Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KeepTalking · 08-19-2011, 07:52 AM

Sorry, overlooked this thread for a while...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepTalking

It may have a social impact to speak out against religious belief, however, your contention was that it is social and political motivation that is the basis of my skepticism. That is clearly false.

Yes, it is false. That wasn't my intended contention. My comments were intended to establish the social impact of speaking out, not the motivation of a basis for skepticism.

Going back and looking at the original post, I see that this was likely the case, and the way I read it originally was a misunderstanding on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

I see people like you as being aware of your traditional and cultural background (in Christendom) as your having been swindled.

I don't see it that way myself. I don't feel I was swindled, I think my parents raised me to believe because they honestly believed themselves. Looking back at some of the more influential members of the Church I attended for most of my life, I would say they honestly believed as well. If swindling had anything to do with it, the swindle was so far in the past (on the order of two thousand years) that it really doesn't grate on me.

I do think some Christians are swindled, particularly by faith healers and televangelists, but none of that comes from personal experience on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

The social impact comes from that. Which takes us back to my original point, of it coming from the religion and not necessarily an informed criticism.

As we diverged somewhat on the previous point, and this just builds on that point, I don't fully agree with this either. I feel it is a bit of both when viewed overall, though individual cases may go either way. Whereas some former Christians who had the experience of being swindled might draw upon that experience in their skepticism, I feel mine (and likely that of others) is more informed by criticism, as that was the basis for my deconversion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepTalking

No one pressured them to continue their belief in Santa Claus after they became adults, either. I experience this pressure to return to a belief in God on nearly a daily basis.

Well, I can see that. As having spent 26 years of my life as an atheist, and considering everyone I know in my life with the exception of 1 person is atheist, I get that same pressure to abandon my so called superstition.

So, what do you feel the social impact is of your speaking out for Christianity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

Keep Talking? Pink Floyd featuring Steven Hawking?

You guessed it in one. >

<

mg01 · 08-19-2011, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

During King David's residence at Hebron, while he was still king of Judah, six sons were born to him. Of the three sons three appear to have died in infancy. Of the other three, Amnon was murdered, Absalom died while he was in rebellion against his father, and Adonijah (having attempted to usurp the throne), was put to death by Solomon.

The right of succession to David's kingship went to David's sons born "after" he was enthroned king over all Israel. Those children are enumerated in
1Chron.3:1-9. Of those sons only two are mentioned, Nathan and Solomon. As we know Solomon succeeded his father as king, but, Nathan was older than Solomon, and, in that respect could have contested Solomon's right of succession, even though we know he didn't.

Solomon's reign always had the shadow of Nathan's right to succession on it. That is why the geneaology of Mary in Luke. It made Jesus a direct descendant of David through Nathan the legal heir to David's throne. Since Mary was not of the kingly line as Joseph was since his geneaology is through Solomon, the only way that Jesus' right to David's throne could be secured was through marriage.

You know that this made me think of? Modern fans of any fictional phenomenon (Trek, Star Wars, Buffy, etc...) having a conversation along the lines of, "yeah, but in Episode 15 when were doing such-and-such, so-and-so said yadda yadda yadda. That means it had to have been ..."

mg01 · 08-19-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Come on, folks. this is silly. WHERE DOES THE WORD, "mashiach" appear in the old, Hebrew testament? Not the LXX. The real McCoy. Where is it?

The Hebrew mashach, meaning "smear (anoint)" appears at Exodus 29:7. Mashiach (anointed) appears at 2 Samuel 19:21; 22:51; 23:1 / Psalm 18:50.

Hey AVI, see here and here. I may not have gotten all the flavors. Use Google's "Cached" option at the end of the 2nd line of each result and the instances will be highlighted. These are chapter level results since the site has a chapter per page. A page may have multiple occurrences. Look at Issiah 45:1 for one famous example.

horhang · 08-28-2011, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by horhang

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The theological claims here do not change the genealogies or hook Mary into one. Mary's cousin is Elizabeth, who was a descendant of Aaron (Lk 1:5), making Mary not of Judah but of Levi.

That Mary is Davidic is false given that she is Aaronid.

This certainty puzzles me. How do we know that mary is of Aaron? All we know is that her cousin is of Aaron. That Elizabeth is her cousin only says that they had a parent siblings. It could be that Mary's mother married into the house of Judah, making Mary of Judah, While Mary's mother's brother was the father of Elizabeth, making her of the house of Judah.

This seems a complicated reading, and the only extant evidence is that they are cousins; we know Elizabeth is of Judah, but how can we be certain of Mary? It seems the most rational conclusion, but why are you so certain?

Blood lineage is patrilineal, as we see in all the biblical genealogies. Mary's relationship with Elizabeth is συγγενης, "of the same kin, descent, or family". This should mean that their male lineages unite, making Mary and Elizabeth both of Aaron, for a woman marrying outside the tribe means the children born to the male are of his extended family and would not technically be the same descent or family as the male lineage of the mother.

Spin is there an online reference page for this, it would be nice to have for future reference?

avi · 08-28-2011, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Hey AVI, see here and here. I may not have gotten all the flavors. Use Google's "Cached" option at the end of the 2nd line of each result and the instances will be highlighted. These are chapter level results since the site has a chapter per page. A page may have multiple occurrences. Look at Issiah 45:1 for one famous example.

Quote:

Hebrew Transliterated
45:1 KH-'aMUr YHVH LMShYChV LKVUrSh 'aShUr-HChZQThY BYMYNV LUrD-LPhNYV GVYM VMThNY MLKYM 'aPhThCh LPhThCh LPhNYV DLThYM VSh'yUrYM L'a YSGUrV.

Latin Vulgate
45:1 haec dicit Dominus christo meo Cyro cuius adprehendi dexteram ut subiciam ante faciem eius gentes et dorsa regum vertam et aperiam coram eo ianuas et portae non cludentur

King James Version
45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Two points:
1. YHWH, in the original Hebrew, is NOT "dominus", but rather "deus", in Latin.

2. Christo, Greek equivalent of mashiach, corresponds NOT to JC, in particular, but rather, to "annointed".

Thank you for these references to the Hebrew texts, mg01.

avi

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.