to be on the same hermeneutics page. For the most part, they all interpreted the OT scriptures in a very straightforward, literal manner -- both the prophetic and non-prophetic portions alike.

And perhaps I worded one paragraph badly when I essentially said that Jesus flew in the face of the "literary style" of the day. What I should have said against the understanding of the "literary style" of how things ought to be taken -- how they should be interpreted. (As far as I know, Jesus himself never penned anything.)

Since you seem to think that those closest to the events of the "messianic age" would have a better understanding than those of us many hundreds of centuries later, I'm perplexed as to why you haven't followed their lead -- taken your hermeneutics' cues from Jesus and his apostles? My hermeneutics are taken right out of the NT. I have studied carefully just how these notable NT figures interpreted and used the OT scriptures.

As you've essentially said yourself, Jesus was no slouch. In fact, he was quite amazing for being just a mere mortal, as so many claim. He never had to correct himself. He never hesitated or made any kind of gaffe. He handled every trap and snare laid by his enemies with matchless skill. And in fact, very often turned the snares of others upon their own heads! He was always quick to correct error and never corrected anything coming from others that wasn't. To say that he was quite remarkable hardly does justice to this man -- either that or the writers were incredibly smart if they made things up about him by putting words into his mouth that he never uttered.

You have already conceded that you don't know why the gospel writers were attracted to him. Why did they believe he was the long awaited Messiah? Wishful thinking on their parts or did they have legitimate reasons? I say it's latter. For example, he completely dazzled thousands very early in his ministry when he gave the Sermon on the Mount. Mark tells us that he "amazed" the crowd and spoke as one having "authority and not as the scribes" (Mk 1:22). Clearly, he stood head and shoulders above the corrupt, apostate religious establishment of his day. So, I think there's a very good chance we might learn some things from this Teacher -- which he was rightfully called. (Heck even 'cap is supposedly wowed by his sermon, although I venture to say not all parts of it if I were to tear into it. But I digress.)

Since you have this preconceived idea that the gospel writers retrofitted OT prophecy to make Jesus be something that I guess you think he wasn't, i.e. the long awaited, promised Messiah of the OT, then what I'd like to do is shelve your proposition in #43 that suggested we look at several prophecy couplets (OT predictions and NT fulfillment) -- at least for the time being. One reason is that I also have plenty non-prophetic "couplets" that I could present, such as the passages I cited in my post #42 and what Jesus had to say about his Father's words, and what Moses taught about "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". It's very clear that Jesus thought that his Father's words were of utmost importance. Was Jesus wrong in what he said to his disciples? Was he wrong in how interpreted Moses? Did Jesus literally mean "words" -- and not just mere thoughts or ideas, instead? Does Jesus really have a Father who literally spoke words to him? Who literally spoke words to Moses? Did Moses have it all wrong and, therefore, cause Jesus to misunderstand the real meaning behind Deut 8:3? Or did Jesus never say any of these things in the passages I cited in #42? Were all those words put into his mouth by the gospel writers?

These are the kinds of things I'd like us to look at for awhile. I'd like to look at the hermeneutics of these important NT figures by studying how they interpreted non-prophetic portions of the OT scriptures. Then if we have time, we could look at some prophetic portions, too. Although, I must say up front that this is the time of year, my wife and I start to get quite busy. If you're agreeable to his arrangement, I'd like your take on the passages I brought up in my post #42.

And, finally, I'd like to understand where you specifically stand on your view of God and Jesus. Do you subscribe to Theism or Deism, for example? Do you believe in the Trinity? Or are just an agnostic who finds Jesus to be an interesting chap? Or are you a Muslim in disguise? :)

Again, sorry for sitting on my hands so long 'cause I really thought I had sent up an answer to your #43 three or four days ago.

Boxcar

[dav4463]

For someone who studies the Bible: Are there such things as ghosts or are they all demons? I have an interest in this because of something I've seen and heard. I know there is something paranormal out there and it doesn't seem threatening, but all Christians warn against exploring this sort of thing. They say it opens doors to demons and all that stuff.

But, there are ghosts in the Bible. So, ghosts do exist ... right? But, we should not try to make contact with them according to Christians.

It's interesting to me to try and find out what the paranormal really is all about. Those who have never seen or heard anything paranormal say it is all in your mind, but those who have had an experience of some sort know what they have seen or heard.

[wes]

You do not have to be scared of the dead. It's the living you had better keep an eye on.

I have never heard anyone say they have seen a dead soul.



wes

[OTM Al]

Big Al, I'm seeing you post on other threads and wondering why you haven't posted anything more on this one. Then I double-checked and see that my post in answer to your #43 never made up here! It just disappeared through a black hole. Sorry for this long delay. I swore I posted it but don't know what happened to it.

I am glad you are still interested in the discussion. I was rather enjoying it. Sorry your initial comments were lost, its always hard to recreate arguements and express oneself exatly the way one meant to, but let's try to move forward then. A lot here, so forgive me if I seem brief on some answers as I am willing to flesh out answers if you want to hear more.


Let me recap what I wrote a few days ago. Basically, I thought the injection of the various traditions you mentioned wouldn't be helpful to the discussion. For one thing it begs the question because I think I can show that Jesus and the apostles, evidently, were all of one "tradition", since they all appear to be on the same hermeneutics page. For the most part, they all interpreted the OT scriptures in a very straightforward, literal manner -- both the prophetic and non-prophetic portions alike.

And perhaps I worded one paragraph badly when I essentially said that Jesus flew in the face of the "literary style" of the day. What I should have said against the understanding of the "literary style" of how things ought to be taken -- how they should be interpreted. (As far as I know, Jesus himself never penned anything.)

I would agree that Jesus and his Apostles were of one tradition, the Essene. It only makes sense. They came from a similar geographic area and were from similar walks of life. I would also agree that he seems to have told them to look at things a little differently. He was clearly preaching a reform to the old ways without wanting to throw them all away and that necessaily would involve a change in interpretation, so I can go with you at least that far.

Jesus actually writing anything has always fascinated scholars. We certainly know he was literate and appears to have been well educated, yet the only indication that he wrote something, maybe, was that one passage where he was said to be "drawing" in the dirt while the apostles argued. Maybe we'll never know if he wrote something or not but the fact that we don't seem to have anything that quotes what he wrote would seem to indicate that he did not write anything. That is how we know about the writings of many latin and greek authors who's works have been lost.

Since you seem to think that those closest to the events of the "messianic age" would have a better understanding than those of us many hundreds of centuries later, I'm perplexed as to why you haven't followed their lead -- taken your hermeneutics' cues from Jesus and his apostles? My hermeneutics are taken right out of the NT. I have studied carefully just how these notable NT figures interpreted and used the OT scriptures.

I'm not sure I really follow what you mean here, so please expand if what I say doesn't make sense. By necessity those who were alive at the time would understand situations much better than we looking back with so much information having been lost or only guessed at. Our understanding of the OT today can imprint itself on our understanding of their understanding of the OT. I don't think I'm answering this well though, so maybe we should come back to it if need be.

As you've essentially said yourself, Jesus was no slouch. In fact, he was quite amazing for being just a mere mortal, as so many claim. He never had to correct himself. He never hesitated or made any kind of gaffe. He handled every trap and snare laid by his enemies with matchless skill. And in fact, very often turned the snares of others upon their own heads! He was always quick to correct error and never corrected anything coming from others that wasn't. To say that he was quite remarkable hardly does justice to this man -- either that or the writers were incredibly smart if they made things up about him by putting words into his mouth that he never uttered.

Here I have to argue with your statements. Remember, the earliest Gospel account of his works is likely Mark, which was written most likely by someone recounting the rememberances of Peter. Were what was in the Gospels a tape recording that showed the events as they happened, then I would agree with you, but what we have is an account looking back from a devout follower. Such a person would not include any mistakes being made or gaffes or hesitations that weren't taken to have some significance to the message. Remember, these Gospels were not written to be part of a larger whole. They were written to be read to the new Christian (and I hesitate to use that word because they may not have been using it yet at the time) communities. For example, many believe Mark was written to bolster the community in Rome agaist perceived looming persecutions. To give them strength and hope for the future. John's gospel was for the communities in Anatolia, Thomas was the communities in Syria. Each had a different purpose and emphasis in the writing.

This is not putting words in his mouth. Remember, there was the "Q" text that is believed to have existed that was basically what Jesus had said and very little more. This was a basis for these works as I'm sure it was circulated among all the communities. So the words were his for the most part (though as I said, I still question some of John), though the situations may have been open to some interpretation and recall of the writer

You have already conceded that you don't know why the gospel writers were attracted to him. Why did they believe he was the long awaited Messiah? Wishful thinking on their parts or did they have legitimate reasons? I say it's latter. For example, he completely dazzled thousands very early in his ministry when he gave the Sermon on the Mount. Mark tells us that he "amazed" the crowd and spoke as one having "authority and not as the scribes" (Mk 1:22). Clearly, he stood head and shoulders above the corrupt, apostate religious establishment of his day. So, I think there's a very good chance we might learn some things from this Teacher -- which he was rightfully called. (Heck even 'cap is supposedly wowed by his sermon, although I venture to say not all parts of it if I were to tear into it. But I digress.).

I would accept this reason. It was a powerful speech that fully laid out where he stood. If only our politicians would give us the same! He was call teacher, a word I'm sure you are familiar with, "Rabbi". Rabinical Judaism got its start at this time too. Mayhap he influenced and was influenced by that movement too. I wouldn't go so far as to call the religious establishment of the day corrupt and apostate. As in all organizations, it had its good and bad. I'm sure their were good men among the Pharisees and Saducees as well as I'm sure there were bad. Jesus did not call for an end of Judaism, just a reform.

One reason is that I also have plenty non-prophetic "couplets" that I could present, such as the passages I cited in my post #42.).

Let me look back at this one. You gave a lot of ground to cover here, so let me devote a separate post to it when I've given myself some time to think

And, finally, I'd like to understand where you specifically stand on your view of God and Jesus. Do you subscribe to Theism or Deism, for example? Do you believe in the Trinity? Or are just an agnostic who finds Jesus to be an interesting chap? Or are you a Muslim in disguise? :)

Well, I certainly find him an interesting chap. Anyone who would not admit to this would be foolish considering the billions of lives that have been affected. My early religious instruction is by Franciscan Catholics. I've always greatly appreciated their views and St. Francis has always been a favorite of mine. I would say philosophically I would be much more in line with the side of that early argument that lost. I believe he was sent from God, I believe what he spoke was a divine message. However, I believe he was a man. So I guess that means the whole trinity thing always seemed a bit odd to me. He was a favored son of God to be sure, but then we are all children of God if we are to believe John.

No need to rush any responses. I'd much rather have a slow, but quality exchange than a quick one for the sake of being quick. I hope the work you and your wife are engaged in goes well and will get back to #42 as soon as i can

[boxcar]

Well, I certainly find him an interesting chap. Anyone who would not admit to this would be foolish considering the billions of lives that have been affected. My early religious instruction is by Franciscan Catholics. I've always greatly appreciated their views and St. Francis has always been a favorite of mine. I would say philosophically I would be much more in line with the side of that early argument that lost. I believe he was sent from God, I believe what he spoke was a divine message. However, I believe he was a man. So I guess that means the whole trinity thing always seemed a bit odd to me. He was a favored son of God to be sure, but then we are all children of God if we are to believe John.

Just for clarification, then...Since you say that Jesus was "sent from God", you hold to monotheism? You believe in the existence of a personal God? As just one example, it says everywhere in scripture that God loves. Love demands an object. And love requires affection and a personal relationship from the one loving to the object being loved.

No need to rush any responses. I'd much rather have a slow, but quality exchange than a quick one for the sake of being quick. I hope the work you and your wife are engaged in goes well and will get back to #42 as soon as i can

I agree completely. And thanks for the good wishes for wifey and me.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Just for clarification, then...Since you say that Jesus was "sent from God", you hold to monotheism? You believe in the existence of a personal God? As just one example, it says everywhere in scripture that God loves. Love demands an object. And love requires affection and a personal relationship from the one loving to the object being loved.
Boxcar

Well I certainly would say I am monotheistic. I've always felt that the many faces of God people have seen through time and around the world are due to the different contexts in which they exist. Not sure exactly what you mean by a "personal" God. I understand what a personal relationship with God means, which I hold as a path to understanding. Is this the same as what you mean?

[boxcar]

Well I certainly would say I am monotheistic. I've always felt that the many faces of God people have seen through time and around the world are due to the different contexts in which they exist. Not sure exactly what you mean by a "personal" God. I understand what a personal relationship with God means, which I hold as a path to understanding. Is this the same as what you mean?

No, that's not what I mean. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for an Impersonal being to bestow love, for example, on another. It's impossible for an Impersonal being to have an object to love. Love requires at the very least an affection for another -- someone outside of him or herself -- or even for oneself - benevolent concern for, an attachment, an adoration toward another personal being, which would also include the Self. As stated in another thread, one of the definitions of "Personal" means being rational and self-conscious, such as we humans are. It means having a personal reference. Or is God an Irrational (Impersonal) being, such as a cat or dog who can "love" in a very limited way -- not having any rational qualities or characteristics?

In Jesus' prayer ("the Lord's prayer) in his Sermon, do you think he was praying to (communicating with) a Rational or Irrational being -- a Personal or Impersonal being? This is what I'm trying to understand.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

No, that's not what I mean. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for an Impersonal being to bestow love, for example, on another. It's impossible for an Impersonal being to have an object to love. Love requires at the very least an affection for another -- someone outside of him or herself -- or even for oneself - benevolent concern for, an attachment, an adoration toward another personal being, which would also include the Self. As stated in another thread, one of the definitions of "Personal" means being rational and self-conscious, such as we humans are. It means having a personal reference. Or is God an Irrational (Impersonal) being, such as a cat or dog who can "love" in a very limited way -- not having any rational qualities or characteristics?

In Jesus' prayer ("the Lord's prayer) in his Sermon, do you think he was praying to (communicating with) a Rational or Irrational being -- a Personal or Impersonal being? This is what I'm trying to understand.

Boxcar

I understand now, thanks. I would go with personal then, though clearly beyond what we are.

[boxcar]

I understand now, thanks. I would go with personal then, though clearly beyond what we are.

Okay, so you agree that God is a Personal being. At the risk of taking a sharp turn off topic, why is the Personal beyond what we are? Are we not personal?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
As you've essentially said yourself, Jesus was no slouch. In fact, he was quite amazing for being just a mere mortal, as so many claim. He never had to correct himself. He never hesitated or made any kind of gaffe. He handled every trap and snare laid by his enemies with matchless skill. And in fact, very often turned the snares of others upon their own heads! He was always quick to correct error and never corrected anything coming from others that wasn't. To say that he was quite remarkable hardly does justice to this man -- either that or the writers were incredibly smart if they made things up about him by putting words into his mouth that he never uttered.


