- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:14 pm to Foch
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:14 pm to Foch
quote:I'll stand beside you to criticize the philosophical underpinnings of individualism in today's Protestant church. I don't agree with the Episcopalian form of government that Rome has transformed into, but as a Presbyterian, I understand the value of the broader Church, not just the "invisible" body of believers throughout the world, but the "visible" church and its government.
And the individualistic, "might of will makes right of action" beliefs ushered in by protestantism are wrecking the western world as usury and moral relativism go from forbidden to embraced.
When someone asks to have their membership removed from our church (assuming they aren't attempting to skirt discipline), we include a comment urging them to join themselves with the visible church somewhere else, for outside of the visible church is no ordinary salvation. We don't go as far as Rome has done to say that if a person isn't a member of our particular denomination or branch of the Church, that they aren't saved at all, but that Christ uses the visible church to build up the faith of of His people, to encourage them to righteousness, and to help with the physical and spiritual struggles that they are likely to encounter, and that the means of grace that the Church provides are a real benefit and blessing from God that doesn't exist apart from the Church.
quote:I don't believe that would be a problem at all. The Bereans were praised by Paul for testing his teachings according to the Scriptures of the Old Tesatament.
Jesus left us a Church on earth. Imagine yourself in AD 40 or 50, how strange would it be to write to Peter or Paul to say you were a scripture alone Christian?
However, sola scriptura doesn't mean that the writings alone are the infallible word of God, but that the writings alone have preserved the infallible word of God. When the Prophets spoke, their words were the word of God, and yet not all their words were recorded. What God had preserved are the only words of His that He intended to preserve to rule the consciences of His people.
When Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles spoke to the churches, they were relaying God's word to them, and only those words that were preserved through the Scriptures are the authoritative words God has preserved.
quote:It is a symbol, but it communicates a spiritual reality. By eating the physical bread and drinking the physical wine/juice by faith, a person is joining themselves to Christ in a real manner, spiritually. The bread is just bread, but it represents or symbolizes the reality of Christ's body being broken for us. We are not blessed merely by ingesting it, but by faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (His being broken and bloodied on the cross for sin) that is symbolized by those elements of bread and wine. The bread and wine do not bless in themselves, but only as taken in faith in Christ's death for sin. Paul warns about this very thing in 1 Cor. 11, namely that if the Gospel--the body of Christ--is not discerned in taking and eating and drinking, then instead of blessing, the participant is eating and drinking judgement on themselves.
How could you look to anyone who was there in the upper room to say "the Eucharist is a symbol"?
1
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:19 pm to Smeg
What a fricking dumbass this guy must be, clown.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:26 pm to DefensorFortis
quote:I've said this many times to others, but the "Reformation" wasn't intended to be a "creation"; it didn't create a new Church but reformed the Church back to the teachings of the Scripture, and I believe the Scottish Reformers got it right when they saw the Presbyterian example of government from Scripture.
Presbyterianism is NOT ORTHODOXY.
St. Columba, who was the first Christian missionary to what is now Scotland is a Saint in the Holy Orthodox Church that has remained the same since 33 A.D.
Presbyterianism is traced back to 1560…post Reformation…so either the gates of he’ll prevailed against the Church of Christ until the Scots Confession in the 16th century or the Church that was from the beginning is still standing!
Holy Orthodoxy!
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 provides the template for the Presbyterian model of government. The name "Presbyterian" comes from the Greek word presbyteros which means elder or overseer. Presbyterian polity emphasizes the elder-run government of the Church, particularly about the plurality (more than one elder) and parity (equal vote/say in governing) of elders. We even have requirements/qualifications for elders in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 1:28 pm to Stitches
quote:What's concerning about this doctrine is that it allows for the possibility of a Muslim or Buddhist or agnostic to be saved while a knowledgeable Protestant, like me, is damned for rejecting the teachings of the Roman church, even though I seek to glorify God faithfully and I put my trust in His saving work through Jesus Christ alone for my salvation.
The RCC does not teach that only RC's are going to Heaven. I won't paste a novel here with the official teaching, but suffice it so say that we believe you're only held accountable for what you know. In other words, if you were raised Baptist, were a faithful Baptist, and never knew anything about what the RC church actually teaches, then we would expect God to judge you based on what you know and how you practiced that faith.
I can join myself to a bible-believing, Gospel preaching church; I can submit myself to the government of that church; I can glorify God for His saving work for me; I can praise Jesus Christ for His sacrificial death for sinners, believing that His death covers my sins personally; I can be baptized; I can preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost around me; I can live a good and faithful life, repenting for my sin and seemingly being conformed to Christ's image in my own works, loving God and neighbor as I believe the Scriptures teach through careful and faithful exegesis; I can believe and do all of these things and have a lesser shot at salvation than a heathen who does not know and embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as proclaimed by the Scriptures because I have reviewed the doctrines of the RCC and have rejected many of them as false.
In other words, I would be better off being born in a country devoid of the Gospel, so long as I was faithful in my understanding (or lack thereof), than to be a faithful member of a Protestant church that rejects the special authority and teachings of Rome.
This is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ who saves sinners who come to Him alone, bringing nothing to Him but the faith that He has given them, and a love for Him that flows from that gift of faith.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 2:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
And the individualistic, "might of will makes right of action" beliefs ushered in by protestantism are wrecking the western world as usury and moral relativism go from forbidden to embraced.
I'll stand beside you to criticize the philosophical underpinnings of individualism in today's Protestant church.
Though I am happy to hear that you see the errors in individualism, I wonder how you can square that with the beliefs you hold. You elevate yourself to being the arbiter of what is Truth according to your reading of the scriptures.
On the other hand, if you adopt your Reformed Church's confession, you would seem to be in a contradictory position: you would believe your denomination which claims to not have any divinely granted authority.
At its core, the protestant rebellion threw Christendom into chaos by making everything subject to interpretation and by opening all scripture (including the definition of scripture itself...see Luther reducing the Old Testament) to abuse. Unless you (protestants) are willing to recreate Calvin's Geneva on a grand, worldwide scale, you are forced to accommodate and accept other versions of protestantism.
This is the seed that was planted and bore the fruit of today's moral relativism. If a methodist can't definitively say a presbyterian is in grave error, they must accommodate the other's "truth". From there, what makes core Christian truths such as Baptism Holy (see Baptists)? Why even go through the "symbolic" act of your "communion/Lord's Supper? How can you not go along with grave sins like denomination-wide approval of contraception/divorce/homosexual "marriage"/abortion/assisted suicide?
The primary factors which drove me home to Rome (and away from Reformed thought) included history of the early Church, a recognition that "once saved/always saved" is hollow, a rejection of sola scriptura based individualism, and a recognition of the Divine gaurantee and mandate given to Rome and exercised in relating essential matters such as Scripture and the Trinity.
quote:
When Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles spoke to the churches, they were relaying God's word to them, and only those words that were preserved through the Scriptures are the authoritative words God has preserved.
And under what circumstances were those words preserved? What Divinely placed instruments were in place to affect the compilation of those words which were bound into scripture?
quote:
The bread is just bread, but it represents or symbolizes the reality of Christ's body being broken for us.
Your view is an invention that would shock the early church. See St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Posted on 7/13/23 at 3:53 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
We don’t even claim that the copies of the original manuscripts (which is all we have) are inerrant.
