llamaluvr

I didn't really realize I made an argument on design until now. I think I summarized one a little bit, rather than actually going at it. I think the argument from design for arguing the existence of a god is a different, although both arguments are of the same type. I don't consider either to be strong proofs- rather they encapsulate evidence that supports a theory. X, Y, and Z from nature might be what we'd expect if things were designed by a creator (argument for god). While, X1, Y1, and Z1 from wherever might be what we would expect if that God were Yahweh (for instance, an abundance of real-world parallel's to the redemption story).

Eh, it's not about convincing- more just hearing each other out. If you want to voice what makes those differences irreconcilable one more time, that might help me understand where you're coming from. I like to cross my t's and dot my i's, so I'd like to be sure that there isn't an actual inconsistency. Irreconcilability == inconsistency in my head, and I haven't spotted an inconsistency, so that's why I've been able to reconcile it, but, who knows? Maybe some synapses aren't firing today ;-).

What's great though, is that most of what we've talked about aren't differences that people need to fight to the death about or anything. It's obvious we don't have *all* the information- God would have to be considerably more exhaustable than what's in the Bible. So, Christians can have different opinions on this stuff and it's ok. But, when they start saying that "you must believe X about predestination to be a Christian", it's bad, and I get pissed when Christians can't just talk about this stuff without making it out to be some huge part of their religious practice. Jesus never made faith that difficult- look at how much we know about the criminal's faith in Luke 23:39-43.

I think the level of compassion for the damned is great; I think it could be higher, but it's definitely there. That's the whole motivation behind the Great Commission. The idea was to tell people about Jesus out of love for them, rather than what it sometimes becomes for folks today- an opportunity to add another soul to your running total. None of this trumps justice, however. God cannot just be a parent; he has to be a judge, too.

That's your opinion, and that's fine, but it just seems ironic, because, if he really was a sociopath, then your protest would be in vain, because he simply wouldn't give a damn, and, if he really was good, then you'd just be totally in the wrong. Either way, you'd be up against someone who has a reputation for not budging like none other. Maybe it's a useful protest from your position on earth, but from the fire?

I believe what I believe because positive evidence has been presented to me that has convinved me to believe that way. I think it works this way for most people. I don't say that my faith must be disproved in order for me to no longer hold it as true- I suppose there could be this huge mass of negative evidence (or, more likely, positive evidence of another belief) that would cause me to no longer have my faith. When I am saying is that if somebody proved my faith wrong, I would flat out no longer believe, because it would be illogical to do so.

The evidence that has caused me to believe in Christianity has largely not been tied to the Genesis account; however, other evidence has caused me to trust the source, and thus trust the Genesis account. At this point, I can't find any scientific evidence that does any real damage to the Genesis account. What we have at this point basically amounts to artifacts in 3-D space and hypothesises plotting them in 4-D space-time- it's nothing *that* spectacular.

johntheapostate

I would like to address the subject of the reliability of the book of Genesis. Whether they admit it or not, the reliability of this book is crucial to the reliability of the Christian doctrine. Paul was explicit that Jesus had come to undo what the transgression of Adam had caused. If Genesis can be shown to be an inaccurate account, then any doctrine based on the account being accurate is suspect.

1 Corinthians 15:21 “ For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive�

(This is one of the passages the universalists like as it seems to indicate salvation for all)

Romans 5:12 “ Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin and in this way death came to all men�

It is clear that Paul believed that Adam and Eve actually existed and that the justification for the Christian belief rests on the doctrine that Jesus died as an atonement sacrifice for original sin.

Romans 3:25 “ God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement�

1Corinthians 5:7 “ For Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed�

Hebrews 7:27 “ He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself�

Hebrews 9:26 “ But now he has appeared at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself�

( one must wonder at the reliability of Pauls testimony, for he indicates in this passage that the end of the ages had now come to the readers of his letter)

What compels anyone to believe that the Genesis account is reliable. At one time faith in its legitimacy rested on the belief that Moses had authored it under the direction of the holy spirit. And in all honesty if it where shown to be a collection of fables and myth compiled by anonymous authors and redactors centuries after Moses the only reason to accept its testimony as athoritive would be the overwhelming desire to do so.

It is in conflict with science and itself, and the first thing I would like to address is this issue of a talking, walking snake. On the face of it, if one was not compelled to believe it was the word of god, rational people would dismiss it as a childish fairy tale.

Some people try to legitimize this myth by indicating that the serpent was actually the devil in disguise. If the body of the serpent had merely served as a disguise, why would god feel it necessary to curse all snakes from that time on ? I can show that belief in satan did not exist at the time this oral tradition came into existence. The story really did intend to convey to its readers that it had been a snake that had tempted the first two humans.