Here I have to argue with your statements. Remember, the earliest Gospel account of his works is likely Mark, which was written most likely by someone recounting the rememberances of Peter. Were what was in the Gospels a tape recording that showed the events as they happened, then I would agree with you, but what we have is an account looking back from a devout follower. Such a person would not include any mistakes being made or gaffes or hesitations that weren't taken to have some significance to the message.

Ahh...this, sir, is a classical example of an argument from silence. You're assuming a few things here -- none of which you can support with so much as a shred of evidence.. You're assuming Jesus was a mere mortal, which scripture clearly contradicts. Then you're assuming that because he was only a human being that he was fallible. Then you're assuming that the writer(s) would dishonestly cover up any mistakes he made. But you don't have any evidence to back all this up. We really should stick with what's is revealed in the bible -- not what isn't.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Ahh...this, sir, is a classical example of an argument from silence. You're assuming a few things here -- none of which you can support with so much as a shred of evidence.. You're assuming Jesus was a mere mortal, which scripture clearly contradicts. Then you're assuming that because he was only a human being that he was fallible. Then you're assuming that the writer(s) would dishonestly cover up any mistakes he made. But you don't have any evidence to back all this up. We really should stick with what's is revealed in the bible -- not what isn't.

Boxcar

I don't think so. Not all scripture confirms divinity. This is why John is different than the others as I've said many times. If memory serves, the time covered by the Gospels is 3 years. Let alone the previous 30 years of his life that went almost wholly unrecorded, at least as far as texts we still have are concerned. How long does it take for you to read through them, a couple hours tops? So you can't be saying it was all he did and said that was recorded there. The Gospels were highlight reels, so to speak, containing those particular moments that the writers felt most important to the message they were sharing. Again, no deception or falsification intended. Things that are missing are just as important sometimes in literary analysis as things that are there. I am not trying to fill in blanks here, but if a hole appears it raises questions.

I would be curious of your interpretation of Mark 15:34 in this same vein.

[RaceBookJoe]

I don't think so. Not all scripture confirms divinity. This is why John is different than the others as I've said many times. If memory serves, the time covered by the Gospels is 3 years. Let alone the previous 30 years of his life that went almost wholly unrecorded, at least as far as texts we still have are concerned. How long does it take for you to read through them, a couple hours tops? So you can't be saying it was all he did and said that was recorded there. The Gospels were highlight reels, so to speak, containing those particular moments that the writers felt most important to the message they were sharing. Again, no deception or falsification intended. Things that are missing are just as important sometimes in literary analysis as things that are there. I am not trying to fill in blanks here, but if a hole appears it raises questions.

I would be curious of your interpretation of Mark 15:34 in this same vein.

John 21:25 states that not everything about Jesus was recorded. Just a guess on Mark 15:34....but maybe Jesus was just mentioning Scripture ( Psalm 22 ). More about the spiritual seperation from God than the physical pain he ws suffering. I havent read this whole thread, and I am still trying to understand the Bible myself. Very intriguing book.....early conclusion is it is either entirely the truth or the most ingenious hoax. Much more to discover. rbj

[boxcar]

John 21:25 states that not everything about Jesus was recorded. Just a guess on Mark 15:34....but maybe Jesus was just mentioning Scripture ( Psalm 22 ). More about the spiritual seperation from God than the physical pain he ws suffering. I havent read this whole thread, and I am still trying to understand the Bible myself. Very intriguing book.....early conclusion is it is either entirely the truth or the most ingenious hoax. Much more to discover. rbj

Excellent, RBJ! Excellent observations about the 22nd Psalm, which is a messianic psalm. More later...

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Yes, it recalls that Psalm, perhaps, but what are your thoughts on it?

[boxcar]

I don't think so. Not all scripture confirms divinity. This is why John is different than the others as I've said many times.

The divinity of Christ is confirmed in numerous places in scripture -- in all manner of diverse ways. I don't want to stray too far away from the subject and texts I brought up in my #42. But just as one example (of very many I could provide), I would refer you to Mat 22:41-45. But to really appreciate this passage, I would strongly urge you to read the larger context beginning in chapter 21. As Jesus made his triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, seated on a lowly donkey (as foretold in the OT), he has his last encounter with the apostate religious establishment which consisted of the Pharisees and Sadducees, of course. Jesus had just put the Sadducees to silence, so the Pharisees decided it was their turn at bat and they took it by asking him a question in 22:35-36). When Jesus answered in his usual inimitable fashion -- as only he could -- he turned the tables on them by asking them a question in turn in vv. 42-43.

The Pharisees rightly understood from the OT scriptures that the Messiah was to descend from the line of David. What they did not understand, due to their spiritual blindness, was that the Messiah was also The Son of God, that is to say that the Messiah's divinity. So, it's important to understand this. Jesus is not refuting their half-truthful answer, but was challenging them to cough up the other half by quoting from the 110th Psalm, which is another messianic Davidic psalm -- specifically from v. 1. Jesus knew they would never get to the whole truth with respect to his true identity.

To paraphrase Jesus' question -- he asked the Pharisees, how could David, who himself was lord (king) over Israel, have said what he did (in the above verse), i.e. "the LORD says to my Lord..."? In other words, just who was King David's "Lord"? Who was greater than Israel's King!? The first "LORD", rightfully in caps, is the Hebrew "YAHWEH", which to the Jews represented the most sacred name of their covenant God. It was so sacred, and so dreaded and so rarely used that the Hebrews adopted the more usual designation for deity-- the Hebrew term "Adhonay". So, what David was saying in v.1 is this: YAHWEH says to my Adhonay.." Or God says to my God! Without any question two persons of the Godhead are immediately in view in this one verse.

But Jesus also added a very important component to this verse in the messianic psalm by editorializing it. He states that David said this while "in the Spirit" (Mat 22:43). This is extremely important because all throughout the OT (and even often in the NT!), it is made very clear that the prophets, whether they were forth telling (teaching) or foretelling (prophesying), were speaking words as they were "moved by the Holy Spirit", or as they were "in the Spirit", or some other very similar formula. The utterances of YAHWEH came by the agency and ministry of the Holy Spirit -- the Spirit of God. So, what Jesus was really teaching was the Triunity of God! The Trinity! Three distinct, coequal Persons in the one Godhead! "YAHWEH says to my Adhonay" (in the psalm) while King David was "in the Spirit (Jesus' editorial). (And if you don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, and coequal to the Father and the Son, I would immediately refer you to Act 5:1-4)

But there's more. In v. 1 of this Psalm, it also says that the Lord (Adhonay) is being told my YAHWEH to "sit at his right hand..." YAHWEH, of course, is the King of all Heaven and Earth. So, when someone sits at the right hand of a King, that is the supreme place of honor any royal member of a King's family can have. Usually, a queen sits at the right hand of her King. Or a King's Son (the heir-apparent) would sit at his Father's right hand on the throne. So, then, just who is this "Adhonay" who is being told in this messianic psalm to take his rightful place at the right hand of "YAHWEH"? If you don't think it's The Son of God -- the Lord Jesus Christ, I would refer you to these passages in the NT: MT 26:64; MK 14:62; 16:19; LK 22:69; Act 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1Pet 3:22. All throughout the NT, Jesus is presented as being situated at the right hand of God -- the right hand of his Father. Adhonay at the right hand of YAHWEH!

Moreover, in the NT Christ is presented as the King of Kings and Lord or Lords! No contradiction here because the three distinct persons of the Godhead are coequal. Yes, there is logical, causal order to the Godhead -- but that's it! (For example, the Father sends Son, the Son proceeds from the Father and reveals the Father, the Holy Spirit is sent from the Son and proceeds from the Father through the Son to reveal both Father and Son, etc., etc.) Therefore, YAHWEH is King and Adhonay is King. YAHWEH is Judge of the world and Adhany is Judge. YAHWEH is Creator and Adhonay is Creator, etc., etc.

Now, here's the punch line to the Pharisees' and Sadducees' final encounter with Jesus: They were SILENCED! These learned, religious scholars of the scriptures had all this knowledge of what the scriptures said, but were clueless as to the central spiritual message! Why? Because the were spiritually dead in their sins! Their hearts were hardened and their eyes were blinded! They had no spiritual understanding. Consequently, they were unable to come up with an answer to Jesus' question. The text tells us they uttered not a word in response! How could they dispute what was written in their own scriptures!? Jesus so demolished and humiliated them in front of the crowd, that they dared not ask him any more questions for fear of losing all their credibiity.

If memory serves, the time covered by the Gospels is 3 years. Let alone the previous 30 years of his life that went almost wholly unrecorded, at least as far as texts we still have are concerned. How long does it take for you to read through them, a couple hours tops? So you can't be saying it was all he did and said that was recorded there. The Gospels were highlight reels, so to speak, containing those particular moments that the writers felt most important to the message they were sharing. Again, no deception or falsification intended. Things that are missing are just as important sometimes in literary analysis as things that are there.

Really? No "deception or falsification intended"? These redactors just took unbridled license to edit out what they felt was inappropriate or unhelpful to their cause. These redactors were so self-deceived that the only things that really mattered to them was their self-serving cause, their good intentions, their blind loyalty to the "messianic traditions" or myths or fables or stories -- without any regard whatsoever for the kind of impact their work would have on tens of millions -- maybe hundreds of millions -- of believers down through the centuries -- most especially all those dim-witted dupes who made the supreme sacrifice by being martyred for a false cause -- for a false hope -- for a false Messiah!? Somehow God is going to understand? He's going to "wink" at that kind of "good hearted", "well meaning" deception -- all their numerous lies of omission!?

It has often been said that the path to Hell is paved by Good Intentions. Little do people know that this little saying has firm roots in the bible. In fact, it is taught in principle in one of the less popular portions of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7:15-23). What all these people had in common were their Good Intentions coupled with Self-Deception. These were all like the proverbial frogs who were put into a pot of water at a very slow simmer -- the frogs, being completely comfortable for a season, are completely unaware of how deadly their environment will eventually prove to be. Likewise, those described in this passage will never know until it's too late! Sorry, Al, but Good Intentions can often prove to be deadly!

I am not trying to fill in blanks here, but if a hole appears it raises questions.


Well, that "hole" -- those "blanks" still constitute an argument from silence. I will argue from what is revealed, not from what isn't. Once you argue from silence, any objection can be raised. Anything at all!

I would be curious of your interpretation of Mark 15:34 in this same vein.

This is already much too long. I'll get back to you on this passage at my earliest opportunity.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

As promised, Al, this how I view this passage:

Mark 15:33-35
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God , My God , why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
NASB


God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. The First, Second and Third Persons of the Godhead. Here in this passage, we had the Second Person in all probability calling out to the First and Third Persons, hence..."my God, my God". Why? Because Jesus was being judged and and was near the point of death on behalf of his people. He called out in agony to God the Judge. The most agonizing aspect of being on the cross for Jesus was probably not the physical suffering.. It is very likely that is was the inner torment of Jesus' soul because he was experiencing for the first time ever separation from his His Father and the Holy Spirit. God hates sin (Deut 12:31; Ps 5:6; 11:5; Prov 6:16ff; Lev 26:30). His holy eyes cannot look upon sin. Yet, scripture tells us that He who knew no sin became sin for us(2Cor 5:21). He became a sin offering, yet without blemish (Heb 9:14). Christ became a curse for his people while hanging on the Cross (Gal 3:13). Christ, as our High Priest offered himself up as the sacrificial Lamb of God, yet he was innocent, holy and undefiled (Heb 7:26). He never committed sin nor was any deceit ever found in His mouth, yet he bore the sins of his people in his body on the Cross (1Pet 2:22-24; 1Jn 3:5)). So, in the agony of his soul at his darkest hour, he cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He felt forsaken -- abandoned by his eternal beloved Father and eternal Spirit. He felt at that moment the holy wrath of God in his capacity as Righteous Judge of the World.

But just before the Son gave up his ghost to his Father -- just before he breathed his last on the Cross, this was his final saying:

Luke 23:46
46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last.
NASB

Here in His final moment, he referred to God as his Father. He entrusted his soul -- his spirit to his Father because he knew that he was the perfect, spotless, unblemished sacrificial Lamb with whom God who would be well pleased with his Son's sin offering on behalf of the elect. He knew his Father would never allow his body to see decay in the tomb. He knew his Father would raise him up on the third day. At the very end, Jesus died at peace with himself and with his Father. He uttered these last few words when all was finished!

So, this Jesus is but a mere mortal? Just a man like you and me and the rest of us? You believe just as the Pharisees did? Then how could he have been sinless? There must have been something radically different about this Jesus that so uniquely distinguished him from the rest us -- from the rest of humanity. Which one of us can say, we are without sin? That we're blameless, holy, innocent, undefiled and righteous? The kinds of moral qualities are biblically reserved only for God himself. How, then, did this Jesus come upon these same qualities?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Thanks for getting back so quickly boxcar. I'm a bit jammed up at the moment but hopefully I can get back to this before the end of tomorrow..

[hcap]

The Christian story of a savior apperead in earlier religions. 5 centuries earlier the Bodhisattva concept of Buddhism, taught....

"A Bodhisattva is motivated by pure compassion and love. Their goal is to achieve the highest level of being: that of a Buddha. Bodhisattva is a Sanskrit term which translates as: Bodhi [enlightenment] and sattva [being]. And their reason for becoming a Buddha is to help others. The Bodhisattva will undergo any type of suffering to help another sentient being, whether a tiny insect or a huge mammal. In Shakyamuni Buddha’s 'Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines' it states: “I will become a savior to all those beings, I will release them from all their sufferings."

Much earlier.
14 centuries earlier as Krishna...

"Hindus believe that whenever profound evil spreads widely throughout the earth, the Supreme Being comes to earth in the form of a human person "in order to uproot vice and to establish virtue so that the earth may get rid of sinners." Lord Krishna was just such an incarnation. "Krishna is the ninth and the complete incarnate of Vishnu, the Godhead of the Hindu Trinity of deities."

Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Jesus and Krishna's life.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.

Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

.................................................. ..................................

There are other religions as well that use teaching stories very similar to those in the bible. I would think box, your use of HERMENEUTICS should be expanded to include some of these other earlier (and later ) takes on the same story.

[boxcar]

There are other religions as well that use teaching stories very similar to those in the bible. I would think box, your use of HERMENEUTICS should be expanded to include some of these other earlier (and later ) takes on the same story.