This is refreshing. If a certain someone on this site sees your comment though, he might tell you to repent!
quote:
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Is this not a sensible reading? Can you see how the first four verses of chapter two are telling the end of the order of events in chapter one?
It could be sensible for a layperson. Chapter 2 verse 4 should probably be the start of chapter 2, and should not be interpreted as the ending of the first story mostly in chapter 1. Reputable scholars understand that gen 2:4 is the start of another source “J” which is a separate story from gen 1:1 up to 2:3 which is source “E”. I’m sure you know about the documentary hypothesis but maybe others who read this don’t. Experts analyzed the writing style and words used to determine that the two stories from gen 1 and from 2-3 appear to be from separate authors based on the evidence. Even for someone who rejects the documentary hypothesis, consider the words used for “God” in the two stories. In the first story, “God” is only called “God” which in Hebrew is transliterated Elohim. In the second story, in the entirety of that second story, “God” is only called “the LORD God” which is transliterated as Yahweh Elohim. For me, the evidence is compelling that genesis 2:4 is the start of the second story, not the end of the first.
quote:
Genesis 2:5–6 (NASB95): Now ( as in, “Now, let me tell you) no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
I don’t think “now” from the NASB should be interpreted that way in that verse. It doesn’t change my argument though. We have to be careful to look at the original text and other translations when making arguments. That “now” from the NASB is often translated as “and”, “before”, and “when” in other translations. The Hebrew word choice is more like a transitional word letting you know another consecutive thought was coming, since they didn’t have punctuation (e.g. periods).
quote:
6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
Same thing here. What was “now” to start verse 5 is “but” here in English, but it’s the same Hebrew word. It’s a transition almost like a period ending the preceding sentence. Also in this NASB translation verse it uses “used to”. Verse 6 just says more literally - and a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the earth.
quote:
Does it say what day this was? No. But, if you read chapter one, you know it’s adding detail to the events of the third day of creation.
It doesn’t say which day. The English of the NASB says in the day the LORD God created the earth and heavens. The Hebrew word translated as “day” in this case could be any period of time, or an age. It could also be literally one 12 hour period. I disagree about this verse adding detail to chapter 1. I think 2:5 sets up that there were no plants at all because there was no man to cultivate. 2:6 doesn’t change anything for me. LORD God watered the ground - it doesn’t say he created plants yet but certainly could have been part of the process to eventually make plants. Then come 2:7 - LORD God makes Adam from dust. In 2:8 he makes plants. It’s a sequential narrative, therefore things narrated in order are intended to describe the order in which things occurred.
2:5 isn’t adding a detail for day 3 such as there not being any plants (because there’s no man yet to cultivate) and then skipping right to day 6 in 2:7. 2:5 by itself would add no relevant details to day 3 of genesis 1 account. 2:5 only makes sense in light of the following 2:7 verse. 2:5 sets up that there was no plants because there was no man. 2:7 creates the man. In 2:8, now that there’s a man, there can be plants, which God then creates. To me it is. Simple sequence of events that is describes, and requires no mental gymnastics.
quote:
I don’t see a single contradiction. What I do see, however, is a lot of wish casting, word twisting, and intentional manipulation of the text- in a pathetic attempt to escape the obvious truth.
There’s a contradiction on the order of creation of plants and man between genesis 1 (the Elohist account) and genesis 2 (the Yahwist account). My assessment is based on a plain sequential reading of the narratives. You are accusing me of twisting words and manipulating the text, but I’m actually plainly reading the text, and you and the apologists are the ones inserting ideas and events where the author did not put them. You are falsely accusing me of doing the very things you are doing (honestly, like a democrat would do, not saying you are a democrat). What you are calling a pathetic attempt is resultant from a very plain reading of the text, and only the text that is there, in the order it is written.
Escape the obvious truth? Obviously it’s all just a fable, an ancient myth, written before we knew about germs, plate tectonics, the sky and space, before we knew the stars and sun were balls of burning gas millions of miles away, before we knew about geology and biology, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA and haplogroups, before we knew of the carbon cycle, energy, gravity, chemistry, the fossil record, and so on. It’s obvious to me because I am educated on those subjects, most of which was in university. I also study history and the Bible as a hobby. What’s obvious to me isn’t obvious to you, and vice versa, and that’s fine.
Let me know when and if you’d like to move on to animals versus man. Are you of the opinion that (genesis says that) God created animals first, and then created man after he created animals?
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 4:51 pm to FooManChoo
Thank you for your response. In re: to what you wrote, “ it didn't create a new Church but reformed the Church back to the teachings of the Scripture, and I believe the Scottish Reformers got it right when they saw the Presbyterian example of government from Scripture”…
By you stating this, you’re addressing the heresies of the RCC, not the Church in the east, the Holy Orthodox Church as the Orthodox Church has NEVER strayed from Holy Scripture nor the Traditions of the Church as handed down by the Church Fathers.
The same Church today since 33 A.D. RCC broke from Holy Orthodoxy and the pain of brokenness has continued till this day.
By you stating this, you’re addressing the heresies of the RCC, not the Church in the east, the Holy Orthodox Church as the Orthodox Church has NEVER strayed from Holy Scripture nor the Traditions of the Church as handed down by the Church Fathers.
The same Church today since 33 A.D. RCC broke from Holy Orthodoxy and the pain of brokenness has continued till this day.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 6:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
True conversion to the truth comes through a work of the Holy Spirit which we call “regeneration”, or “being born again”
I call it delusion.
quote:
Faith (saving faith, which is knowledge, assent, and trust) comes from hearing the Word of God, not from visiting a location or touching a wall. The truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ.
I learned a lot in my trips to the Holy Land. It is an excellent way to learn about the Abrahamic religions.
quote:
Since you claim the be an atheist, I would urge you to put your trust in Christ’s saving work.
No thanks.
I have read the Bible. I have been to the Holy Land. I have studied and been exposed to many religions. As I type this, I am in a hotel room in Qatar looking at an arrow on the ceiling pointing to Mecca. You won’t see that in the United States. In a few days, I will be visiting the Hassan II mosque in Casablanca.
I have taken the time to peak behind the curtain and see religion for what it really is.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:58 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:We do disagree but I don't think it boils down to my understanding of discipline vs doctrine or dogma.
The key lack of understanding you have is discipline vs doctrine or dogma.
quote:The authority the Church has is derived from Christ, who rules over all things for the sake of the Church. If the Church elders command something that violates the commands of God, then the elders will be held liable for its error, but also the faithful must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Otherwise the elders of the Church are acting like the sons of Sceva in Acts 19, calling upon the name of Christ in vain.
Discipline is a rule or law set by the Church to be followed. It can be changed. What gives the Church the authority to make these rules? Simply put the power to bind and loose given to the apostles by Jesus Christ. The Church which we argue is the successor of the apostles has this same authority.
quote:It's my understanding that even in the Eastern Church, while priests can marry, they cannot advance to higher office. Is that correct? If so, then the requirements for celibacy still exist, they are just one more step removed in those situations.
Priestly celibacy is a law of the western (latin) rite of the Church for all of her priests with exceptions. In the East married priests are more common and allowed. So the Catholic Church doesn't universally require celibacy for ministerial priests.
I'm sure I'll have to say it more times than I care to, but my concern isn't about the seriousness or degree of command with regards to the type of requirement celibacy is, or even if it can be changed later on or not, but that it exists at all. Unbiblical commands must be rejected. If the elders of my congregation made an unscriptural demand on the laity or the officers, that would be appealed with quickness and be overturned. This "discipline" has been in place for a thousand years.
quote:Again, the concern is making something "law" for the Church when there is no Scriptural demand for it.
