aChristian

You need to read more about Albright.

Diogenes the Cynic

You need to read Finkelstein and Silberman.

johntheapostate

Joshua 12:19-20 " Not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy"

What do these passages tell you about the character of god or the concept of free will?

johntheapostate

I forgot I already had a more in depth post on the subject in another thread.Here is a repost of that.

Joshua 12:19-20 " Not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally exterminating them without mercy"

This verse shows that god actively interferes with the Christians precious concept of free will, which is the only way they can rationalize the integrity of their god concept and it shows that god demanded the sacrifice of the inhabitants of those cities

Joshua 12:17 " The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the Lord"

Most Christians don't know that devoting something was the most "holy" form of sacrifice and was regulated by the Law of Moses.

Leviticus 27:28 " But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the Lord, whether man or animal or family land may be redeemed. everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord"

Redeeming something was paying god something in exchange for what was owed to him. For instance god demanded the sacrifice of every firstborn

Exodus 13:2 " Then the Lord said to Moses. Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The firstborn of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal"

Exodus 22:29 " You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep"

You can bet your bottom dollar that the ancient Israelites practiced infant sacrifice, but eventually this was frowned upon and they were allowed to redeem their sons

Exodus 13:13 "redeem every firstborn among your sons"

But I digress. Anyway if you devoted something to the Lord,it could not be redeemed at any price.

Leviticus 27:29 "No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed, he must be put to death"

So we can see that if humans where devoted to the Lord, that meant that they where to be utterly destroyed.

Joshua 6:21 " They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it, Men and women, young and old, cattle sheep and donkeys."

Sometimes an exception was made for certain children.

Numbers 31:17 " Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman that has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man.

What they used these virgins for is up for speculation.

Peter Kirby

Archer may--or may not--have read any 18th or 19th century writers who denied the existence of the Hittites. This is the very kind of assumption that people habitually make without having particular data. Certainly, you don't know whether Archer did or did not. So, your assumption about "the liberal critics" has no foundation in fact; it is only a weak form of hearsay, accepted because it fits a pre-existing prejudice (about "the liberal critics"). Not only is this backwards from the standpoint of reason, as explained in my last post, but it is discrediting for someone to make a claim about a specific that could be easily supported by a citation, especially when the very point being made is that the persons (anonymous so far) said a certain thing.

Since the situation is clear, I don't see any reason for me to be making further posts on this unless a citation of someone before ca. 1880 is produced.

best,
Peter Kirby

aChristian

It is clear from the terms in the rest of the letter and the gospel of John that he is talking about Jesus

1: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
He is obviously talking about someone physical whom he could handle with his hands.

2: For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;
They had seen it and were bearing witness (telling them about what they had seen) to the life that had appeared and were showing (obviously not in a physical sense, but the person of Jesus who really is living in Christians) them Jesus who was (previously physically) with the Father and was manifested (physically) to us.
Yes you can. It makes the most sense of the passage.
No it isn’t.

3: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4: And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

That which we have seen and heard (Jesus’ miraculous life on earth and his death, resurrection, and ascension as well as his message) we declare to you, so you can have fellowship with us (by knowing the same living God who is now in heaven but can live in your heart)

I think this is a clear interpretation of the passage. Your rule that you can’t switch between physical and spiritual is not a rule of grammar or good interpretation. There is nothing preventing an author from doing this and the passage is quite understandable to me.

He appears to me to give the reader reasons for believing that he knows what he is talking about when he tells him about Jesus and then to follow that up with how the reader can know this Jesus who John had lived with, seen die, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven.

aChristian

What I did was quote Archer who has demonstrated knowlegde in the field. He stated that liberal scholars had denied different Biblical statements of fact as if it was well known and didn't require further proof. His knowledge in the field gives me reason to believe him.

Later, I also posted a few quotes by W. F. Albright which agreed with Archer. I don't see how you can seriously question Albright statements. In fact, I don't see how you can question Archer. He obviously knows what he is talking about. However, the quotes by Albright establish my claim.

aChristian

You need to read what I wrote about free will and predestination. Both are presented in the Bible as being true. Your idea that God commanded infant sacrifice is not supported by the text. You quoted out of context. As far as practices that God allowed in Israel, the civil law he gave them limited how much sin he would allow them. We do the same with our civil law. We say it is okay to lie, we won't throw you in jail for that, but if you lie under oath, we will throw you in jail. The law limited a people's sin. Jesus stated that (God had) Moses allow divorce because of the hardness of the people's hearts, but that was not God's ideal. The civil law just allowed it.

aChristian

Good night all.

johntheapostate

The text of Ezekiel has god taking ownership of statutes that required infant sacrifice. The text indicates that god did this in retribution for idolatry, but is there really any viable reason a deity should condone infant sacrifice.

Ezekiel 20:25 " I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by. I let them become defiled through their gifts, the sacrifice of every firstborn, that I might fill them with horror, so they would know that I am the Lord."

Only someone who believed that one plus one plus one equals one, could rationalize free will and predestination being equally true.