Tell me, 'cap, did the scriptures on these "other and later takes on the same story", i.e. prophesy about this coming savior? If their "scriptures" don't predate Moses' writings, then I think it's pretty safe to say that their heathen traditions were borrowed from the ancient Hebrews'; for Jesus did tell us that Moses and the prophets wrote of Him (LK 24:27, 44)

Hinduism actually teaches there are many gods, but in the sect that believes in their version of the "trinity", do they hold to the existence of one god or three? Is there one deity or three deities?

Other fundamental differences between Hinduism and biblical Chrsitianity:

The basic doctrines of Hinduism are:


* God: “God” is an impersonal force; an indefinable, all-pervading deity. Hinduism recognizes hundreds, even thousands, of lesser gods. In fact, Hinduism teaches that all religions are related, and there are many paths to god.

* Mankind: People are morally neutral, but their status reflects their karma from past lives, which they must work off in order to reach nirvana.

* Sin: Actions and thoughts inconsistent with dharma, the moral order. “Sin” does not affect a person’s relationship to Brahman.

* Salvation: Nirvana can be achieved by working off karma through actions, knowledge, or devotion on the part of the individual. Working off karma to achieve nirvana—the state of dissolution—may require millions of reincarnations.

The basic doctrines of biblical Christianity differ significantly from the above.

Boxcar
P.S. And why should any bible-believing Christian want to expand his hermeneutics to include any false religion? While infidels believe that these other religions are a way to god, point to a truth, bestow or impart a life, nonetheless did not Jesus teach?:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am THE way , and THE truth, and THE life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.
NASB (emphasis mine)

Why would any Christian want to settle for second rate god(s) or religion, for that matter?

[hcap]

Borrowed from Moses' writings?

then I think it's pretty safe to say that their heathen traditions were borrowed from the ancient Hebrews'; for Jesus did tell us that Moses and the prophets wrote of Him (LK 24:27, 44)

Timeline of Hinduism
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/timeline.htm

2800-2000 BCE Indus Valley civilization.
1200 BCE Aryans migrate into southern Asia.
1200-900 BCE Early Vedic Period - earliest Vedas are compiled.
900-600 BCE Late Vedic period - Brahmanical religion develops, emphasizing ritual and social obligation.
800-300 BCE The 11 major Upanishads are written, which include the ideas of reincarnation and karma.
500 BCE-1000 CE Epics and Puranas are written, reflecting the rise of devotional movements dedicated to Shiva, Vishnu and Devi.
5th cent. BCE Buddhism and Jainism founded in India.
c. 320-185 BCE Mauryan Dynasty founded by Chandragupta.

.................................................. ..........................................

Timeline of Judaism
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/timeline.htm


c. 2000-1500 BCE Abraham and the Patriarchs
c. 1500-1200 BCE Egypt, the Exodus and wandering in the desert
1200-1050 BCE Occupation of Canaan, the Promised Land
1050-920 BCE United kingdom under Saul, David and Solomon, with capital at Jerusalem
920-597 BCE Divided kingdom of Israel (north) and Judah (south)
722 BCE Assyria conquers Israel
701 BCE Egyptians conquer Judah
612 BCE Ninevah destroyed by Babylonains and Medes
605 BCE Babylon conquers Egypt, now rules Judah
568-538 BCE Babylonian Exile
586 BCE Destruction of the first temple
550 BCE Second Isaiah composed
c. 520 BCE Haggai and Zechariah prophesy
516 BCE Second Temple built
5th cent. BCE Oldest known example of a ketubah
3rd cent. BCE Rise of the Sadducees; Septuagint formed
2nd cent. BCE Idea of resurrection of the dead gains popularity in Jewish circles
c. 20 BCE Philo Judaeus born
Compilation of the Tenakh



http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

Birth of Krishna, 2800-2000 BC
Indus Valley civilization.

Judaism:
Moses 1500-1350 BC

Buddhism:
Buddha 563-483 BC

Christianity

[hcap]

As you can see Hinduism predates Judaism.
Of course there are differences. But more important are the SIMILARITIES.

I repeat
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm


Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.

Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

.................................................. ............................................

I am not saying that Christianity is false because the similar Hindu story of Krishna predates it. What's more important are the common themes. But the study of HERMENEUTICS is not the proper tool. Allegorical and Symbolical thinking span the "apparent" differences of all major religions.

Borrowing a wheel symbol from Buddhism. We all start out from our different perspectives on the rim of the wheel. We argue about the best or the only path. Which one is the "true path". But if instead we really start on the journey to the center or the hub of the wheel, each walking along a different spoke, we move closer to each other. And apparent differences become unified.
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am THE way , and THE truth, and THE life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.
NASB (emphasis mine)Similarities in other religions of and to Jesus IMHO, also validate the journeyman's' task of inner work.



http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/images/symbols/dharmachakra-200.jpg

Lao Tsu...

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful


"Different spokes for different folks"

[boxcar]

'Cap, a later portion to the Vedas is known as the Upanishads (Wisdom of Gurus) and was written roughly around 700 BC. It is in the Upanishads that we learn of the primary manifestations of Brahman, i.e. Vishnu, Krishna and Shiva. (However, I would think we'd want to avoid being sexists, so we should include with this unholy trio of characters the goddesses Kali and Durga -- after all they, too, were players in all this convoluted religious mishmash of deism, pantheism and polytheism. Small wonder Hinduism appeals to so many in today's religious by dark world -- it has a little bit of something to please virtually everyone.) Anyhoo...the Pentateuch predates these Upanishads by about 800 years. So, the first mention of the "seed of the woman" (Gen 3.15) was penned around 1,500 B.C. by Moses.

Moreover, we have oral tradition with which to deal, which means these "sacred" non-divine, non-inspired Hindu writings pulled much from this source. But a marked difference between Hindu scriptures and the bible is that the the former never claim to be divinely-inspired, whereas the OT and NT scriptures do. (Besides, how could the impersonal Brahman inspire any writing to persons!?) The Hindu scriptures are nothing more than a guidebook consisting of insights from sages and seers. It's really nothing more than a book of "good advice" whereas the bible was given to us by divine revelation and is dogmatic as it touches all areas of salvation and living.

In short, 'cap, any similarities between Hinduism and biblical Christianity are purely coincidental; for there are far too many fundamental dissimilarities.

Advice: Quit spinning that wheel of yours in your attempt to bring biblical Christianity down to the muck and mire of this pagan religion, lest you drive yourself dizzy in the process -- or worse yet...fall off the wheel and hurt yourself.

Boxcar

[hcap]

The initial point I made was in the amazing number of coincidences between the life and story of Jesus. And that of the life and story of Krishna. You proposed that the Krishna story was based on the exodus and Moses. and therefore the Hindu story copied the Moses story to the point of super dooper accurately prophecising the story of Jesus. Heathens doing accurate prophecising?? However the majority of similarities found by our dutiful Quaker scholar was much much closer to Jesus than Moses. How could those heathen Hindus divine that Krishnas' adoptive human father was a carpenter? Or one of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole.

The first five on the Quakers' list......
Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
No Moses here Box. Only Jesus.
But to refute your contention anyway that compilations were the be all and end all, let me remind you of a few items.

Just as the old testament is based on oral and written text, so is the story(s) of Krishna. Archaeological verification is not precise on the recording of the exodus story. (Nor for that matter on the date of the birth of Krishna.)

In fact there is no real external evidence (outside the bible) that the exodus occurred. Certainly no evidence of plaques or red sea parting. When did the final form the story of the exodus become Christian certainty? Much later when the early Christian church decided which translations and cannons were to be "official" In fact there is no external evidence for Krishna either. Again, the symbolic meaning is what is important in both stories.

Certainly compilation was not completed earlier than the Hindu compilations. But the oral tradition and very detailed story of Krishna predates the story of Moses

Some oral accounts....

"Historically, Lord Krishna appeared in the Dvapara yuga, on the midnight of the 8th day of the dark half of the month of Sravan. This corresponds to July 19th 3228 BC. He exhibited His pastimes for a little over 125 years and disappeared on February 18th 3102 BC "

"Krishna was a Vedic figure. He was a younger contemporary of Krishnadvaipayana — or 'Krishna of the Island' better known as Veda Vyasa — who by tradition was responsible for the organization of Vedic hymns into their four fold division, the form in which we know them today. This is one of the most persistent traditions in India. It is nowhere questioned, nor does it rest on any supernatural claims. It is also supported by the Vedic literature we have today."


And.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

Birth.......

Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami,[30] as either 18th or 21st July 3228 BCE.[31]

.................................................. .....

From Wiki.....
The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts in the world dating from c. 1500-500BCE. Most Indologists agree that an oral tradition existed long before a literary tradition tentatively may have been set in

Let's talk documents and your contention that the underlying archaeological documents the Bible is "compiled" from- predates the Vedic archaeological documents.

To support the actual age of documents..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_literature

"The History of literature begins with the history of writing, in Bronze Age Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, although the oldest literary texts that have come down to us date to a full millennium after the invention of writing, to the late 3rd millennium BC. The earliest literary authors known by name are Ptahhotep and Enheduanna, dating to ca. the 24th and 23rd centuries BC, respectively.

Texts handed down by oral tradition such as the Rigveda (Vedic) may predate their fixation in written form by several centuries, or, in extreme cases, even millennia"


Scroll down to ..List of ancient texts
Down to

* Late Bronze Age (ca. 1600 to 1200 BC) approximate dates shown
o 1500 BC Hittite military oath
o 1500-1100 BC Vedic Sanskrit Rigveda (redaction likely around 800 bC)
o 1550 BC Egyptian Book of the Dead
o 1400 BC Hurrian & Ugaritic Amarna Letters
o 1330 BC Great Hymn to the Aten
o the Babylonian Poor Man of Nippur
o the Epic of Gilgamesh (Akkadian version)
o the older Avesta on Ancient Iranian faiths
o Tale of Two Brothers from the Egyptian Papyrus D'Orbiney by the scribe Ennana.[1]

Iron Age

Iron Age texts predating Classical Antiquity (12th to 8th centuries BC):

* 11th c. BC Egyptian Story of Wenamun
* ca. 12th to 9th c. BC: Yajurveda, Atharvaveda
* ca. 11th c. BC: Gatha Avestan text by Zoroaster
* ca. 9th to 7th c. BC: Brahmanas
* ca. 9th to 7th c. BC: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Chandogya Upanishad, Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana
* ca. 9th to 6th c. BC: older parts of the Hebrew Bible (see dating the Bible)
o Pentateuch
o Book of Joshua
o Book of Isaiah
Classical Antiquity

See also Ancient Greek literature, Latin literature, Indian literature, Chinese literature

* 7th century BC
o Archilochus of Paros
o Alcman
o Semonides
o Solon
o Mimnermus
o Stesichorus
* 6th century BC
o Sappho
o Ibycus
o Alcaeus
o Aesop's Fables
o Hebrew Bible: Psalms, Book of Daniel, Book of Ezekiel

I can see you arguing maybe there was cross cultural mixing of traditions. In fact I would agree with you. There was and always existed an underlying agreement in the real meaning of most sacred scripture. But to say these "heathens" are guilty of PLAGIARISM is silly

[boxcar]

Actually, 'cap, I made an error earlier. The NT predates the Hindu "Trimurti". We should not be surprised that heathen cultures incorporated bits and pieces of the gospel into their religions since the gospel spread rapidly after Christ's ascension and even faster and farther and wider after the temple was destroyed in in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Hindu theology consistd of a vast number of scriptures compiled over a period of about 2,000 years -- almost entirely emanating from oral traditions. (Don't forget: ancient Babylon had versions of the creation and flood accounts -- with some similarities to their biblical counterparts.) Also, The Hindu scriptures never claim to be divinely inspired.

So, while Krishna may have been considered to be the "son of god" he reincarnated 10 times and was considered one of many gods. (Remember: Hinduism is polytheistic among other things!) He certainly wasn't the Son of God in the biblical sense, e.g. "I and the Father are One" (Jn 10:30). Judaism and Christianity are thoroughly monotheistic (Deut 6:4). (In fact, in this verse God is mentioned three times! YWH is used twice and Elohiym is used once, intimating the triune God.)

Further, we should never forget that idolatry and polytheism are strictly forbidden in both the OT and NT. This certainly isn't the case with Hinduism.

Below is a brief history of the Puranas, which is what I should have referred to earlier.

Puranas (myths and legends) (400-500 After Christ):
The Puranas are the richest collection of mythology in the world. Most of them attained their final form around 500 A.D. but they were passed on as an oral tradition since the time of Krishna (c. 1500 B.C.).
The theology of the Puranas mainly centers round the Hindu Trinity, the "Trimurti", with some similarities to the Christian "Holy Trinity": Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the savior and protector who incarnates 10 times, his Avatars), and Shiva (the destroyer of evil, and the creator of new life)... and the Saktis, spouses, of the Trinity,--Lakshmi, Sarasvati and Durga,--and the two sons of Siva, the Elephant Ganesha and Scanda.
Voluminous texts, became the scriptures of the common man, since they were available to everybody; the Vedas were restricted to initiated. A kind of Heaven and Hell are described in the Puranas.
The eighteen major Puranas are collections of stories about the gods and their activities.
They tend to emphasize two points: bhakti (devotion to a god) and dharma (doing one's personal and social duty).
The Puranas fall into three groups: Those dealing with the stories of Brahma, those concerning Vishnu and his avatars and consort(s), and those about Shiva and the goddesses associated with him.

http://india.as/religion/hinduism.htm

Boxcar

[boxcar]

One more thing, 'cap: I categorically reject the liberal scholars' abuses of Higher Criticism methodology and, therefore, their conclusions for multiple authors and a very late dating for the Pentateuch.

As Dr. Phil Fernandes observed:

This is due, in part, to the common antisupernaturalistic bias held by liberal scholars. This bias rejects the possibility of revelation from God, predictive prophecies, and miracles.

And...

The modern liberal scholars are guilty of circular reasoning. In their attempt to prove that the Bible is merely a human book, they assume that revelation from God is impossible. In spite of the fact that much of ancient pagan history has been shown to be unreliable, liberal scholars assume that these pagan historical writings are always right when they differ from the biblical account Meanwhile, again and again the Bible has been proven to be historically reliable. Another weak assumption is their view that the Hebrews could use only one name for God. History reveals that ancient empires such as Babylon, Ugarit, Egypt, and Greece all had several names for their primary deity. Therefore, there is no justification for speculating the existence of different authors and multiple documents merely because a different name for God (Elohim or Jehovah) is being used.

Dr. Fernandes on his website goes on to provide fifteen reasons why it's very likely that Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch and why he holds to the traditional early dating -- somewhere between 1,500 to 1,400 B.C.

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/old_testament_reliability.htm

I have no intentions, 'cap of debating this subject with you. You not only share the liberal scholars biases, but yours runs even deeper than theirs -- your antitheism. Nuff said.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Below is a brief history of the Puranas, which is what I should have referred to earlier.