The error I see you making is that you believe celibacy is a doctrine of the Church. You say, well see there were married Bishops, Peter was married, etc and you say how can you mandate priestly celibacy for priests.
The way I see it was at the time of St. Paul and for the first at-least few hundred years of the Church there was no discipline of priestly celibacy. One could be a married priest. Despite there being no requirement there were men who voluntarily choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. I don't have room to get into the detail but basically priestly celibacy while not required till the 2nd millennium was practiced enough for the Church to pick it up as a law for the latin rite of the Church, the largest rite of the Catholic Church.
I understand why a tradition (lowercase 't') can take root, and I have no problem with individuals remaining celibate if they feel called to such a thing for themselves, but my concern is that the church takes a tradition and makes it law.
Paul talks about the "weaker brother", where someone whose conscience doesn't allow him to partake in what is lawful should be treated with care, and that we even give up our rights out of love for them. However it is the Pharisee that binds the consciences of others based on extra-biblical laws and customs. Jesus condemned those who put the traditions of men over the laws of God.
quote:Paul, himself, was celibate. You don't need to search for evidence for something that isn't an issue. I have no problem with self-imposed celibacy. The issue is whether or not the Church should impose extra-biblical requirements. Once you go from "this is good" to "this is required" without commands from Scripture, I have a problem with it.
There is evidence out there that priestly celibacy was practiced and arguably widely practiced in the early Church. I don't have the time right now to go searching for all of that evidence.
quote:Again, "better" is not the same thing as "required". It's the requirement that I have an issue with. We have qualifications for officers in the Church, and they not only do not include celibacy, they actually put forward a positive case for marriage and families to tell whether or not the person is fit for the office.
First, Jesus and St. Paul see continence or celibacy as the better part. Does that mean married is wrong, evil? Certainly not. Was the serving Martha did when Jesus came to her home wrong? No, maybe her anxiety was wrong, but not her serving. But Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus chose the better part.
quote:That's a poor foundation for requirement of office, especially since Jesus wasn't even talking about officers of the Church, but people of the Kingdom. On top of that, the thought that Christ was "renouncing" marriage is to abuse the text, IMO. Jesus just lectured the Pharisees on their improper view of marriage by giving a support for it as a creation ordinance and sanctifying it. Jesus' comments about eunuchs was not to criticize marriage, and even if one were to argue that Jesus was saying it was better to remain unmarried for the Kingdom, He wasn't making it a requirement, especially given that He just defended marriage, which God made "good".
Matthew 19:10-12 lays the foundation of the Church's understanding of priestly celibacy. Simply put Jesus says that renouncing marriage (as the NAB translates it) is the better part, but only some are able to accept this teaching.
quote:Again, even if Paul had a preference for celibacy for the sake of focusing on work in the Kingdom, he approves marriage, calls people to it, and provides requirements for officers which includes an allowance for marriage if not a requirement for it as a test of of competency for office. When giving instructions for elders and deacons, it would have been the perfect time to institute a preference for single men, if not an outright requirement, but he didn't do either. He didn't say, "choose from among you men who are unburdened by families, who will not be able to focus on the ministry of the Kingdom".
1 Cor 7:7-9 is St. Pauls explanation of the preference for celibacy.
quote:While the symbolism is fine for those who are gifted with celibacy, the fact of the matter is that it is an unbiblical requirement.
The theological reason the Latin Rite requires celibacy is because it is an imitation of Jesus Christ who is the high priest. Jesus was celibate, there is no debating that, it's clear from scripture he never took a wife. Further more we believe that Jesus will wed himself to the Church in the age to come. The Church is the bride and Jesus is the bride groom. Priests imitate Jesus the bride-groom in their priesthood, and also anticipate the state of heaven when they will never marry or be given in marriage.
quote:I don't think my understanding of discipline is the problem. I have said repeatedly that it is unscriptural to require officers of the Church to be celibate, whether that is a discipline, doctrine, or dogma. We have scriptural support for not only the goodness of marriage, but the use of marriage and godly family upbringing as a test of fitness for office.
I've done my best to explain the discipline of celibacy.
I see a major error in your understanding of the Church's view on celibacy. You believe that we see celibacy as a doctrine meaning no priest can be married. You have said that you think the exceptions we make are wrong from our point of view. However the Church's practice of celibacy is a discipline. Understanding the difference is key to this argument.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:55 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
It could be sensible for a layperson.
So, it is sensible then. Thank you for that.
quote:
Chapter 2 verse 4 should probably be the start of chapter 2, and should not be interpreted as the ending of the first story mostly in chapter 1
Why? Because, if you read it as the end of chapter 1- the argument is over?
quote:
Reputable scholars
Are often wrong, especially when they are more concerned with selling books than finding truth.
quote:
I’m sure you know about the documentary hypothesis but maybe others who read this don’t
I know that it originated in the late 1600’s, from a pantheist Jewish philosopher who was excommunicated from the Jewish community and denounced by Christians. From that point, skeptics of the Bible swarmed to it like flies to a turd.
quote:
In the first story, “God” is only called “God” which in Hebrew is transliterated Elohim. In the second story, in the entirety of that second story, “God” is only called “the LORD God” which is transliterated as Yahweh Elohim.
I don’t see a problem with this. I call out to The Lord by many names. I may use God one day, Lord God, the next. Yahweh, Elohim, King of the universe, Creator of all things, Father, Father God, Most High, Holy God of creation- you get the idea. I may use all of these names in a single prayer session.
quote:
For me, the evidence is compelling that genesis 2:4 is the start of the second story, not the end of the first.
I’m sure it’s compelling for anyone who wants to doubt the existence of God. It’s based on assumptions, thousands of years after Genesis was written (by Moses), from people who want to discredit the entire Bible- in an effort to escape the impending wrath of God.
quote:
Same thing here. What was “now” to start verse 5 is “but” here in English, but it’s the same Hebrew word. It’s a transition almost like a period ending the preceding sentence. Also in this NASB translation verse it uses “used to”. Verse 6 just says more literally - and a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the earth.
None of this changes the meaning that I suggested. All it’s saying is that the mist came before the sprouts.
quote:
It doesn’t say which day
It doesn’t have to. Chapter one tells you what day.
quote:
I disagree about this verse adding detail to chapter 1
Got it. But, does it at least seem possible?
quote:
In 2:8 he makes plants
No. In 2:8 He plants a garden. Doesn’t say what day He planted the garden- doesn’t matter. He created plants (sprouts) on Day 3.
quote:
It’s a sequential narrative, therefore things narrated in order are intended to describe the order in which things occurred.
1:1-2:4 is a condensed order of creation. 2:5-2:25 is adding details to the sequence of events.
quote:
You are accusing me of twisting words and manipulating the text, but I’m actually plainly reading the text, and you and the apologists are the ones inserting ideas and events where the author did not put them.
Two words: Documentary Hypothesis.
Literally inserting ideas and events where the author did not put them. Which, admit it, is where you were wanting to go from the beginning of this conversation. I would appreciate it if you would lead with your best arguments. It would save us both a lot of time.
quote:
honestly, like a democrat would do, not saying you are a democrat
That’s the most hateful thing you’ve ever said to me! Lol. I forgive you though.
quote:
What you are calling a pathetic attempt
I apologize for that, and other tasteless insults I have made against you. It was unnecessary, and lacking in gentleness and reverence. I will try to do better.
quote:
a very plain reading of the text, and only the text that is there, in the order it is written.