Puranas (myths and legends) (400-500 After Christ):
The Puranas are the richest collection of mythology in the world. Most of them attained their final form around 500 A.D. but they were passed on as an oral tradition since the time of Krishna (c. 1500 B.C.)And you neglected to include the rest of your link....
6- Puranas (myths and legends) (400-500 After Christ):
The Puranas are the richest collection of mythology in the world. Most of them attained their final form around 500 A.D. but they were passed on as an oral tradition since the time of Krishna (c. 1500 B.C.).

Further....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puranas

"The Puranas (Sanskrit: पुराण purāṇa, "of ancient times") are a group of important Hindu (or Jain and Buddhist) religious texts, notably consisting of narratives of the history of the Universe from creation to destruction, genealogies of the kings, heroes, sages and demigods, and descriptions of Hindu cosmology, philosophy and geography.[1] Puranas usually give prominence to a particular deity and most use an abundance of religious and philosophical concepts. They are usually written in the form of stories related by one person to another.

Vyasa, the narrator of the Mahabharata, is traditionally considered the compiler of the Puranas.[2] However, the earliest written versions date from the time of the Gupta Empire (third-fifth century CE)

And you offered no rebuttal at all to this statement
The initial point I made was in the amazing number of coincidences between the life and story of Jesus. And that of the life and story of Krishna. You proposed that the Krishna story was based on the exodus and Moses. and therefore the Hindu story copied the Moses story to the point of super dooper accurately prophecising the story of Jesus. Heathens doing accurate prophecising?? However the majority of similarities found by our dutiful Quaker scholar was much much closer to Jesus than Moses. How could those heathen Hindus divine that Krishnas' adoptive human father was a carpenter? Or one of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole.
So even if our argument about who predates who is ignored as Moses vs Krishna, you still have to deal with Jesus vs Krishna.

But you are taking a powder instead.

From your link...

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/old_testament_reliability.htm

The goal of this chapter is to show that the Old Testament is not a book of religious myths. It records historically accurate data; therefore, it should be considered historically reliable.

You are really going out on a limb here. Are you saying once again that Amalek really happened. And that God really ordered the killing of "sucklung infants, cows, goats and sheep?" There are so many other incidents in the OT that are clearly undefendable as historically accurate. I wouldn't know where to begin.

I am not trying to falsify Christianity, Instead using a frame of reference that is non-literal. That only enhances faith.

[boxcar]

And you neglected to include the rest of your link....


Further....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puranas

"The Puranas (Sanskrit: पुराण purāṇa, "of ancient times") are a group of important Hindu (or Jain and Buddhist) religious texts, notably consisting of narratives of the history of the Universe from creation to destruction, genealogies of the kings, heroes, sages and demigods, and descriptions of Hindu cosmology, philosophy and geography.[1] Puranas usually give prominence to a particular deity and most use an abundance of religious and philosophical concepts. They are usually written in the form of stories related by one person to another."


And you offered no rebuttal at all to this statement
So even if our argument about who predates who is ignored as Moses vs Krishna, you still have to deal with Jesus vs Krishna.

But you are taking a powder instead.

I certainly did but you ignored it. Obviously, the above mentioned "stories" were were a work in progress over many centuries -- the latest of these stories included some gospel details -- no doubt provided by early Christian missionaries. And these stories were in all probability added relatively soon after the first advent of Christ. This makes perfectly good sense since the Puranas were not completed until sometime between 400 - 500 A.D. As stated earlier, the Gospel of Christ spread far and wide -- and after 70 A.D. with the dispersion of the Jews -- like wild fire. And let's not forget Christ's Great Commission" to his disciples which played no small role in the rapid propagation of his gospel (Mat 28:18-20).


From my link:
The goal of this chapter is to show that the Old Testament is not a book of religious myths. It records historically accurate data; therefore, it should be considered historically reliable.

You are really going out on a limb here. Are you saying once again that Amalek really happened. And that God really ordered the killing of "sucklung infants, cows, goats and sheep?" There are so many other incidents in the OT that are clearly undefendable as historically accurate. I wouldn't know where to begin.

Good, then don't bother because I don't have time to begin with. Besides, since you're into religious myths, it's best you stick with your Hindu writings. Since the Hindus took in a little bit of everything into their theology, their writings would have a broad appeal to many, including you.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Ok boxcar, I've had a chance to go through what you wrote in #42. So I will give you some thoughts on that.

Certainly Jesus and his followers did cite OT passages. I don't find this odd. They were Jews, so the Torah at the very least should have been well known by them, especially Jesus as, as we have agreed, was certainly well educated in it.

If we look at Luke and Matthew, both 4:4, they very much agree in what was said in the desert. Of course Satan also seemed to be somewhat versed in what was said in the OT as well by looks of the exchange. I would say though that the first exchange about turning the rock into bread is a little odd. The Deuteronomy quote seems to me to be saying that man needs both bread and the word of God to live, while these passages seem to imply that the word of God is enough. Further, it would seem to me that his response to the final temptation would have been most appropriate here if indeed Jesus was God or not, for wouldn't turning the rock into bread be testing God either directly or indirectly? As I said, things that are missing that would seem to neeed to be there also are important in studying passages. Mark, 1:13 simply says he was tested, but gives no details. John is silent on this episode.

The John cites you give agree with my point that Jesus was sent by God to deliver his message. He nowhere there claims divinity for himself.

As to the prophecies of the OT then, first I would urge caution. While there is certainly prophecy in many of those books, many things claimed to be prophecy about Jesus are not considered prophecy by OT scholars and in some instances are considered prophecy about something entirely different. For example, the Book of Daniel is not generally considered a prophetic book by Jewish scholars. I think too often people have picked out a small passage that appears to be prophecy concerning Jesus but in fact never was intended to be. I will give a famous example, non-biblical, but instructive all the same.

Now the last age by Cumae's Sibyl sung
has come and gone, and the majestic roll
of circling centuries begins anew:
justice returns, returns old Saturn's reign,
with a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
Only do thou, at the boy's birth in whom
the iron shall cease, the golden race arise,
befriend him, chaste Lucina; 'tis thine own
apollo reigns. And in thy consulate,
this glorious age, O Pollio, shall begin,
and the months enter on their mighty march.
Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain
of our old wickedness, once done away,
shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear.
He shall receive the life of gods, and see
heroes with gods commingling, and himself
be seen of them, and with his father's worth
reign o'er a world at peace. For thee, O boy,
first shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
her childish gifts, the gadding ivy-spray
with foxglove and Egyptian bean-flower mixed,
and laughing-eyed acanthus. Of themselves,
untended, will the she-goats then bring home
their udders swollen with milk, while flocks afield
shall of the monstrous lion have no fear.
Thy very cradle shall pour forth for thee
caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die,
die shall the treacherous poison-plant, and far
and wide Assyrian spices spring. But soon
as thou hast skill to read of heroes' fame,
and of thy father's deeds, and inly learn
what virtue is, the plain by slow degrees
with waving corn-crops shall to golden grow,
from the wild briar shall hang the blushing grape,
and stubborn oaks sweat honey-dew.

In the Middle Ages, this verse was believed to be a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. I'm sure despite the polytheistic references you can see certain parallels. Further, it was written by one Publius Vergilius Maro, or as we know him today, the Roman poet Virgil. Of course Virgil died before Jesus was born and the piece was actually a celebratory poem for the coming birth of the child of Marcus Antonius, Mark Anthony as we know him better. As history would show, Mark Anthony had a daughter and his marriage didn't end too well.

This of course is the danger of removing the context from the quote thus making something seem as if it is a prophecy when indeed it was something else entirely. The prophetic writer would write what he did to give hope to the people that the current tribulations can be endured because something better was coming. Was he inspired by God? In some places religious scholars would say yes. There is agreement that certain prophecies do pertain to the messiah, for instance, other prophecies pertain to other things. The problem is however, that some prophecies did not come to pass. And further, there are some instances in the NT where it is said that a prophecy was fulfilled, but no such prophecy exists in the OT as currently constructed. This makes it very difficult to reconcile the entire practice. For instance, there was a prophecy concering the destruction of Tyre by a certain individual. This did not happen. This makes blanket statements concering prophecy and how it related not only to the writer's times but later times quite difficult. The easiest thing that has been done, is to say that they simply haven't come to pass YET, but the Tyre example can't even pass that.

[boxcar]

Certainly Jesus and his followers did cite OT passages. I don't find this odd. They were Jews, so the Torah at the very least should have been well known by them, especially Jesus as, as we have agreed, was certainly well educated in it.

They cited and quoted.

If we look at Luke and Matthew, both 4:4, they very much agree in what was said in the desert. Of course Satan also seemed to be somewhat versed in what was said in the OT as well by looks of the exchange. I would say though that the first exchange about turning the rock into bread is a little odd. The Deuteronomy quote seems to me to be saying that man needs both bread and the word of God to live, while these passages seem to imply that the word of God is enough.[/quote]

Jesus never denied man's need for food substance. That would be absurd on the face of it. All Jesus said, is that "man shall not live by bread alone...but by every word that proceeds from God's mouth. He's actually saying Man needs both to live! And this harmonizes with the context of the Deut 8:3 passage.

But what Jesus was really saying was that God will always make good on his promises contained in his Word. He will give literal bread in due time, if that is what is needed. God may tarry but he's never late. As we see at the end of the temptation, God sent angels to minister unto Jesus. No doubt food was offered by them and received by Jesus.

But you have failed to address how we should interpret all those cited texts in #42? Should we take Jesus' words literally? Was he actually the recipient of God's words?

Or was Jesus just conveying some general thoughts or ideas that he thought he received from his Father?

Should we take the Deut passage literally? Does man also live by every word that proceeds out of God's mouth? After all, precise words convey precise messages, do they not? Choice of words, therefore, are very important.

Or was Jesus delusional? Did he merely think that God the Father communicated directly with him? Did he think that he had a direct pipeline to the Father? Maybe he was inspired only in the sense a poet, for example, can be inspired to write something due to something he saw, heard or read. Was Jesus inspired in this more esoteric sense, perhaps? Do the cited texts allow this kind of interpretation?

]Further, it would seem to me that his response to the final temptation would have been most appropriate here if indeed Jesus was God or not, for wouldn't turning the rock into bread be testing God either directly or indirectly?

Actually, you're referring to the second temptation. And I do believe that Jesus probably wasn't referring to himself.

As I said, things that are missing that would seem to neeed to be there also are important in studying passages. Mark, 1:13 simply says he was tested, but gives no details. John is silent on this episode.

The fact that there are divergences among the four gospels actually lends to their authenticity. It doesn't detract from their authority. What we have are four writers looking at Jesus from various perspectives which is precisely why each writer stresses something different about him -- John his divinity -- Luke his humanity -- Matthew his Kingship, etc. But remember: Differences don't necessarily equate with contradictions.

The John cites you give agree with my point that Jesus was sent by God to deliver his message. He nowhere there claims divinity for himself..

Nor did I say those passages did. But again, I'd like your take on what those passages and the ones in Matthew and Luke and Deut are teaching about God's "words". (See my questions above.)

As to the prophecies of the OT then, first I would urge caution. While there is certainly prophecy in many of those books, many things claimed to be prophecy about Jesus are not considered prophecy by OT scholars and in some instances are considered prophecy about something entirely different.

Only the liberal scholars believe this because they have big axes to grind. They're very antimiracles, antisupernational, and antiprophetic. Most of these scholars are from the Higher Criticism school.

But for now, let's leave prophecy be. I'd like to focus on how the NT writers interpreted their OT scriptures. After all, as you have said the disciples of Christ were closest to the events, so I think it is a good idea that we take our cue from them -- starting with the non-prophetic portions of scripture.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Box,

You think myths and legends had no effect on the early Christian/Jews living within the greatest civilization of their time? Cosmopolitan, with a huge number of cross cultural and multi-religious influences. Rome had spread throughout the ancient world. Including the near east, Egypt and other parts of Africa. Shipping and trading brought people from all over the ancient world.

You will not accept the myth and legend of Krishna preceding Jesus, although the early stories of Krishna extend back to the times of Moses. Okay dispute the chronology if you wish, but there is a definite influence from ancient Egypt.
Ancient Egyptian Dynasties

Periods and Kingdoms
5550 BC - 3050 BC Pharaohs of the Predynastic Period
Up to 13 kings ruled from Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt during this period who were known as the "Horus-people" or the "Hawk-people"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Go to the page 1/3rd down. I could not format it properly. Here are only 8 coincidences listed out of over 30.

Event Horus Yeshua of Nazareth, a.k.a. Jesus
Conception: By a virgin. There is some doubt about this matter By a virgin. 8
Father: Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Only begotten son of Yehovah (in the form of the Holy Spirit).
Mother: Meri. 9 Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
Foster father: Seb, (Jo-Seph). 9 Joseph.
Foster father's ancestry: Of royal descent. Of royal descent.
Birth location: In a cave. In a cave or stable.
Annunciation: By an angel to Isis, his mother. By an angel to Miriam, his mother. 8
Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star. An unidentified "star in the East."

[boxcar]

Box,

You think myths and legends had no effect on the early Christian/Jews living within the greatest civilization of their time? Cosmopolitan, with a huge number of cross cultural and multi-religious influences. Rome had spread throughout the ancient world. Including the near east, Egypt and other parts of Africa. Shipping and trading brought people from all over the ancient world.

You will not accept the myth and legend of Krishna preceding Jesus, although the early stories of Krishna extend back to the times of Moses. Okay dispute the chronology if you wish, but there is a definite influence from ancient Egypt.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Go to the page 1/3rd down. I could not format it properly. Here are only 8 coincidences listed out of over 30.

Event Horus Yeshua of Nazareth, a.k.a. Jesus
Conception: By a virgin. There is some doubt about this matter By a virgin. 8
Father: Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Only begotten son of Yehovah (in the form of the Holy Spirit).
Mother: Meri. 9 Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
Foster father: Seb, (Jo-Seph). 9 Joseph.
Foster father's ancestry: Of royal descent. Of royal descent.
Birth location: In a cave. In a cave or stable.
Annunciation: By an angel to Isis, his mother. By an angel to Miriam, his mother. 8
Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star. An unidentified "star in the East."

Read and weep. About half the junk these rationalists write isn't even documented! I warned you to get off that wheel of yours before you hurt yourself. :rolleyes:

http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/pagan_copycat_horus.html

Boxcar

[hcap]

The accuracy of your sources may be in question. You also linked to.......

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writ...reliability.htm

Where the historical events in the OT are considered accurate and factual

"Christian apologetics". The word apology is predominant here. So be it.
But even if only a small portion of the coincidences I linked to between Jesus and Horus are correct, it would demonstrate my point.