Me too. I find it peculiar how we can both read the same text, and come away with opposite understandings. As I have said before, and will continue to maintain- if you’re looking for reasons to doubt, or believe, you will find them.
quote:
Obviously it’s all just a fable, an ancient myth, written before we knew about germs, plate tectonics, the sky and space, before we knew the stars and sun were balls of burning gas millions of miles away, before we knew about geology and biology, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA and haplogroups, before we knew of the carbon cycle, energy, gravity, chemistry, the fossil record, and so on.
God’s creation is impressive! Man’s existence is like putting together an intricate, complex puzzle, without the picture on the box to use as a reference. Imagine the satisfaction we will feel when it is complete! Furthermore, think about how hard the atheist has to try to conjure up these so called discrepancies, in a collection of 66 cohesive books, written by 40+ authors, over thousands of years, and how not a single one of them goes unanswered. And all the atheist does is say “I don't believe you.”
quote:
It’s obvious to me because I am educated on those subjects, most of which was in university. I also study history and the Bible as a hobby
Don’t take this the wrong way- you’re clearly intelligent. But, education does not equal intelligence. And, it’s no secret that the vast majority of academia diligently seeks to turn young, impressionable minds away from God. So, you’re intelligent and educated- but, are you wise? I’m assuming you have insurance on everything you own. Do you have insurance on your soul? I can hear you saying “I don’t believe in the soul.” What if you’re wrong? That would be a foolish mistake.
We can move on if you like. I’m satisfied with the defense I have given. I suspect you will want to go deeper into the documentary hypothesis, which is fine with me. I don’t expect to change your mind on anything. God will do that if/when He wants to (I do pray that He does). I enjoy this because it challenges me to look harder at the scriptures that we Christians too often take for granted. You are helping me to strengthen my faith, and I thank you for that.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:28 am to Smeg
frick those Christian hypocrites in The Church of England!
Posted on 7/14/23 at 12:59 am to Elihu
quote:
It really is on the fast track. It’s amazing how quick so many denominations (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, etc.) have become apostate. These are incredible (and exciting) times.
It really is, it’s disgusting my parents gave them money when they didn’t have money to give.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:04 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Why? Because, if you read it as the end of chapter 1- the argument is over?
If 2:4 is the end of the first story, I could see how it might bolster your claim. Even if you reject the evidence of multiple authors and redactors (the mainstream view of scholarship) of the Pentateuch, it’s still clear that 2:4 through the end of 3 is a separate story as evidenced by use of “LORD God” versus the first story “God”. The argument may be over only because we’ll have to agree to disagree most likely.
quote:
thousands of years after Genesis was written (by Moses)
Did Moses also write the part of Deuteronomy describing his own death - Moses died in Moab - in the third person? Hate to say it but Moses was a myth. The stories we have of Moses were created by the Persians while the exiles were returning from Babylon as a fictive history meant to justify the ex-Babylonian-slaves taking the land already occupied by Judeans that we’re exiled and were still living in Judah still practicing their polytheistic canaanite religion. There’s no corroborating evidence outside the Bible of over half the population of Egypt leaving all at once. The Egyptians kept good records so there is evidence to the contrary. The Persians along with the new second temple priests invented the Moses character from tales of King Sargon of Akkad, and they didn’t really understand Egyptian language. They gave the character the fictive name “Moses” which literally means “son of”. Son of whom? Look at some Pharoah names we know of - Tutmoses, Rameses, Ahmoses, Dedumoses. There was a ton of Rameses - son of Ra the sun god - reigning in Egypt in the range of 1200-1050BCE.
quote:
Got it. But, does it at least seem possible?
I can see how you might think that, especially since you believe that it is one author with one story. You can inject ideas into the second story that aren’t there to make them conform to the first story in your head. It still is illogical to me. 2:5 is a setup for 2:7. 2:5 says there were no plants because there was no man yet. 2:7 man was formed. 2:8 god plants a garden (makes plants). If the idea that god made plants between 2:6 and 2:7 was inserted where it doesn’t belong, then there would simply be no need to even have written 2:5-2:6 to begin with. Just start with 2:7. Why didn’t the “added details” (aka the second creation account) just start with 2:7? That’s what the second account is all about anyway right- the creation of man and women. There’s simply no logical reason for “added details” to state in writing that there were no plants before God created Adam because god hadn’t created Adam yet if the author didn’t intend to say that first there were no plants, then there was man, and because there was man now God created plants.
quote:
Me too. I find it peculiar how we can both read the same text, and come away with opposite understandings. As I have said before, and will continue to maintain- if you’re looking for reasons to doubt, or believe, you will find them.
I don’t look for reasons to doubt or to believe. I’m only trying to understand what really happened based on the available evidence.
quote:
a collection of 66 cohesive books
One that is easy for many to understand is between 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles. Who killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Or did David kill Goliath and Elhanan kill Goliath’s brother? They can’t all be correct. If you take the position that 1 Chronicles “clarifies” the earlier stories, why does it need clarification (correcting) if the other books are divinely inspired?
quote:
That’s the most hateful thing you’ve ever said to me! Lol. I forgive you though.
I said “like” a democrat being careful not to call you a democrat.
obviously you aren’t one. I didn’t mean to be insulting so maybe I shouldn’t have said that. Sorry. quote:
What if you’re wrong? That would be a foolish mistake.
Pascal’s wager.
quote:
We can move on if you like. I’m satisfied with the defense I have given.
For what it’s worth your defense is better than I thought it would be. I can actually see how you might believe what you believe, even though I don’t believe it.
Posted on 7/18/23 at 7:18 pm to Squirrelmeister
Long weekend with the fam. I’m back.
I do. The “mainstream” of everything (media, education, politics, Hollywood, science, RELIGION) has conspired to undermine the truth of God’s Word- for a long time. I don’t think they’re getting any better at it- I think people are just getting weaker, and more deluded; driven by a growing number of people, which share a common desire to embrace sin in its many forms, and escape judgement.
It’s not that I don’t see that. It’s that I give God the benefit of the doubt. You’ll find that to be a common theme of mine throughout any discussion we may have. The creation story, and much of Genesis, obviously happened before Moses was even born. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t write the book. Perhaps he was putting oral traditions into written word (he was given a first rate Egyptian education). Perhaps God, Himself, dictated to Moses, or a divine revelation.
Agreed. I’m sure this, also, will be a common theme in any discussion we may have. Lol.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if he did (we are talking about a man who talked to God seemingly daily), it’s likely that Joshua (or maybe Eleazar, Samuel, or Ezra) wrote it. It does not mean that Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch. Many books are edited, post mortem, and it doesn’t change authorship, and it doesn’t preclude Divine inspiration.
Third person omniscient (Writing in which the narrator is all-knowing, providing a godlike perspective through multiple characters is known as third person omniscient) as opposed to third person limited (which is the preferred method of writing today)- to be precise. Much, if not most of the Bible was written in TPO. Seems fitting for the Word of God, don’t you think?
That’s quite a claim. I’d like to see some evidence for it, before commenting further.
First, “outside of the Bible”- as if the Bible is not an historical document? Three Things Historians Said Didn’t Exist—Until They Did
Pretty interesting- don’t you think?
Second, this article Top Ten Discoveries Related to Moses and the Exodus begs to differ. I hope you’ll read it. There is evidence. Surely not enough to convince a true skeptic, such as yourself, but evidence nonetheless.
Lol. The Egyptians are about as reliable as the mainstream media. They may record events, but I don’t think, for one second, that they would have recorded the story of a Hebrew slave overthrowing their government. “Nope. Didn’t happen.”
Moses was given his name by pharaoh’s daughter, after she found him on the river bank (Exodus 2:10). Not knowing who his parents were, “Son of” makes perfect sense to me.
Remember how I said that the copies aren’t inerrant? Only the original manuscripts are inerrant? Scribal error. Who killed Goliath?
Seems like a reasonable explanation to me.
Lol. No worries, my friend.
It is sensible. I regret mentioning it, because it (IMO) promotes false belief. Although, I don’t rule out that it can lead to a genuine belief in, and love of, Christ.
It’s worth a lot to me. I don’t expect to change your beliefs. I just want you to acknowledge that belief in the God of the Bible is, at least, marginally reasonable, and not based (entirely) on blind faith without a shred of evidence.
quote:
Even if you reject the evidence of multiple authors and redactors (the mainstream view of scholarship) of the Pentateuch
I do. The “mainstream” of everything (media, education, politics, Hollywood, science, RELIGION) has conspired to undermine the truth of God’s Word- for a long time. I don’t think they’re getting any better at it- I think people are just getting weaker, and more deluded; driven by a growing number of people, which share a common desire to embrace sin in its many forms, and escape judgement.
quote:
it’s still clear that 2:4 through the end of 3 is a separate story as evidenced by use of “LORD God” versus the first story “God”.
It’s not that I don’t see that. It’s that I give God the benefit of the doubt. You’ll find that to be a common theme of mine throughout any discussion we may have. The creation story, and much of Genesis, obviously happened before Moses was even born. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t write the book. Perhaps he was putting oral traditions into written word (he was given a first rate Egyptian education). Perhaps God, Himself, dictated to Moses, or a divine revelation.
quote:
The argument may be over only because we’ll have to agree to disagree most likely.
Agreed. I’m sure this, also, will be a common theme in any discussion we may have. Lol.
quote:
Did Moses also write the part of Deuteronomy describing his own death
While I wouldn’t be surprised if he did (we are talking about a man who talked to God seemingly daily), it’s likely that Joshua (or maybe Eleazar, Samuel, or Ezra) wrote it. It does not mean that Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch. Many books are edited, post mortem, and it doesn’t change authorship, and it doesn’t preclude Divine inspiration.
quote:
- in the third person
Third person omniscient (Writing in which the narrator is all-knowing, providing a godlike perspective through multiple characters is known as third person omniscient) as opposed to third person limited (which is the preferred method of writing today)- to be precise. Much, if not most of the Bible was written in TPO. Seems fitting for the Word of God, don’t you think?
quote:
The stories we have of Moses were created by the Persians while the exiles were returning from Babylon as a fictive history meant to justify the ex-Babylonian-slaves taking the land already occupied by Judeans that we’re exiled and were still living in Judah still practicing their polytheistic canaanite religion
That’s quite a claim. I’d like to see some evidence for it, before commenting further.
quote:
There’s no corroborating evidence outside the Bible of over half the population of Egypt leaving all at once.
First, “outside of the Bible”- as if the Bible is not an historical document? Three Things Historians Said Didn’t Exist—Until They Did
Pretty interesting- don’t you think?
Second, this article Top Ten Discoveries Related to Moses and the Exodus begs to differ. I hope you’ll read it. There is evidence. Surely not enough to convince a true skeptic, such as yourself, but evidence nonetheless.
quote:
The Egyptians kept good records so there is evidence to the contrary.
Lol. The Egyptians are about as reliable as the mainstream media. They may record events, but I don’t think, for one second, that they would have recorded the story of a Hebrew slave overthrowing their government. “Nope. Didn’t happen.”
quote:
They gave the character the fictive name “Moses” which literally means “son of”. Son of whom? Look at some Pharoah names we know of - Tutmoses, Rameses, Ahmoses, Dedumoses.
Moses was given his name by pharaoh’s daughter, after she found him on the river bank (Exodus 2:10). Not knowing who his parents were, “Son of” makes perfect sense to me.
quote:
Who killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Or did David kill Goliath and Elhanan kill Goliath’s brother? They can’t all be correct. If you take the position that 1 Chronicles “clarifies” the earlier stories, why does it need clarification (correcting) if the other books are divinely inspired?
Remember how I said that the copies aren’t inerrant? Only the original manuscripts are inerrant? Scribal error. Who killed Goliath?
quote:
Why the discrepancy? Why does 2 Samuel 21:19 say that Elhanan killed Goliath? One viable theory is that, somewhere in the chain of copying the text, a scribe made a mistake. The Hebrew word for “the brother of” was miswritten, which changed the grammar of the sentence and led to a problematic sentence structure for the next scribe. The second scribe’s attempt to solve the syntactical puzzle produced a reading that omitted the important detail of Goliath’s brother. Fortunately, we have 1 Chronicles 20:5, which contains the correct Hebrew wording and informs us, through implication, that 2 Samuel 21:19 is missing the words the brother of. We can be confident that David killed Goliath. Elhanan later killed Goliath’s brother.
Seems like a reasonable explanation to me.
quote:
I said “like” a democrat being careful not to call you a democrat. obviously you aren’t one. I didn’t mean to be insulting so maybe I shouldn’t have said that. Sorry.
Lol. No worries, my friend.
quote:
Pascal’s wager.
It is sensible. I regret mentioning it, because it (IMO) promotes false belief. Although, I don’t rule out that it can lead to a genuine belief in, and love of, Christ.
quote:
For what it’s worth your defense is better than I thought it would be. I can actually see how you might believe what you believe, even though I don’t believe it.
It’s worth a lot to me. I don’t expect to change your beliefs. I just want you to acknowledge that belief in the God of the Bible is, at least, marginally reasonable, and not based (entirely) on blind faith without a shred of evidence.
Posted on 7/18/23 at 9:37 pm to Foch
quote:I don't believe myself to be the arbiter of what is Truth, but I believe Christ as the incarnate Word is the arbiter of truth, being Truth, Himself.
You elevate yourself to being the arbiter of what is Truth according to your reading of the scriptures.
With that said, I don't believe myself to be a perfect interpreter of the Word, but I also don't believe there is a perfect interpreter of the Word on this earth. While I believe my denomination seeks to be faithful in interpreting and understanding the Scriptures, I acknowledge that she can and does err, as all fallible men and institutions can and do. Rome has erred and changed positions over time, as well.
quote:I believe Christ's Church has authority, which is exercised by the keys of the Kingdom which are held by the elders of the Church, who bind and loose through the preaching of the Gospel and the exercise of Church discipline. I don't believe this authority is relegated to one denomination, but to any and all true branches of the Church.
On the other hand, if you adopt your Reformed Church's confession, you would seem to be in a contradictory position: you would believe your denomination which claims to not have any divinely granted authority
Like I said, while I believe my denomination has its doctrine most pure (in most instances), I don't believe she is infallible. Believing that men may err doesn't mean that they don't have authority, though. The same is true for the civil magistrate, who is granted authority by God, though it may err and even do violence against men, and even if it is expressed in many different forms and ways throughout history and geographic region.
quote:I agree that I must accommodate and accept other expressions of the Christian faith in Protestantism, even with all her warts, because there is no perfect expression of the Church this side of glory.