From The Egyptian book of The Dead. Directly. Goes back to before Moses From Egyptian papyrus.

http://www.touregypt.net/bod124.htm

"Homage to you, O ye who dwell in your Hall of Maati, who have nothing false in your bodies, who live upon Truth, who feed yourselves upon Truth in the presence of Horus who dwelleth in his Disk, deliver ye me from Beba, who feedeth upon the livers of the great ones on the day of the Great Judgment. Grant ye that I may come before you, for I have not committed sin, I have done no act of deceit, I have done no evil thing, and I have not borne [false] witness; therefore let nothing [evil] be done to me. I have lived upon truth, I have fed upon truth, I have performed the ordinances of men, and the things which gratify the gods. I have propitiated the god by doing his will, I have given bread to the hungry man, and water to him that was athirst, and apparel to the naked man, and a ferry-boat to him that had no boat. I have made propitiatory offerings and given cakes to the gods, and the "things which appear at the word" to the Spirits. Deliver then ye me, protect then ye me, and make ye no report against me in the presence [of the Great God]. I am pure in respect of my mouth, and I am clean in respect of my hands, therefore let it be said unto me by those who shall behold me: "Come in peace, Come in peace." For I have heard that great word which the Sahu spake to the CAT, in the House of Hapt-ra. I have borne witness to Her-f-ha-f, and he hath given a decision [concerning me]. I have seen the things over which the Persea tree which is in Rasta, spreadeth its branches. I have made petitions to the gods, [and I] know the things [which appertain to] their bodies. I have come, travelling a long road, to bear righteous testimony, and to set the Balance upon its supports within Aukert.

Also see...

http://books.google.com/books?id=JPRW0wSduIsC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=I+am+the+possessor+of+bread+in+Anu.+I+have+brea d+in+heaven+with+Ra&source=web&ots=g5NPICPUtL&sig=mf_kAl-Jsfnij9XK49VPRGuk8hg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Lost Light
By Alvin Boyd Kuhn Page 235

[OTM Al]

I will attempt to pick through this. You ask many questions and sometimes its quite difficult to determine which ar rhetorical and which you really seek the answer for.

They cited and quoted.
Jesus never denied man's need for food substance. That would be absurd on the face of it. All Jesus said, is that "man shall not live by bread alone...but by every word that proceeds from God's mouth. He's actually saying Man needs both to live! And this harmonizes with the context of the Deut 8:3 passage.

Yes, and that would explain why it was used rather than Jesus saying "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass" instead. The books are about religion, therefore, religious examples from previous wroks should be expected to be used

But what Jesus was really saying was that God will always make good on his promises contained in his Word. He will give literal bread in due time, if that is what is needed. God may tarry but he's never late. As we see at the end of the temptation, God sent angels to minister unto Jesus. No doubt food was offered by them and received by Jesus.

Not exactly the way I read it. I would say that it means that there are two parts to man, the physical and spiritual. The Romans, for example, captured this idea in two very similar words, anima and amimus, the first being the spirit, the second the physical mind. To me it says to truely live, both these aspects must be nourished. I see nothing here about promises being made.

But you have failed to address how we should interpret all those cited texts in #42? Should we take Jesus' words literally? Was he actually the recipient of God's words?

Or was Jesus just conveying some general thoughts or ideas that he thought he received from his Father?

Should we take the Deut passage literally? Does man also live by every word that proceeds out of God's mouth? After all, precise words convey precise messages, do they not? Choice of words, therefore, are very important.

Or was Jesus delusional? Did he merely think that God the Father communicated directly with him? Did he think that he had a direct pipeline to the Father? Maybe he was inspired only in the sense a poet, for example, can be inspired to write something due to something he saw, heard or read. Was Jesus inspired in this more esoteric sense, perhaps? Do the cited texts allow this kind of interpretation?.

The exact words I don't feel are nearly as important as the message. Further, if you want precise meaning, then you would have to be able to understand what the actual words meant in the original languages as spoken at the time of the writing. Once words are translated, precise meanings are lost. Beyond this, there are differences in the oldest of NT texts that still survive. For example, there are many copies of Mark some dating back to as early as the 10th century still in existance. None of these manuscripts are exactly the same. Some differ in very minor ways and some have some big differences, so how can we say that we can attribute an absolute precise meaning to each word when the Mark we now read was reconstructed from these manuscripts by the best guess of the biblical scholars?

So should we take things literally? In many cases no. Do I take Mat. & Lk 4:4 literally? No. No one else was there to observe what happened. Perhaps it comes from a lesson Jesus taught his Apostles. Perhaps it was originally in the form of a parable. It regardless was a lesson being taught. The lesson is the important part. Many books of the Bible are meant to instruct. The lesson is learned from the message far better than from a literal reading, which could, depending on what sort of writing is being done, give precisely the opposite meaning to what the writer intended. As to the particular example of Deut., my interpretation is above.

As to the John, the message was divine. To me that seems clear in the passages you cite. That doesn't mean that something holy is contained in each and every word. It is the whole that mattered. The idea.


The fact that there are divergences among the four gospels actually lends to their authenticity. It doesn't detract from their authority. What we have are four writers looking at Jesus from various perspectives which is precisely why each writer stresses something different about him -- John his divinity -- Luke his humanity -- Matthew his Kingship, etc. But remember: Differences don't necessarily equate with contradictions.

I agree that differences do not equate with contradiction. Differences are differences. Each of the 4 "Official" gospels were written in different places at different times, for different people and thus would contain different information so as to address the issues at hand for the audience. Divergences don't neccessarily lead to authenticity. Depends what kind of divergence one is talking about. But we can rest assurred that these 4 are authentic in the sense that they weren't ginned up a few hundered years later. No, they certainly seem to conform to late 1st century writing of the times. I think this thematic idea that you give for each is a bit of an oversimplification of the situation in which they were written, but certainly it does seem that there was intent of the writers to give focus to these issues. But contadictions are contradictions as well and they are there. I personally have no problem with it, but that is because I don't require a lieteral perfection to the work.

Only the liberal scholars believe this because they have big axes to grind. They're very antimiracles, antisupernational, and antiprophetic. Most of these scholars are from the Higher Criticism school. But for now, let's leave prophecy be. I'd like to focus on how the NT writers interpreted their OT scriptures. After all, as you have said the disciples of Christ were closest to the events, so I think it is a good idea that we take our cue from them -- starting with the non-prophetic portions of scripture.

Boxcar

I disagree. There are things that scholars have agreed on no matter what stripe over the last 3000 years. Some of these things were not fulfilled, but as you say, let's leave prophecy be for the time being. So, give some more examples of what you want to talk of. Though you do misquote me a bit, in that I said the disciples of Jesus were closer to the events surrounding the movement he started (or at least intended that), they were, as you say, chronologically closer to OT events as well.

[boxcar]

Not exactly the way I read it. I would say that it means that there are two parts to man, the physical and spiritual. The Romans, for example, captured this idea in two very similar words, anima and amimus, the first being the spirit, the second the physical mind. To me it says to truely live, both these aspects must be nourished. I see nothing here about promises being made.

Of course, there are two parts to man -- Man consists of body and soul -- both need to be nurtured. Even in the Deut 8:3 text, in the larger context, we read that God fed the Israelites with mana from heaven -- to give substanance to their bodies.

While "promises" aren't specifically mentioned in the first temptation, it's truly impossible to separate the thousands of promises (made both to the children of God and to the wicked!) from the Word of God because they're such an integral part of it. These promises are weaved throughout the fabric of all scripture -- from cover to cover. That's all I'm saying.

Further, if there were no messianic promises made in the Second Temptation, then why did Satan consider Ps 91:11-12 to pertain to Christ -- the Messiah!? It's also noteworthy that Jesus did not correct Satan's messianic application of this Psalm. Jesus' beef with the Tempter was that he misused scripture in his attempt to test God, and how he very cleverly did this was by omitting a key phrase in v. 11, i.e. "...to guard You in all your ways." This is precisely why Jesus responded the way he did. If Jesus had succumb to this temptation, he would have lacked faith in the very broad promise contained in this phrase and, therefore, would have sinned. ("To guard you in all your ways" -- included the spiritual/moral.)

And once again, we can see at the end of Christ's temptations that God made good on his promise contained in the above phrase because he sent angles to minister to Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
But you have failed to address how we should interpret all those cited texts in #42? Should we take Jesus' words literally? Was he actually the recipient of God's words?

Or was Jesus just conveying some general thoughts or ideas that he thought he received from his Father?

Should we take the Deut passage literally? Does man also live by every word that proceeds out of God's mouth? After all, precise words convey precise messages, do they not? Choice of words, therefore, are very important.

Or was Jesus delusional? Did he merely think that God the Father communicated directly with him? Did he think that he had a direct pipeline to the Father? Maybe he was inspired only in the sense a poet, for example, can be inspired to write something due to something he saw, heard or read. Was Jesus inspired in this more esoteric sense, perhaps? Do the cited texts allow this kind of interpretation?.


The exact words I don't feel are nearly as important as the message.

Okay...I already know what you "feel". What I'm asking you is if all the texts that I cited in #42 allow for this type of interpretation? Does it allow you to "feel" this way? Did Jesus get hung up with this "word" issue? Was he mistaken? What? Or was this Temptation account made up by the "redactors" in order to embellish their messianic tale? Did they attribute words to Christ that he never uttered?

Further, if you want precise meaning, then you would have to be able to understand what the actual words meant in the original languages as spoken at the time of the writing. Once words are translated, precise meanings are lost. Beyond this, there are differences in the oldest of NT texts that still survive.

Your argument won't fly for two reasons. First you're using circular reasoning. The implication is that since God did not superintend any part of the revelation or preservation of scripture, and since the interpreters of scripture are not supernaturally guided to understand its contents, then it stands to reason that...(see your quote above). This, sir, is circular reasoning!

Secondly, your argument won't fly due to what scripture itself teaches on this important matter (cf. 1Cor 2:10-16; Mat 11:25-27; 16:17; Jn 3:3/1Pet 1:3; Rom 8:32; 1Jn 2:27; 5:20, etc.) These kinds of passages run contrary to the natural dependency on raw intellect, whims, intuition, etc.
The understanding of spiritual truth ultimately depends upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the believer and the disposition of the heart of the interpreter. The understanding of the gospel message is not merely an intellectual exercise. We are told in the above Corinthians passage that the "natural man" (the unbeliever) cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually appraised. It doesn't say that he cannot understand them because of all the "textual difficulties" in the manuscripts, with various translations, etc!


For example, there are many copies of Mark some dating back to as early as the 10th century still in existance. None of these manuscripts are exactly the same. Some differ in very minor ways and some have some big differences, so how can we say that we can attribute an absolute precise meaning to each word when the Mark we now read was reconstructed from these manuscripts by the best guess of the biblical scholars?

Because God superintended the preservation of his Word (Jer 36:28-32Mat 24:35, 36; Deut 4:2; Dan 12:4, 9; Jn 14:26; Rev 22:18-19, etc. Again, you're operating under the presupposition that God has played no role whatsoever in preserving his word. You're denying the possibility of supernatural intervention.

So should we take things literally? In many cases no. Do I take Mat. & Lk 4:4 literally? No. No one else was there to observe what happened.

So what!? No one was around to observe Gen 1:1 either. Neither was anyone around to observe the "big bang" or whatever other scientific theory someone wishes to postulate with respect to the origins of the universe. But relative to the Temptation accounts, for example, Jesus told his disciples he would reveal numerous things to them, through the Holy Spirit, that they were not able to bear at the time of his first advent (Jn 16:12-16.)

But if you still believe that the Temptation accounts are fictional, mythical or whatever -- then did Moses get Deut 8:3 wrong? Did Moses grossly exaggerate the point he made?

As to the John, the message was divine. To me that seems clear in the passages you cite. That doesn't mean that something holy is contained in each and every word. It is the whole that mattered. The idea.

Elaborate, please: What exactly do you mean in your first sentence? The "message was divine" but the messenger wasn't? I'd like to understand in what sense you think it was "divine".

Also, your discounting of the importance of words begs the question big time. Messages consist of words. A clear message demands precise words. For example, did not Jesus say in that Sermon on the Mount that so many infidels are fond of?:

Matt 5:18
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

And I believe the preceding verse allows for the broad interpretation of the term "Law" to mean the entire OT. (The Jews sometimes used this term in the more narrow sense to mean just the Pentateuch or in the broader sense to include the Law, Prophets and Psalms -- in other words, the entire OT.) But again, the point of v. 18 is that Jesus attached a great deal of importance to words, and this makes perfectly good sense. Did Jesus get this wrong, too?

I agree that differences do not equate with contradiction. Differences are differences.... But contadictions are contradictions as well and they are there. I personally have no problem with it, but that is because I don't require a lieteral perfection to the work.

Well, perhaps down the road, we'll take a look at a handful of your alleged contradictions.

Meanwhile, this is already too long.

Boxcar

[hcap]

More similarities. Egypt and Christianity.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/egypt.html

Egyptian & Old Testament Scriptural Correspondences

"How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures."
- Psalm 104:24

"How manifold are thy works!
They are hidden before men
Oh sole God, beside whom
there is no other.
Thou didst create earth
according to thy heart."
-Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton) from Rosicrucian Question and Answers, p. 55

"The word 'heart' may mean either 'pleasure' or 'understanding' here."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

"The idea of messages materializing out of marks on stone amazed ordinary people and the scribes who could make 'stone talk' were considered to be holders of great magic. This is easily appreciated when one realizes that the Egyptians called hieroglyphics 'the Words of the God', a term that would often be repeated throughout the Bible."
- Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

Five of the Ten Commandments delivered from Mount Sinai can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain....Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery...Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor..."
- Exodus 20: 7-16

'Not have I despised god...Not have I killed...Not have I fornicated...Not have I despoiled the thing of the god...not have I defiled the wife of a man...Not have I cursed god...Not have I borne false witness'.
- Egyptian Book of the Dead

"...Chapter CXXV of the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead...consisted on a series of negative confessions that the soul of the deceased was obliged to make before Thoth in his capacity as divine judge and scribe.
"...A rubric to one part of the Book of the Dead...stated: This chapter was found on an alabaster brick, under the feet of the Majesty of this venerable place, the God Thoth, and it was written by the God himself'...The Ark of the Covenant had frequently been referred to in the Bible as the 'footstool of God' (e.g. I Chronicles 28:2) and...it contained the stone Tablets of the Law written by Yahweh's own finger."
- Graham Hancock, The Sign and the Seal

"...In Egypt ritual was of central importance;...there was a place for it in every Egyptian settlement; and... personal piety was closely connected with the temple and its images...God's command was not made explicit but was confined to the establishing of maat [justice], so that there was no place in Egyptian religious literature for that Law which played so great a role in Israel...The teachings concerned with right conduct and maat as its criterion were based expressly upon human experience, and did not claim to be the word of God."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you."
- Deuteronomy 4:2

"Take no word away, and add nothing thereto and put not one thing in the place of another."
- Instruction of Ptah-hotep

There is the possibility "that this sentence found its way to Palestine together with Egyptian wisdom literature. There it may have led to the formulation, in an admittedly most effective way, of the central concern of a scriptural religion: the safeguarding of the text against omissions, additions or alterations."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

Psalm 104 may have been derived from the Egyptian "Hymn to Aton".

"These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season."
- Psalms 104:27 (King James Bible)

"These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time."
- Psalms 104:27 (New International Bible)

"Thy enemy is smitten in his time."
- Inscription in the Temple of Ramses III at Karnak Amon

"Somebody is said to be 'in his time' (the time ordained for him); something occurs 'in its time' (the time provided for it or suited to it)....In the Old Testament...we hear that something is 'in due season' or where certain events have their particular 'time' (Koheleth 3, 1-8)."
"So far as persons are concerned, it can be said of a god or of a man that he is 'in his time'. The best known of all such statements are no doubt the parallels drawn between the deities and Ramses II, the hero of the poem commemorating the battle he fought at Kadesh. On the First Pylon at Luxor we are told that he was like Seth 'in his time'. Or the king himself cries out: 'I am as Baal in his time', and finally he returns triumphantly 'as my father Month in his time'."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

"Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips. That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. Have I not written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"
- Proverbs 22:21

There are "the familiar parallels between Egyptian and Israelite wisdom literature [Proverbs 22:17-23:11] which in general may be regarded as a gift of Egypt....For instance, the Egyptian (and Mesopotamian) lists of knowledge, which were the basis of the proverbs which King Solomon spoke on all manner of things, ranging from the cedar to the hysop, or the various Egyptian influences upon the mood, concepts and diction of the so-called 'preacher of Solomon' (Koheleth)."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

In Proverbs 22:17-23:11, "every proverb but one can be paralleled in The Instruction of Amen-em-Opet. In addition the book as a whole shows many affinities with other well-known Egyptian wisdom books and with various Mesopotamian wisdom texts. (Recent studies have also disclosed a large Phoenician influence on the book)."
- Robert C. Denton in "The Proverbs", Wisdom, Literature and Poetry

Note: "Not until c. 200 BC is a Hebrew author known to us by name in surviving texts: Jesus ben Sirach, author of our Bibles' Ecclesiaticus [a book of wisdom]."
- Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version

"My love is a cluster of henna flowers among the vines of En-Gedi'."
- Song of Songs 1:14

"I belong to you like this plot of ground planted with flowers and sweet smelling herbs."
- Egyptian love song

"In both the Egyptian songs and the Song of Songs, the lovers call each other brother and sister, and there are references in both to the sweet speech of the beloved and to the luxuries of the time."
- -Great Events of Bible Times

"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
- Isaiah

"Gaze here, and drink and be merry; for when you die, such will you be."
- Miscelanea Gregoriana

According to the observations of the Greek historian Herodotus, "when the Egyptians are seated at a banquet, he writes, they pass around a deceased person in a container (i.e. no doubt a mummy-like statuette) so as to remind themselves of death and to encourage each other to enjoy life..."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

Note the rebuke in the New Testament for this attitude:

"And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou, fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee [tonight, you die]; then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?"
- Luke 12:18

Compare also the following texts from the New Kingdom of Egypt:

"Prepare not thyself on this day for tomorrow ere it be come. Is not[?] yesterday like today upon the hands of God?"
- Wisdom text from early Rameside period (Cerny and Gardiner, Hieratic Ostraca)

"The years are in his hand."
- Hymn to Amon-Re (Papyrus, Berlin 3049, XIII, 2)

[OTM Al]

Okay...I already know what you "feel". What I'm asking you is if all the texts that I cited in #42 allow for this type of interpretation? Does it allow you to "feel" this way? Did Jesus get hung up with this "word" issue? Was he mistaken? What? Or was this Temptation account made up by the "redactors" in order to embellish their messianic tale? Did they attribute words to Christ that he never uttered?

First off, you fix on the word "word". You seem to interpret this as meaning the exact literal words being used. I don't read Greek (yet) but in looking at the Latin translation, a word meaning "word" is never used. The word "Loquor" "I say" or "I speak" is used along with one instance of "dixit" which is the perfect tense from "dico" "I say"

John 7:17 Speaks only of the message
John 8:26-28 Jesus again says he only speaks the message given to him
John 12:50 The same

I'm not sure why you keep going back to this. I agreed before that Jesus brought God's message. I will not agree that the words that you read in an English translation in 2008 are the exact words that Jesus spoke. I will not even agree that Jesus said precisely everything that he is attributed to say. I believe the things written that he said express the intent of what he said, but not the precise words in all instances. And I don't think there is a single thing wrong with that.

Your argument won't fly for two reasons. First you're using circular reasoning. The implication is that since God did not superintend any part of the revelation or preservation of scripture, and since the interpreters of scripture are not supernaturally guided to understand its contents, then it stands to reason that...(see your quote above). This, sir, is circular reasoning!

Secondly, your argument won't fly due to what scripture itself teaches on this important matter (cf. 1Cor 2:10-16; Mat 11:25-27; 16:17; Jn 3:3/1Pet 1:3; Rom 8:32; 1Jn 2:27; 5:20, etc.) These kinds of passages run contrary to the natural dependency on raw intellect, whims, intuition, etc.
The understanding of spiritual truth ultimately depends upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the believer and the disposition of the heart of the interpreter. The understanding of the gospel message is not merely an intellectual exercise. We are told in the above Corinthians passage that the "natural man" (the unbeliever) cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually appraised. It doesn't say that he cannot understand them because of all the "textual difficulties" in the manuscripts, with various translations, etc!?

There is nothing circular in my reasoning. There are differences in the manuscripts. This is a fact. Circular reasoning is to say "Because God superintended the writings, the writings are perfect and the because the writings are perfect, God superintended them". I say they are not perfect. I say this is clear because what we have now is the result of compromise by Biblical scholars on how best to read what we have from several divergant texts. You can say God superintended that too if you want, but that still does not explain where God was as the texts became divergant.


So what!? No one was around to observe Gen 1:1 either. Neither was anyone around to observe the "big bang" or whatever other scientific theory someone wishes to postulate with respect to the origins of the universe. But relative to the Temptation accounts, for example, Jesus told his disciples he would reveal numerous things to them, through the Holy Spirit, that they were not able to bear at the time of his first advent (Jn 16:12-16.) !

The Genesis story is just that. Man's best understanding at the time of how the universe was created. However, the passage we are considering contains actual quotes. You claim it to be a word for word account of exactly what happened. I say it is not. I say it has the look of a lesson Jesus taught. If it was of such great impotance, why did Mark's author not recount this exchange as well? Why did John's author ignore it entirely? How dare they edit the very words of God? Because they understood it as a lesson and its lesson was not germane to the issues those two authors were addressing.

But if you still believe that the Temptation accounts are fictional, mythical or whatever -- then did Moses get Deut 8:3 wrong? Did Moses grossly exaggerate the point he made?

Non sequitur. Deut. 8:3 came first. How could this be wrong based on an event that occured 1000 years later? Deut. was being quoted here as part of the lesson being taught.

Elaborate, please: What exactly do you mean in your first sentence? The "message was divine" but the messenger wasn't? I'd like to understand in what sense you think it was "divine".

John 12:50 to use one of your many examples since it is on one of my screens right now.

Also, your discounting of the importance of words begs the question big time. Messages consist of words. A clear message demands precise words. For example, did not Jesus say in that Sermon on the Mount that so many infidels are fond of?:

Matt 5:18
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

And I believe the preceding verse allows for the broad interpretation of the term "Law" to mean the entire OT. (The Jews sometimes used this term in the more narrow sense to mean just the Pentateuch or in the broader sense to include the Law, Prophets and Psalms -- in other words, the entire OT.) But again, the point of v. 18 is that Jesus attached a great deal of importance to words, and this makes perfectly good sense. Did Jesus get this wrong, too?"

Interesting passage. I look at it and think is this a continuation of the previous verse in which he was discussing the writings of the prophets (not the entire OT to a Jewish person by the way would be considered the law) or is he speaking of the commandments he is about to do some updating on? Maybe both. I judge the language to be a nice literary flourish in the context of what he is saying though. In the previous verse he is saying he is not there to destroy the law. Thus in this verse he gives a very physical example. He is so not going to destroy the old laws that he will not even have a printed letter of it changed. Very vivid description.

[boxcar]

'cap, what part of the phrase "oral tradition", don't you understand? Of course there's going to be similaraties between the inspired Word of God and uninspired pagan writings. For example, do you really think that the first messianic promise made to Eve in Gen 3:15 (as but one example) through Satan was kept a big secret? That Eve didn't pass on that promise to each of her children, and that her children didn't pass it on to theirs and so on down the line? Certainly, oral tradition became increasingly corrupt with each succeeding generation due to the sinfulness of man's heart -- due to man's sin nature. All this corruption produced the myths and fables we have on record. What started out as truths soon evolved into falsehoods (i.e. some truth mixed with a lot error) among all the peoples in the various cultures around the world. But the difference between the Holy Scriptures and other ancient writings is that the bible claims throughout that its contents are truth, that they were inspired by the one true God who cannot lie, etc.

Now...since you seem to think that all these myths are right on par with the scriptures -- because there are just too many coincidences, I'm including a link to a site that I am inviting you to read.

As you may know the bible contains numerous references to various numbers, e.g. the numbers 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, etc -- and multiples thereof, such as the 7 Days of Creation, the 70 Weeks in Daniel, the 40 Years in the Wilderness, the 144 Witnesses in Revelations, the 1,000 year Kingdom, etc. Careful study of scripture and how it uses these numbers has revealed what the symbolism behind them means. For example, the number 7 denotes Perfection. The number 10 denotes Completeness or Fullness, etc., etc.

You may also know that the each letter in the Greek and Hebrew alphabets has a numeric value assigned to it.

Back in 1890 a Russian immigrant and Harvard graduate by the name of Ivan Panin discovered that scripture very clearly has a mathematical design to it. In fact this mathematician was so intrigued by this phenomenon that he devoted his entire life to the study of it and wrote more than 43,000 pages of analysis of his findings.

Further, he also challenged anyone and everyone publicly in a newspaper to either refute his findings or come up with a reasonable explanation for how these mathematical designs could have possibly occurred apart from divine inspiration of the scriptures.

I would invite you to start reading by clicking on the very first link contained in the linked page below, i.e. "Letter to the New York Sun".

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/panindx.htm

I would be curious to know from you whether Panin's findings were simply the Mother of All Coincidences or whether there has to be something more behind them. And if the latter, what?

Boxcar
P.S. Big Al, I haven't forgotten about you. Will get back to your latest post at my first opportunity. At the moment, I'm a busy camper.


The accuracy of your sources may be in question. You also linked to.......

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writ...reliability.htm

Where the historical events in the OT are considered accurate and factual

"Christian apologetics". The word apology is predominant here. So be it.
But even if only a small portion of the coincidences I linked to between Jesus and Horus are correct, it would demonstrate my point.

From The Egyptian book of The Dead. Directly. Goes back to before Moses From Egyptian papyrus.

http://www.touregypt.net/bod124.htm

"Homage to you, O ye who dwell in your Hall of Maati, who have nothing false in your bodies, who live upon Truth, who feed yourselves upon Truth in the presence of Horus who dwelleth in his Disk, deliver ye me from Beba, who feedeth upon the livers of the great ones on the day of the Great Judgment. Grant ye that I may come before you, for I have not committed sin, I have done no act of deceit, I have done no evil thing, and I have not borne [false] witness; therefore let nothing [evil] be done to me. I have lived upon truth, I have fed upon truth, I have performed the ordinances of men, and the things which gratify the gods. I have propitiated the god by doing his will, I have given bread to the hungry man, and water to him that was athirst, and apparel to the naked man, and a ferry-boat to him that had no boat. I have made propitiatory offerings and given cakes to the gods, and the "things which appear at the word" to the Spirits. Deliver then ye me, protect then ye me, and make ye no report against me in the presence [of the Great God]. I am pure in respect of my mouth, and I am clean in respect of my hands, therefore let it be said unto me by those who shall behold me: "Come in peace, Come in peace." For I have heard that great word which the Sahu spake to the CAT, in the House of Hapt-ra. I have borne witness to Her-f-ha-f, and he hath given a decision [concerning me]. I have seen the things over which the Persea tree which is in Rasta, spreadeth its branches. I have made petitions to the gods, [and I] know the things [which appertain to] their bodies. I have come, travelling a long road, to bear righteous testimony, and to set the Balance upon its supports within Aukert.

Also see...

http://books.google.com/books?id=JPRW0wSduIsC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=I+am+the+possessor+of+bread+in+Anu.+I+have+brea d+in+heaven+with+Ra&source=web&ots=g5NPICPUtL&sig=mf_kAl-Jsfnij9XK49VPRGuk8hg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Lost Light
By Alvin Boyd Kuhn Page 235

[hcap]

Too much to respond to now. Not much time.

The first part of your post has some interesting points, unfortunately the second part is very similar to "bible code" theories
Mathematically very weak.

More Tuesday or Wednesday. Why don't you and Al continue.
Meanwhile.......

Mathematicians' Statement on the Bible Codes

http://www.math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html

BTW. To really conclusively show Bible codes work, give me an example GOING FORWARD. Otherwise reboarding is evident.

[boxcar]

Too much to respond to now. Not much time.

The first part of your post has some interesting points, unfortunately the second part is very similar to "bible code" theories
Mathematically very weak.

Actually, it's not similar at all. I'm not talking about "codes", as is in some deep, dark, mystical mysteries that are hidden within pages of scripture. That's NOT what I'm talking about -- neither was Panin. The bible uses numbers throughout and each number or its multiple means something specific -- which the three-fold contexts of the ultimately reveal. As stated previously, the number 7 denotes Perfection. The number 10 denotes Completeness or Fullness. The number 4 denotes Material Completeness. The number 3 is the first number that represents a geometrical figure.

The Number Three is a very unique and distinguished number. 3 represents that which is solid, real, complete, substantial, entire and perfect. And only the triune God possesses all these qualities!