At its core, the protestant rebellion threw Christendom into chaos by making everything subject to interpretation...Unless you (protestants) are willing to recreate Calvin's Geneva on a grand, worldwide scale, you are forced to accommodate and accept other versions of protestantism.
I will say, though, that I don't believe that any and all interpretations are acceptable. I don't believe that truth, itself, is relative. There are core doctrines that all Christians must believe (as expressed by the early creeds), such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity, in order to be considered truly Christians, but there are allowances for much disagreement between the denominations on non-essential issues.
I also believe in what is called the analogy of faith, which is that Scripture interprets Scripture as the core biblical hermeneutic. We shouldn't put our own beliefs into the text, but should draw out the text to form our beliefs.
quote:Ultimately, our standard must be the word of God as preserved in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. While the mode of baptism is debatable, whether a person is dunked or sprinkled isn't a matter of salvation, so I can continue to have fellowship with other denominations who different in beliefs and practice on that issue as long as they remain faithful to the Gospel.
This is the seed that was planted and bore the fruit of today's moral relativism. If a methodist can't definitively say a presbyterian is in grave error, they must accommodate the other's "truth"...
You can tell when the Gospel is no longer taught when sins like homosexuality and abortion are tolerated or even promoted, because such serious sins against God and man are not condemned. That's a sign that the Gospel isn't truly understood, believed, or taught. That doesn't mean the Gospel isn't there, but that it likely isn't. Mileage may vary, even with serious sin. But no, my denomination doesn't have to accept those teachings from other denominations. We still hold to the Scriptures as the sole rule for faith and life, and we believe God condemns such practices as unlawful divorce, homosexuality, and abortion, and those things must be condemned by the Church, and discipline exercised against those who refuse to repent of such things.
quote:I'm sorry that you have rejected the truth of the Scriptures and have embraced man-made tradition. I hope you repent and put your trust in Christ alone, not the Church alone.
The primary factors which drove me home to Rome (and away from Reformed thought) included history of the early Church, a recognition that "once saved/always saved" is hollow, a rejection of sola scriptura based individualism, and a recognition of the Divine gaurantee and mandate given to Rome and exercised in relating essential matters such as Scripture and the Trinity.
With that said, my belief in the truthfulness of the 'Reformed' understanding of the Scriptures has only grown the more I have studied the Bible and even as I've studied Church history.
"Once saved/always saved" is not hollow, in my estimation, but the logical conclusion of a system of doctrine that teaches that man is incapable of saving himself, and therefore must rely upon the grace of God alone to save him, and if God is the one saving, then God is the one who will preserve him. It gives glory to God for His faithfulness.
Sola scriptura does not require "individualism", but teaches that God has given the Church--and wise and gifted men within the Church--to help us interpret the Scriptures, but that ultimately the Scriptures interpret themselves. Your confusion is based on your perception of authority: you believe either the Church has the only authority to interpret the Scriptures, or the individual does, but I claim that all authority comes from the Scriptures, themselves, which are God's infallible and inerrant word, and that God intended one message, not an infinite number of possible messages.
I don't believe in a "divine guarantee and mandate given to Rome", but the "keys of the Kingdom" given to the rulers of the Church, which were the Apostles at first, and then the elders that were chosen and elected, and which are carried on today. Again, I see the authority of Christ as given through the Word, and you see the authority of the Church. While I say sola scriptura, you are saying sola ecclesia.
quote:God used men to write and preserve His word. He did it in the Old Testament and He did it in the New Testament. He did it by prolific copying of the manuscripts and preservation of them throughout history.
And under what circumstances were those words preserved? What Divinely placed instruments were in place to affect the compilation of those words which were bound into scripture?
You want to go back to the Church, but I want to go back to God. It was God who inspired His Word and moved men to write it, and it was God who preserved it through His providential care. The Church didn't create the Bible, it merely received it.
This is one of the arguments that really annoys me, because it's an argument that seeks to take glory away from God and put it squarely on the shoulders of men. It robs God of glory because it looks to "the Church" for the Word instead of God, who authored it through divine inspiration.
quote:I could use those same words when talking about Communion. If you read his comments in context, you'd actually see that he wasn't even talking about the doctrine of transubstantiation, but refuting gnostic beliefs that Jesus didn't have a real body. Tertullian says the same thing in Against Marcion, but calls it merely a "figure" of Christ's body.
Your view is an invention that would shock the early church. See St. Ignatius of Antioch:
Posted on 7/18/23 at 9:42 pm to DefensorFortis
quote:You're welcome
Thank you for your response.
quote:The context was that of the RCC, but either way, the "Holy Orthodox Church" has a different form of government than is laid out in the Scriptures.
In re: to what you wrote, “ it didn't create a new Church but reformed the Church back to the teachings of the Scripture, and I believe the Scottish Reformers got it right when they saw the Presbyterian example of government from Scripture”…
By you stating this, you’re addressing the heresies of the RCC, not the Church in the east, the Holy Orthodox Church as the Orthodox Church has NEVER strayed from Holy Scripture nor the Traditions of the Church as handed down by the Church Fathers.
Notice that you and the Catholics keep appealing to tradition while I keep appealing to the Scriptures. Only the Scriptures are said to be "God-breathed".
quote:I agree that the RCC broke away from the true Church, but I would argue that the Orthodox Church--with all her mysticism--isn't much better. I judge truth according to God's Word, not by how old some practice is. Recall that even in the Scriptures, there were people teaching things that were in error and leading people astray. Those are some really old, and really wrong, teachings that are taught against in the Scriptures.
The same Church today since 33 A.D. RCC broke from Holy Orthodoxy and the pain of brokenness has continued till this day.
Posted on 7/18/23 at 9:49 pm to Globetrotter747
quote:Of course you would. You can't understand the truth and think someone like me is crazy for believing what I believe.
I call it delusion.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned -1 Cor. 2:14
quote:You can learn a lot of things in a lot of ways, but only salvation comes through the preaching of the Word of God.
I learned a lot in my trips to the Holy Land. It is an excellent way to learn about the Abrahamic religions.
quote:I'm not arguing for "religion". I'm talking about the only way to be forgiven for your many, many sins and violations of God's law. You are a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, a coveter, an adulterer, and a murderer, among other things, according to God's standard of righteousness. When you die, you will one day stand before God and be judged by Him according to that standard, and you will fall short; you will be condemned for your sins. The only way to avoid such a judgement is to put your trust in Jesus Christ, the son of God, who became a human being to be under the law, obey it perfectly, and become a perfect substitute for us, dying a painful and shameful death on the cross for our sins, and then rising from the dead as a sign of His power over death for us, so that we will one day be raised from the dead with Him.
I have read the Bible. I have been to the Holy Land. I have studied and been exposed to many religions. As I type this, I am in a hotel room in Qatar looking at an arrow on the ceiling pointing to Mecca. You won’t see that in the United States. In a few days, I will be visiting the Hassan II mosque in Casablanca.
I have taken the time to peak behind the curtain and see religion for what it really is.
If you do not repent of your sins, you will die and be judged by God's righteous judgement for eternity. This isn't just a way of life, but the way, the truth, and the life in Jesus Christ.