With respect to this Number Three, you might recall that a few years back I wrote a series of posts that demonstrated how the most basic components of the Universe (Time, Space and Matter) and their structures and the structures of each of their sub-components, in turn, reflected the Creator --the Trinity -- the TriUnity of the Godhead. But other very important realities reflect the Trinity also, such as the Three Attributes of God are Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence. The Three Persons in grammar express and include all the possible human relationships. Thought, Word and Deed are the sum of human capability. The simplest proposition requires Subject, Predicate and Copula. The simplest argument requires Major Premise, Minor Premise and Conclusion. The three Material Kingdoms here on Earth are Animal, Vegetable and Mineral, etc., etc. I could go on with many other realities as well, but time won't permit -- plus nearly everyone would simply chalk all these things up to mere coincidences. (After all, most in Jesus' day who witnessed his signs, wonders and miracles still refused to believe!) But I digress...The main point, however, to Panin's research (and even others who have followed in his footsteps) was the unbelievable harmony and consistency between the symbolism of certain numbers and the contexts of the passages in which those numbers are found. No deep, dark foreboding secret codes that require keys to unlock their meanings.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Okay...I already know what you "feel". What I'm asking you is if all the texts that I cited in #42 allow for this type of interpretation? Does it allow you to "feel" this way? Did Jesus get hung up with this "word" issue? Was he mistaken? What? Or was this Temptation account made up by the "redactors" in order to embellish their messianic tale? Did they attribute words to Christ that he never uttered?

First off, you fix on the word "word". You seem to interpret this as meaning the exact literal words being used. I don't read Greek (yet) but in looking at the Latin translation, a word meaning "word" is never used. The word "Loquor" "I say" or "I speak" is used along with one instance of "dixit" which is the perfect tense from "dico" "I say"

Okay...so when Jesus was "saying", did he speak words? Did he speak in sentences? Or were his utterances unintelligible?

And we should stick to the original languages when you want to explore meanings of words . The Latin Vulgate itself is a translation from the Koine Greek. The three original languages of scripture are Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic.

John 7:17 Speaks only of the message
John 8:26-28 Jesus again says he only speaks the message given to him
John 12:50 The same

Don't you see that your "message" argument begs the question big time because messages consist of words? Now, if you can demonstrate from scripture that Jesus received his "messages" from the Father in some form other than words, then we have a different situation. Can you do this?

Since John MacArthur put this so well, permit me to use his words:

So when you're talking about the Bible you're not talking about some general ideas from God, you're talking about every word of God is pure. Not just floating ideas. You can't convey ideas without words. You might as well talk about a tune without notes, or a sun without light, or a sum without figures, or geology without rocks, or anthropology without men, or melody without music as to talk about thoughts without words.

He could have just as well added or "messages without words"!

Let's say Joe's mom calls him on the job because she wants him to pick a couple of items up from the store on his way home. But Joe isn't available to come to the phone, so the receptionist takes the mother's message. The mother tells her that she'd like Joe to pick up 3 pounds of Delicious apples and a large bottle of the spicy Heinz ketchup. Now, when Joe comes in from the shop and gets ready to call it day, the receptionist catches him on the way out and gives him "the message" from his mom. But all she tells Joe is that his mom wants him to pick up a few pounds of apples and a bottle of ketchup. So, while the gist of the mother's message was related to Joe, nonetheless the important details were omitted by the messenger. The exact number of pounds, the type of apples and, the size ketchup bottle and the brand -- are all M.I.A. So, when Joe gets home with not enough apples, the wrong type of apple and the wrong brand and flavor of ketchup, Mom isn't too happy because Joe didn't get what she really wanted. Why? Because the receptionist was sloppy in conveying the exact message. She omitted a lot of necessary words.

Here's how John 12:50 reads in my NASB -- and believe me, I can give you readings from several different translations, and they all essentially and substantially are in agreement:

John 12:50
50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me." (emphasis mine)
NASB

A text like this doesn't leave any wiggle room for sloppy or poorly constructed messages, most especially since the Father's commandment is eternal life, i.e. spiritual life. There's nothing more important in this world than obedience to the gospel message. What Jesus told his disciples was that he's relaying the exact message to them that his Father has given. He's not omitting anything or adding anything. Jesus was a faithful "receptionist" -- much better than the one on Joe's job.

You said earlier that you felt the message was "divine". I asked: How? In what sense was it divine? Was this the best answer you could come up with:?

John 12:50 to use one of your many examples since it is on one of my screens right now.

In today's world if someone tell us that he converses with God -- that God speaks to him -- that God relays messages to him, etc. -- we very quickly nominate him as a prime candidate for the Loony Tunes Farm. We usually don't think that such people are relaying "divine" messages to us, do we? We really don't take such people seriously, do we? So...once again, in what sense was Jesus' message "divine"? Did Jesus have a direct pipeline to the Father? Did the Father actually communicate to Jesus directly? Or did Jesus only imagine he did? Or did the gospel writers make this whole communication thing up too, in order to embellish the messianic myth, fable, fairytale, story or whatever you want to call it?

Now, you are aware that the religious establishment of Jesus' day essentially believed that Jesus was demonized (Jn 7:20; 8:48-52) and insane (Jn 10:20)? I'm curious as to how you have escaped this conclusion. What makes you think that this fella Jesus wasn't a whackjob? After all, he did make some very incredible and lofty claims, including claims about his own divinity -- notwithstanding your assertions to the contrary. It's obvious from scripture that the religious elite of Jesus' day understood him very differently than you do -- which is kind of amazing since you believe that putting yourself into the shoes of the people and culture of the times (in a manner of speaking) is very important.

As far as Mat 4:4 and Lk 4:4 are in essential agreement with the above Jn 12:50 text. At this point, whether or not there was an actual Temptation of Christ or whether that was piece of fiction stuck in by Luke and Matthew is immaterial to this argument because if these two did stuff words in Christ's mouth, nonetheless in order to rebuke Satan in their little piece of fiction, they used a text out of Deuteronomy to do it. This is precisely why my question to you about Deut 8:3 was not a non sequitur! The basis for the rebuke for this particular temptation came out of this OT passage. Moses and Jesus were both prophets. Moses and Jesus both claimed to have received revelation from God. Moses' words in this OT passage certainly don't contradict what Jesus is saying in Jn 12:50. And Moses' words were spot on with what Jesus taught in Mat 5:18:

Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. (emphasis mine)
NASB

Right here Jesus, in his own inimitable and succinct fashion, put his stamp of approval and authority on the OT scriptures and confirmed to all the listeners of his Sermon that the OT scriptures were all about him. He made this very clear -- I...came to fulfill. That's a pretty grandiose claim, don't you think? Or did the gospel writers stick more words into Jesus' mouth? But then again, did not John and Jesus say that Moses and all the other Prophets wrote of him (Jn 1:45; 5:46; LK 24:27)?

Your take on this passage is pretty weak, with all due respect. As you correctly stated, though, v. 18 certainly flows from the preceding verse. But what you failed to tell me how Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Or did he? Or was this just an empty, boastful claim by Jesus?


I'm not sure why you keep going back to this. I agreed before that Jesus brought God's message. I will not agree that the words that you read in an English translation in 2008 are the exact words that Jesus spoke.

Never claimed they were. That's ridiculous. But the words as they were recorded at the time were the exact words. And the translations we have are based on extant copies of manuscripts in the original languages that overall are of very high quality. And scripture teaches that God does preserve his words. So, it wasn't a big deal for God to superintend the preservation process in such a manner as to greatly mitigate translation problems.


I will not even agree that Jesus said precisely everything that he is attributed to say. I believe the things written that he said express the intent of what he said, but not the precise words in all instances. And I don't think there is a single thing wrong with that.

There's a lot wrong with that! Because third parties could have misinterpreted, misunderstood or misread his "intent". Fallible human beings, left to their own devices, very often make these kinds of mistakes. What we'd wind up with is a very garbled, confused "message". We'd be left with mere fallible human opinions of wanna-be mind readers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Your argument won't fly for two reasons. First you're using circular reasoning. The implication is that since God did not superintend any part of the revelation or preservation of scripture, and since the interpreters of scripture are not supernaturally guided to understand its contents, then it stands to reason that...(see your quote above). This, sir, is circular reasoning!

Secondly, your argument won't fly due to what scripture itself teaches on this important matter (cf. 1Cor 2:10-16; Mat 11:25-27; 16:17; Jn 3:3/1Pet 1:3; Rom 8:32; 1Jn 2:27; 5:20, etc.) These kinds of passages run contrary to the natural dependency on raw intellect, whims, intuition, etc.
The understanding of spiritual truth ultimately depends upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the believer and the disposition of the heart of the interpreter. The understanding of the gospel message is not merely an intellectual exercise. We are told in the above Corinthians passage that the "natural man" (the unbeliever) cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually appraised. It doesn't say that he cannot understand them because of all the "textual difficulties" in the manuscripts, with various translations, etc!?


There is nothing circular in my reasoning. There are differences in the manuscripts. This is a fact.

This is what you wrote earlier:

Further, if you want precise meaning, then you would have to be able to understand what the actual words meant in the original languages as spoken at the time of the writing. Once words are translated, precise meanings are lost. Beyond this, there are differences in the oldest of NT texts that still survive.

First of all, you grossly exaggerate the problem. If all precise meanings are lost when translating from one language to another, then no one on this planet would be able to understand much of anything spoken or written in a different language than their own. (I wonder how all the good U.N. diplomats from all the various nations get by, for example!?) Yes, some things may get lost in any given translation -- but not very much overall.

And your reasoning is circular because your broad claims to textual problems are made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true -— because those very grounds are in dispute. For example, your reasoning is circular when you say the extant manuscripts in their original languages are full or errors, inconsistencies, problems, etc and because of these kinds of things they could not have been supernaturally superintended by God. All you're doing is trying to support your premise by restating it differetnly.

Circular reasoning is to say "Because God superintended the writings, the writings are perfect and the because the writings are perfect, God superintended them". I say they are not perfect. I say this is clear because what we have now is the result of compromise by Biblical scholars on how best to read what we have from several divergant texts. You can say God superintended that too if you want, but that still does not explain where God was as the texts became divergant.

First off, I never said the manuscripts even in the original languages were perfect! What I have maintained is that whatever errors or difficulties have crept into the extant copies of manuscripts, no contradictions exist pertaining to any fundamentally important matters of faith -- matters relevant to the salvation of souls and rules for living.

And where was God when the texts became "" --

Right there -- superintending the translation process because to this day, we still have preserved for us several translations that are very readable and understandable because their translators have striven to produce as literal translation as humanly possible (i.e. word-for-word as much as possible). Having said this, however, there are also some decent translations out there that are "moderately" literal -- that is to say, they lean more toward the Dynamic Equivalency methodology than Formal Equivalency, but still fall far short of a paraphrased translation. (Plus who says an interpreter should rely solely on one translation? I personally use a few.) But in either case, God is true and faithful. He will do what it takes to bring his elect into his kingdom, including but certainly not limited to putting them into direct contact with Evangelicals for spiritual guidance, leading them to a local church, leading them to read the translation He knows they need at the moment, etc., etc. The promise in scripture is that God's Word will NOT return to him void (or empty). It will accomplish all his intended, eternal purposes (Isa 55:11).


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
So what!? No one was around to observe Gen 1:1 either. Neither was anyone around to observe the "big bang" or whatever other scientific theory someone wishes to postulate with respect to the origins of the universe. But relative to the Temptation accounts, for example, Jesus told his disciples he would reveal numerous things to them, through the Holy Spirit, that they were not able to bear at the time of his first advent (Jn 16:12-16.)!


The Genesis story is just that. Man's best understanding at the time of how the universe was created.

So, saith OTM AL! Just remember, Al, that all the scientific theories that postulate our origins are just that also...nothing more than imaginative theories that read like stories -- stories with scientific spins to them in which people like yourself put a great deal of your faith. No one was around to see how it all began; but truly because so many are eager to believe something, anything -- anything other than God's revelation to mankind -- they're quick to believe what no can prove -- what no one can reproduce in lab experiments, etc. As it's written :

Jer 17:5
5 Thus says the LORD,
"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind
And makes flesh his strength,
And whose heart turns away from the LORD.
NASB

Lest you think the above passage is a little harsh, I would remind you that Man is a Natural Born Deceiver, as I conclusively demonstrated from Special and Natural Revelation (i.e. the Bible and Reality, respectively) a few weeks back.

However, the passage we are considering contains actual quotes. You claim it to be a word for word account of exactly what happened. I say it is not. I say it has the look of a lesson Jesus taught.

First, I never said that it was a "word-for-word" account. Further, any given passage can be substantiallty and essentially accurate (in contradistinction to perfect accuracy) apart from it being a word-for-word translation.

I'm saying the Temptation was an actual event. There's nothing in scripture to lead me to believe otherwise. Now, if you don't think the Tempatation account is substantially and essentially accurate, I'd be happy to post several translations up here for you to examine, side-by-side, as it were. (I think I have about 15 in my possession.)


If it was of such great impotance, why did Mark's author not recount this exchange as well? Why did John's author ignore it entirely?

Just who is Mark's "author" and John's "author"? Who are you talking about?


How dare they edit the very words of God? Because they understood it as a lesson and its lesson was not germane to the issues those two authors were addressing.

Your criticism rings hollow. Since God is the Author of all scripture'; for all scripture is inspired by God -- every single word in the original manuscripts (Ps 13:2; Ex 4:10-15; Jer 1:4-9; 5:14; 15:16-19; Ezk 2:7-3:4; Heb 1:1,2; 2Pet 1:20, 21; 2Tim 3:16, etc.),then wouldn't he have every right to take liberties with his work -- as would any human author with his? He who owns the work owns the license, too. Don't you agree?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Hey boxcar. First off I think you'd agree that these are getting way too long to discuss appropriately, so I'm going to be intentionally brief with my answers and would ask if you want to follow up, let's do it one thing at a time.

In regards to messages, they certainly contain much more than just their component words. That's why I have been pounding on the point that literal interpretation of the exact words is not proper. Consider is I said "I based my judgement on rule of thumb." A literal translation might come out to be something like "I decided based on the law of a digit". I'm sure you've seen enough bad translations done in some Asian countries of English to see how this happens. While I'm not saying that translators would miss such idomatic use of language, I am outlining the danger of focusing on exact words. Furthermore, messages have much more than just the words making them up. Stress, jesture, expression and many other components go into a message. The example you give is a simple fact based message which none of these things would play a role. However, consider the phrase "Where are you going?". The way it is said and any gestures surrounding it make a huge difference in communicating intent. In written form, messages lose almost all of the non verbal component. We must rely on surrounding text to give context, which sometimes simply isn't very clear. Therefore individual words cannot be taken in isolation.

We will disagree on whether or not we feel that the actual written words are exactly what was said or not. I will continue to contend that they are best rememberances from second and third hand sources. I feel that is fine though as there is enough consistancy in the material that unlike your example, the important part of the message was not lost.