Posted on 7/23/23 at 10:52 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
he was given a first rate Egyptian education
Do you believe this would have included learning the language of the slaves including reading and writing in Phonecian script?
quote:
That’s quite a claim. I’d like to see some evidence for it, before commenting further.
If you truly would like to learn about the subject, there’s a couple of books which puts forth better arguments than I could and shows all the evidence.
Moses and Minimalism, Robert Price
Did Moses Exist, Murdoch
You know Assyria sacked Israel and exiled a portion of the population. You also know that Babylon sacked Judah and exiles a portion of the population. Here’s the thing - neither empires exiled the entire population. That would’ve been impossible and left non-functional cities and farms. There were still native Israelites left in what was Israel, and still native Judeans in what used to be Judah. Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon and sent Judeans but also people from all over the empire to Judah and Israel. I think it is in Nehemiah where the natives are complaining that returning exiles are not even Jewish.
The returning exiles carried a new form of Judaism to replace the religion of the natives. The natives didn’t appreciate that, and viewed the returning exiles as apostates. That’s in the Bible as well. The Christian sects actually sprouted from the native polytheistic Samaritan and Jewish sects who viewed the second temple Jews as apostates controlled by the Persian emperor instead of being controlled by Yahweh who was one of their special gods but not the only god. To the sects like the Essenes who rejected second temple authority, they worshipped El Elyon (father of all gods and humans), Yahweh (El Elyon’s special unique “only begotten” monogenes son), and El Elyon’s wife / Yahweh’s mother Asherah, symbolized as a dove. Father, son, and Holy Spirit. The Christians didn’t make it up (what became the Trinity)… it already existed, but they believed Yahweh became quasi human and was sacrificed to atone for the sins of humanity as a final sacrifice to replace the yearly goat sacrifice (day of atonement, Yom Kippur). That’s all detailed in the book of Hebrews.
Anyhow, the Samaritans and the native Jews already had a claim on the land. The Samaritans said their ancestor Abraham gave it to them which El Elyon and El Shaddai had given to him. The native Jews said that Yahweh had given their land to Joshua (who had to kill a couple Canaanites to clear it) and they inherited it from Joshua. The natives had never heard of a “Moses” character. The story of the exodus was a story created by Persians and second temple priests (and Ezra and Zerubabbel probably) to justify their claim on the land as invaders. Their new stories, which became the Pentateuch, incorporated Abraham and Joshua to try to bring all the tribes together for stability of the government.
Ever heard of the Samaritan Pentateuch? They completely reject Joshua. Joshua wasn’t their “guy”. Abraham was. God had already made a covenant with Abraham. Why would they need another covenant giving them the land? The land was already theirs.
quote:
article Top Ten Discoveries Related to Moses and the Exodus begs to differ
Sorry, none of that is evidence that a group of slaves, which outnumbered Egyptians, left Egypt all at once and wandered lost in the Sinai desert for 40 years (led by Moses, who the Bible alleged crossed the Sinai to get to Midian, then went back through the Sinai to Egypt after encountering the burning bush, without issue). The “best” “evidence” in that website is the The Merneptah Stele. All it says is that in about 1200BCE the Egyptians found a nation in Canaan identifying as Israel that they crushed. If it’s evidence of anything, it is evidence that Israel was a Canaanite group, but is not evidence of Israelite mass population of slaves in Egypt. We know Israel was a Canaanite group as they spoke mutually intelligible languages and the Israelites wrote in a Phoenician script. They even worshipped the head Phonecian/Canaanite god El Elyon, and others like Ba’al, Asherah, Chemosh, Molech, etc.
quote:
Lol. The Egyptians are about as reliable as the mainstream media. They may record events, but I don’t think, for one second, that they would have recorded the story of a Hebrew slave overthrowing their government.
Read some Egyptian history. They actually did record many of their embarrassments, such as the arse bearing them received from the “sea peoples” (Mycenaean Greeks?) during the Bronze Age collapse. The also recorded when they finally made peace with the sea peoples and relocated them to what later people called Philistia.
quote:
Remember how I said that the copies aren’t inerrant? Only the original manuscripts are inerrant? Scribal error.
Some people on this site will argue that it is all true - even things that say the opposite are both true. Glad you aren’t one of them. If you acknowledge scribal errors, how can you then know what is divinely inspired versus scribal errors versus potentially scribal redactions and insertions? How does that not call into question the entirety of the Bible? For this reason, people like Foomanchoo deny all scribal errors and claim two things literally saying the exact opposite are both true.
quote:
I just want you to acknowledge that belief in the God of the Bible is, at least, marginally reasonable, and not based (entirely) on blind faith without a shred of evidence.
I don’t believe there is any evidence for, but rather mountains of scientific and historical evidence to the contrary of the Bible. If there was any actual evidence, then no faith would be needed.
Please don’t take offense to this, but the only reason belief in the Bible is reasonable to some, is because they…
- are gullible
- are uneducated in history and science
- are indoctrinated or brainwashed
Many of those, if not most, are good people, and their beliefs are no fault of their own.
If you knew what I know about the natural world, and if you analyzed the Bible critically as I have, I think you’d also find faith in the Bible to be unreasonable.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:46 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Do you believe this would have included learning the language of the slaves including reading and writing in Phonecian script?
Dunno. I’m not an Egyptologist. Lol. I’m sure you’ll tell me why that matters.
quote:
If you truly would like to learn about the subject, there’s a couple of books which puts forth better arguments than I could and shows all the evidence. Moses and Minimalism, Robert Price Did Moses Exist, Murdoch
In your previous post, you touted the authority of “mainstream scholars”- now you follow that up with two sources who are anything but. Interesting.
quote:
You know Assyria sacked Israel and exiled a portion of the population. You also know that Babylon sacked Judah and exiles a portion of the population. Here’s the thing - neither empires exiled the entire population. That would’ve been impossible and left non-functional cities and farms. There were still native Israelites left in what was Israel, and still native Judeans in what used to be Judah. Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon and sent Judeans but also people from all over the empire to Judah and Israel. I think it is in Nehemiah where the natives are complaining that returning exiles are not even Jewish.
Forgive me- I’m not sure what your point is here. I am uneducated, after all.
quote:
The Christian sects actually sprouted from the native polytheistic Samaritan and Jewish sects
Are you saying that belief in the Trinity is polytheistic?
quote:
Yahweh who was one of their special gods but not the only god.
Can you show me, in scripture, where you see that Yahweh was not the only God of the Jews? I assume you are aware that not everyone who called themselves a Jew was God’s elect?
quote:
To the sects like the Essenes who rejected second temple authority, they worshipped El Elyon (father of all gods and humans), Yahweh (El Elyon’s special unique “only begotten” monogenes son), and El Elyon’s wife / Yahweh’s mother Asherah, symbolized as a dove. Father, son, and Holy Spirit
Again, I need scriptural reference please. There are far more people who get it wrong than right- when it comes to theology. I’m not interested in the ranting of apostates. Scripture interprets scripture.
quote:
The Christians didn’t make it up (what became the Trinity)… it already existed
On this we can agree! Feels good, doesn’t it?
quote:
they believed Yahweh became quasi human
Negative. True Christians understand that Jesus was fully God, and fully man.
quote:
and was sacrificed to atone for the sins of humanity as a final sacrifice to replace the yearly goat sacrifice
Bingo. This is why He was fully God and man. If He had not lived a fully human life- resisting all sin along the way, the sacrifice would not have been sufficient. This is why the devil is big mad.
quote:
The natives had never heard of a “Moses” character. The story of the exodus was a story created by Persians and second temple priests (and Ezra and Zerubabbel probably)
I would love to see some proof of this insinuation. Of course, I will require that the proof comes from scripture- not some like minded fool who wants to pretend the Bible is not the Word of God.
quote:
Their new stories, which became the Pentateuch, incorporated Abraham and Joshua to try to bring all the tribes together for stability of the government.
So, if you read Genesis, you’ll know that the descendants of Cain; fully aware of God’s existence, freely chose not to worship the God that they knew was real- or, at least, the God that their grandfather, Adam, had most likely told them about. So, “new stories” is not the “gotcha” that you think it is.
quote:
Ever heard of the Samaritan Pentateuch? They completely reject Joshua. Joshua wasn’t their “guy”. Abraham was. God had already made a covenant with Abraham. Why would they need another covenant giving them the land? The land was already theirs.
Ever heard of Cain? Esau? God has predestined vessels for glory and vessels for wrath. The majority of all Jews rejected Jesus. It does not surprise me that they were repeating the errors of their predecessors. Esau felt like he was cheated, too- but was he? He sold his birthright for a single meal. A fool and his money…
quote:
Sorry, none of that is evidence that a group of slaves
There are literal records of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. You act like only the admittance of Egyptian records will be sufficient for your belief in the exodus. When people look back, 100 years from now, on the election of 2020- what will the records show? The truth? L-O-L.
quote:
and wandered lost in the Sinai desert for 40 years
In reality, what evidence would you expect to find of people wandering through a desert? (In addition to the biblical account
quote:
The “best” “evidence” in that website is the The Merneptah Stele. All it says is that in about 1200BCE the Egyptians found a nation in Canaan identifying as Israel that they crushed
So, it is evidence then. Thank you for your honesty. As far as them being called Canaanites- I personally have a habit of calling all Hispanics, Mexicans- so, there’s that. Much like me, I doubt they cared which specific region they were from- rather, only that they weren’t “from here.” Or, maybe like a husband and wife saying there was no problem when the neighbors called the police for an obvious domestic dispute. Does this make sense to you?
quote:
Read some Egyptian history.
There are some things that are easier to admit than others. “We got beat by a better team” sounds better than “we got beat by our own slaves.” Again, is this not reasonable?
quote:
If you acknowledge scribal errors, how can you then know what is divinely inspired versus scribal errors versus potentially scribal redactions and insertions? How does that not call into question the entirety of the Bible?
I believe that it is intended- to facilitate the necessity of a personal decision; to cause those who have doubts to seek out the truth, by interpreting scripture with scripture. Let’s be honest- we’re talking about some 400 “errors” in over 788,000 words that constitute the canon of scripture. None of which call into question what is necessary for salvation. I think that’s pretty amazing. It’s like He put them there, so I would read the rest of it. Does it really matter if God inspired editors and redactors? Maybe someone lost their inspiration- and someone else was inspired to complete the work. What’s wrong with the message it proclaims?
quote:
people like Foomanchoo
… are the most biblically sound posters on this site. While I may not agree with everything he says (if anyone agrees with everything you say, you should definitely question their intentions), I deduce, from his posts, that his heart is in the right place. What harm can come from having a conversation with someone who only wants what he believes is best for you? We should all be so lucky.
quote:
don’t believe there is any evidence for, but rather mountains of scientific and historical evidence to the contrary of the Bible. If there was any actual evidence, then no faith would be needed.
There in lies the problem. It is not the lack of evidence- but rather your chosen interpretation of the evidence, driven by your desire (the bondage of the will), that repeatedly leads you to these conclusions. You, nor anyone who has ever lived, has a single shred of evidence that God does not exist. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Perhaps you should reconsider Pascal’s Wager. It may be the starting point that He has in mind for you. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” We’ve already established that you are intelligent. Let’s get you some wisdom!
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:10 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
In your previous post, you touted the authority of “mainstream scholars”- now you follow that up with two sources who are anything but. Interesting.
Like most religious people, you don’t even want to search for the truth and constantly learn, but rather you have ideas that you just want to believe regardless of the evidence. That’s ok I guess.
quote:
Are you saying that belief in the Trinity is polytheistic?
Depends on your definition. Modern scholarship would consider the Trinity polytheistic, but a practicing Catholic or Baptist would not. It’s rooted from groups like the Essenes worshipping the father El Elyon, the son Yahweh, and divine mother spirit Asherah. That was carried over into Christianity, but they then wanted to adopt the first commandment and had to square that with their polytheism.
quote:
Can you show me, in scripture, where you see that Yahweh was not the only God of the Jews? I assume you are aware that not everyone who called themselves a Jew was God’s elect?
Genesis 14:18-20 is one example of El Elyon (God Most High). He’s the highest God - stronger and more powerful and higher authority over… what or whom? Logically if there’s a highest god, there must be one or more lower gods. Look at Deuteronomy 32:8 when El Elyon gave Israel to Yahweh as his inheritance. Who does one inherit something from typically? Their father. I get that Abraham wasn’t a Jew but I’m lumping him in. Look in the scripture - it’s too many to list. Look at who Solomon built altars to in the temple. Those were Jews worshipping all sorts of deities. All throughout the Bible there’s a constant theme of “don’t worship all those other gods except Yahweh” because they were already doing just that. You don’t tell a kid to stop reaching into the cookie jar if they’re not reaching for cookies.
Look at Exodus 6:3. The lying scribe inserted text to say that Yahweh was really El Shaddai in order to conflate the two deities into one.
Also although not Gods of the Jews in particular, read Psalm 82 and 89 as further evidence that the biblical authors believed in many deities.
quote:
Negative. True Christians understand that Jesus was fully God, and fully man.
There were many beliefs of Christians. Jesus was an archangel who wore a body manufactured from the sperm of David and was killed by demons in heaven, and became “god’s son” only after being resurrected. 1 Cor 2:6-8. Romans 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Ephesians 6:12, Philippians 2:9, as but a few examples but not the only examples of this belief.
So I guess it depends on your own definition of “true Christian”- maybe you mean only people with the exact same beliefs as you? Catholics aren’t Christian? That fully god and fully man stuff was argued about for 400 years and even to this day. Those are specific beliefs of some Christian groups. I think you’re being unfair with your definition of Christian.
quote:
I would love to see some proof of this insinuation. Of course, I will require that the proof comes from scripture-
In 4 Ezra (apocryphal) it says that no religious texts survived the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, and that Ezra had to re-write them all the deliver them to Jerusalem. I believe there’s some partial truth to that.
quote:
There are literal records of Hebrew slaves in Egypt.
So what? The Egyptians had slaves of every single group they ever encountered. There’s no evidence for the exodus of the Israelites as a group that outnumbered the Egyptians all leaving Egypt simultaneously like portrayed in the Bible.
quote:
So, it is evidence then.
The Merneptah Stele is evidence of Egypt having a military victory over a group called the Israelites. Nothing more. That’s not evidence of the Exodus.
quote:
You, nor anyone who has ever lived, has a single shred of evidence that God does not exist. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
And you have no shred of evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. And leprechauns and the tooth fairy. You also have no positive evidence for the existence of a god.
I’ll leave you with Jeremiah 8:8:
quote:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News