In regards to what you are calling the religious establishment, I say which religious establishment? Now clearly you are referring to the Pharisees or Saducees here. Yes, they did hate what Jesus was saying because he was not of their sect and was seen as a threat. What they were doing was little different than what you see politicians doing to each other today. The only real difference here is that power back then gave you the ability to kill your enemies, which is what they did. Don't see any Essene leaders going against him do you? That's because he was one of them.

I'm not going to deal with claims of fulfillment until you are ready to discuss prophecy as I think that discussion is better suited there within its proper context.

In regards to theories of evolution. All I will say on this matter is that you do not understand what "theory" means to a scientist if you think they are just stories. A theory is a scientific conjecture that is testable by hypotheses which will either result in being able to reject the theory or or not being able to reject. The core ideas of evolution have withstood all testable hypotheses to date. The theory cannot be rejected. The Genesis story and things like Intelligent Design are not testable. They are not theories as a scientist would understand them. I don't want to go this way though as you have been involved in this argument in other posts and no need to replicate here.

The final thing I will address is your question on who are the authors of the Gospels. This is an area that interests me very much.

Matthew: Likely written by a Jew who had become part of the movement around Jesus, possibly in a city where the message was first brought by Matthew. It is written in 3rd person indicating that it was likely not a first hand witness. It was likely written after the fall of the Temple in 70 BCE. Matthew's name was likely attached by tradition in the mid 2nd century though earliest Greek copies have a variety of titles for the work.

Mark: Generally felt to be the first of the 4 gospels to appear in written form and likely used as reference on both Matthew and Luke. Papias in the early 2nd century wrote that it was written by a certain Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, who served as Peter's interpreter in Rome. This view is shared and expounded on by many of the early church fathers. Thus again, not an eyewitness account, but rather a compolation of Peter's remeberences.

Luke: The writer of this work is also felt to be the writer of Acts. Early church fathers believed this writer to be one Luke, a companion of Paul. There isn't anything left to confirm or deny this, so it is as good as anything. So again we don't have a first hand witness but rather someone recording oral tradition.

John: Last of the 4 gospels, written by an unknown, though it has been attributed to Papias, Epheseus and John the Presbyter. Some indication is that it may have been written by a chronicler of "the beloved disciple". This is because chapter 21 appears to have been written after this man's (or woman's if you believe conspiracy theorists....) death. Therefore it is probable this gospel was written by a follower of this disciple. It may have been written in pieces, but likely not completed until almost the end of the 1st century. Again, not by an actual witness.

[boxcar]

Hey boxcar. First off I think you'd agree that these are getting way too long to discuss appropriately, so I'm going to be intentionally brief with my answers and would ask if you want to follow up, let's do it one thing at a time.

In regards to messages, they certainly contain much more than just their component words. That's why I have been pounding on the point that literal interpretation of the exact words is not proper. Consider is I said "I based my judgement on rule of thumb." A literal translation might come out to be something like "I decided based on the law of a digit". I'm sure you've seen enough bad translations done in some Asian countries of English to see how this happens. While I'm not saying that translators would miss such idomatic use of language, I am outlining the danger of focusing on exact words. Furthermore, messages have much more than just the words making them up. Stress, jesture, expression and many other components go into a message. The example you give is a simple fact based message which none of these things would play a role. However, consider the phrase "Where are you going?". The way it is said and any gestures surrounding it make a huge difference in communicating intent. In written form, messages lose almost all of the non verbal component. We must rely on surrounding text to give context, which sometimes simply isn't very clear. Therefore individual words cannot be taken in isolation. (emphasis mine)

But, Al, we really should work with what we have -- with what is known and not worry about what is unknown and unknowable! Why should we concern ourselves with message components that are only knowable when actually listening to the words and/or seeing the speaker? Why not deal with the components of what we have and are knowable, i.e. the words of the written text!? Frankly, your explanation only serves as an excuse for the interpreter to take all manner of license with the text by the interpretive method of eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis). When employing the former method, the interpreter can make any given passage say what he wants.


We will disagree on whether or not we feel that the actual written words are exactly what was said or not. I will continue to contend that they are best rememberances from second and third hand sources. I feel that is fine though as there is enough consistancy in the material that unlike your example, the important part of the message was not lost.

Again, I would remind you of this passage:

John 14:26
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
NASB

Everything God wanted recorded was. Everything!

Finally, I'd still like to know in what sense do you believe that Jesus' message was "divine".

Boxcar

[wes]

2nd Timothy 3-16 is one indication in the bible.

wes

[OTM Al]

The problem with using the John passage to justify this argument is that it says "and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you". (emph mine of course) Now, if you are contending that someone there wrote the Gospels, then this would support your argument. I am saying though that it is well established that none of those men wrote the Gospels in the Bible. So in the case of the Gospel of Mark, even if Peter had a perfect memory of all that was said and done, the writer Mark did not. He wrote his best memory of what Peter had said. Now, using Wes' passage that he contributed, I would not argue that Mark's writing was not inspired by God, surely it was, but is it an exact and perfect recollection of what happened? I would say no. In fact the chapters up to coming to Jerusalem are disjoint chronologically. They are simply a collected memory of what Peter had said in no particular order. If you grant that Mark did write this Gospel are you saying then that Mark was also given this perfect recall? That is not said though. The passage is only directed at those who were with Jesus. So if you are going to be consistant in your argument about what is not there vs what is, you cannot claim this. This begs the point then that I ask you who do you think wrote the books comprising the NT?

Even using this passage as a proof is not well grounded because you base the Bible being perfect truth because certain passages in it seem to you to say so. This is belief. I have no desire to argue belief. You have a very strong belief and I respect that. I have my own, but I also look at these writings in a critical sense as well and factually there are errors and contradictions. Further, over the last 1900 years, many traditions have been built around these books, many of which are just plain incorrect. This does not change my belief however because I believe these things were written by men, inspired but fallible.

To answer your question about my belief about the divinity of the message, all I can say to you is that that is what I believe God would want for us. This is a matter of my belief.

[boxcar]

The problem with using the John passage to justify this argument is that it says "and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you". (emph mine of course) Now, if you are contending that someone there wrote the Gospels, then this would support your argument.

Not necessary that those there (Jn 14:26)) had to write what was brought to their remembrance. Where in the text does it say that the Holy Spirit would have them write or record these things that were brought to their remembrance? This is what happens when you use eisegesis to interpret a passage. All the text says is that the Helper would teach them all things and bring those things to their remembrance. There's absolutely nothing in the text that would prohibit them from imparting their knowledge and the resources of their memories to a third party. Nothing!

I am saying though that it is well established that none of those men wrote the Gospels in the Bible.

It's well beyond the scope of my time to delve into the backgrounds of the four gospels. Suffice it say that the "problems with the Synoptics" has led modern scholars to faulty conclusions. Early church history attributes authorship to all the gospel writers, save for Luke . But even Luke says in his gospel that he collected his data from eyewitnesses. And undoubtedly one or more of these eyewitnesses were disciples of Christ;therefore, Luke relied on at least one disciple's perfect memory since the Holy Spirit isn't prone to error. Ditto for Mark, also. All Mark had to do was tap into the perfect recall of Peter -- or whichever disciple.

Even using this passage as a proof is not well grounded because you base the Bible being perfect truth because certain passages in it seem to you to say so. This is belief.

Yes, this is belief. Belief in what the bible plainly says (Jn 17:7; 2Sam 7;28; PS 12:6; 119:51, 52; Jn 8:40; Eph 4:21; 2Tim 2:25-26). And then we have this passage:

John 14:5-11
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way , and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." 8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves.
NASB

All truth is bound up in Christ. He is Truth! And in this passage, he very, very clearly makes himself equal to God the Father. Jesus is clearly saying that He and the Father are one in essence! (Jesus acted a wee bit incredulous with Philip, didn't he?) Christ is Perfect Truth because perfect truth requires a source that is eternal, all knowing, all powerful and all present. And Jesus Christ, who has come in the flesh and who existed with the Father in all eternity and was sent from above by Him to do his will fits this criteria perfectly. Hence, he could say, "I am the truth".

To answer your question about my belief about the divinity of the message, all I can say to you is that that is what I believe God would want for us. This is a matter of my belief.

So, you have a belief system that is full of doubt. You can't believe in what God actually wants for us -- only what you think he wants. You can never be sure of what he wants for mankind, can you?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

First off, let me say something very clearly. This discussion is not about faith. I have not questioned your faith, and in fact I have tried to compliment you on it. If you cast aspersions again towards my faith, then this conversation is over. This is a discussion about fact, not faith. I find nothing more foolish or childish than one person attacking another's faith because it is different than his.

Now back to the discussion.

Of course there was nothing prohibiting the disciples from imparting their knowledge upon others. As we know, that is exactly what they did. What I am saying is that even if I grant that they had perfect recall of all they saw and heard, those they imparted this info would not, and many, if not all of the Gospels were written after the deaths of the witnesses, for why would you need a book when the real person was there to teach? Therefore, the Gospels were written by men, human and fallible.

Now I have to ask you again, who do you think wrote these books? No long arguement needed, just a who, when and who they were addressing the work to. This is a crux to this discussion.

[boxcar]

First off, let me say something very clearly. This discussion is not about faith. I have not questioned your faith, and in fact I have tried to compliment you on it. If you cast aspersions again towards my faith, then this conversation is over. This is a discussion about fact, not faith. I find nothing more foolish or childish than one person attacking another's faith because it is different than his.

I thought it was a discussion about the spiritual truths contained in the bible. I didn't think either of our faiths were on trial here. You were the one who brought up what you believed about the "divinity" of Christ's message. However, since you brought up what you believe about this "divine" message, I simply made an observation about the nature of that faith since, as discussed on previous occasions, faith comes in but two flavors -- Rational or Irrational. But as you said,

Now back to the discussion.

Now you want to know: Who wrote what and when and to whom? Frankly, I don't see any value to this kind of discussion because we're not going to agree. I'm well aware of what the rationalists think and why they believe that way. For example, modern critics place a late date on Matthew's gospel because of Jesus' prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Conversely, I hold to the more traditional views, which I share with those closest to the events, e.g. the early church fathers. But to satisfy your curiosity, here are my views on the four gospels. But again -- I have no intentions of debating these kinds of issues due to serious time constraints. Furthermore, in this day and age there's too much good material out there on the web and good books for those who want to investigate all sides to an issue.

Matthew
-------

One of the twelve and written by this disciple, and believed to have been written by him by such ancient notables as Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus -- and also citations and allusions to this gospel in the Didache. Date of writing: Sometime before 70 A.D. -- probably 10 to 20 years after the Resurrection (50 A.D. or so?). Primary written to the Jews, especially new converts to the New Covenant faith.

Mark
-----

The gospel in itself is anonymous, however sufficient early testimony from the early church fathers exists to provide strong evidence for Marcan authorship (i.e. John Mark of Act 12:12,), e.g. Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, etc. Date of writing -- tough to pin down precisely. Early church tradition places the death of Peter at approximately 67 A.D. Therefore, Mark probably completed his gospel account sometime before that, since much of his material probably came from Peter.

It seems that Mark wrote mainly for the benefit of the Gentiles because he sometimes explained Jewish customs and terms, which would seem to indicate that his account was not primarily directed toward Jews.

Luke
----

Again, early church tradition attributes authorship to Luke -- the Gentile physician and historian and not one of the twelve. He compiled his account of the life and ministry of Christ from eyewitnesses. Luke probably completed his account before Act 1:1. And Acts appears to have been completed during Paul's 2 years imprisonment in Rome (Act 28:30). The gospel, therefore, was probably completed around 60 A.D.

Luke's primary audience also seems to be the Gentiles or more specifically the Greeks. This also helps to explain Luke's emphasis on Christ as a Teacher, for example -- something that would appeal to the educated, logical mindset of Greeks.

John
-----

John was one of the twelve and is the author of this gospel as clearly indicated by the phrase "the beloved disciple" (21:20-24). Irenaeus relates the testimony of the early church to the effect that John the son of Zebedee was the author. The date of authorship is somewhere around 90 A.D. John probably wrote for the benefit of the Ephesians or the churches in Asia Minor, generally.


In conclusion, then, there is still some room for debates as to just exactly when these gospel accounts were written, but almost assuredly they were all completed before the end of the first century and were written by either eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

I don't want to debate on this either, but the information is neccessary to my position that it was men that wrote these books and thus there are inaccuracies and contradictions and that certain things were written in support of teaching a lesson rather than trying to be completely accurate. I will conclude my point thus as you are correct that we won't agree on dating and in some cases authorship.

I believe as you clearly understand the 2 source hypothesis, so I place Mark first. Written between 63 and 68. Church fathers are divided on if Peter, his source was alive or not, though Clement, who indicates Peter was alive, but did not learn of the writing until after it was completed and sent to the audience. Thus, not written by a witness. Not reviewed by a witness as he was either dead or did not know what Mark was up to.

Luke you also recognize as having been written by someone who was not a witness. The church fathers actually seem to have been in agreement (not a common thing) that this was Luke the physician. Accepting the 2-source hypothesis means this must have come after Mark, probably not long after, perhaps late 60s early 70s. Thus again, not written by a witness nor reviewed by one.

Matthew is the most annonymous clearly. Church fathers do attribute a Gospel written in the language of the Hebrews (so Hebrew or Aramaic). However, our Matthew was written in Greek. This leaves a mystery. Was there perhaps a Gospel written by "the" Matthew that wasn't this Matthew? Maybe Matthew wrote both versions? Interestingly only in Matthew is the disciple called Matthew. He is Levi elsewhere. Clearly it was written for a Jewish audience. Much is said of the temple in this Gospel, so it is possible it was written in response to give people hope after the destruction of the temple to tell people that a physical building being destroyed is not cause for despair. All conjecture of course, but will place it late 60s to mid 80s at the latest.

John is quite disputed. 20:24 gives us a clue that it is based on the testamony of "the beloved disciple". and that this person did write some things down. However, then it says that "we know them to be true", thus indicating that writings of the witness are a source for this, but not this Gospel itself, though one could claim this is a "royal" we and perhaps not be wrong. 21:23 seems to indicate that this disciple has died though. As John is said to have lived into the time of Trajan (98), that puts this Gospel sometime around 100 but certainly before 150 as a text fragment from that time exists. Thus again, maybe a witness, maybe not.

So as I see it, 2 definite non-witnesses and 2 maybes, though I find the case for Luke stronger than that of John. All written well after the death of Jesus. Thus, I simply can't accept them as word for word exact representations of what Jesus said and did. Some sayings may be dead on acurate, that I don't doubt, but which I couldn't say. Again though the authors were certainly inspired by God. The message is intact. But I will believe that some liberties were taken and some rememberances were not perfect. Not out of dissimulation, but as a method of instruction to the intended audiences.