And which rational person believes that all animals which we regard as carnivores where origanly herbivores

Genesis 1:29-30 “ Then God said I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground, everything that has the breath of life in it, I give every green plant for food.�

I suppose one could imagine that all those carnivores which seem to be adapted in every way to hunt, kill and eat other animals subsisted on grass and other vegetation, but it would be an indication of the delusional nature of faith and not rational thought.

The whole story of an ark containing a complete spectrum of life forms, their food and water and all cared for by a crew of eight, boggles the mind. I believe more animals have gone extinct in the last six thousand years than could be housed and fed on the ark. But if one is to believe in the reliability of Genesis, this is something that must be believed. Where did they keep the fish and whales. Anyone who has kept tropical fish know how susceptible they are to even the slightest fluctuation in their environment. They would never have survived in the conditions of a flood described in the Bible. Some apologists claim that god allowed them to evolve to survive the conditions of the flood. They have zero scriptural proof for this and why would god go to the trouble of securing a representative of every life form that lived on land and let the sea creatures evolve to adapt to their environment. It would have been no more trouble to let everything evolve gills and adapt to the new conditions

And this claim of a six thousand year old earth is absurd considering that it has determined that there are stars that are billions of light years away. That would indicate that the star light that is reaching our eyes today had its origin billions of years ago. Indicating that our universe is at least that old.

I have digressed somewhat from the topic, concerning if Moses, under the authority of the holy spirit dictated the words of the book of Genesis, or if it was created at a later date by anonymous compilers and redactors whose motives and authority remain are suspect. I was trying to show that the extraordinary claims made in the book of Genesis can not be upheld on their own and if they where to carry any authority at all, the author would have to be known and considered athoritive.

I will now show how it could not have been Moses who wrote the book of Genesis.

We have an account of Lot being captured and the subsequent attempt by Abraham to free him

Genesis 14:14 “ When Abraham had heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in Pursuit as far as Dan.

To anyone who has not been shown the fallacy of this statement, nothing seems to be out of the ordinary in this verse. But If one is to go to the book of Judges it becomes apparent that this city did not exist at the time of Abraham and only came into existence after Moses had died.

Judges 18:28-29 “ The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel, though the city used to be called Laish.:

This verse shows that the account of Abraham is in part, and probably whole a fabrication of later anonymous compiler. .It clearly indicates that Moses was not the author of that account and perhaps not of any of the book.

The book of Genesis contains a list of the rulers of Edom.

Genesis 36:31" These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned.�

How could Moses have written this? It presupposes some, and probably all of the Israelite monarchy which certainly did not exist until after Moses had died.

The book of Chronicles is a book that was compiled after the monarchy had come to an end. It is interesting to note that the passages in Genesis can be found word for word in the book Chronicles.

1 Chronicles 1:43" These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned�

It then goes on to list the kings, and the list is word for word the same as in the book of Genesis .
Now this list makes perfect sense in Chronicles but not in Genesis. It is certain that the list was transferred from Chronicles to Genesis and not the other way around. This shows that the book of Genesis dates in part or whole from after the Israelite Monarchy and not the time of the exodus.

Many Christians have lowered their standard of proof in direct correlation of how that proof has been shown to be undependable. But even those who don’t care a whit who the author of Genesis was, should consider that it dates from a time well into the existence of Israel and was authored by anonymous men who’s motives had nothing to do with an accurate account of history, but who were most interested in creating propaganda that secured the Jewish claim to the land of Israel and their superior rank in its society.

johntheapostate

Perhaps you should consider your eternal fate. You may end up joining me in the fire. I can show that all the proof text used to support the claim of the divinity of Jesus are unsubstantiated. This means that Christians have made a man into an idol. Perhaps you will spend eternity with the worst form of idolaters.

The New Testament makes claims for the divinity of Jesus using passages from the Hebrew scripture. In my opinion the textual proof for this claim does not even come close to justifying the concept of the trinity considering the overwhelming preponderance of textual evidence affirming the singular nature of god.

In the book of John the Jews where about to stone Jesus for what they perceived was the claim by Jesus that he was god.

John 10:31-“32 “ Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father For which of them do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be god.�

If Jesus had indicated that he was in some way god the Jews would have been within their Law to kill him.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your god is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your god you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him, and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death�

If Jesus had not been claiming to be a part of god he had the opportunity to clarify his statements, but instead he makes this statement.

John 10:34-35 “ Jesus answered them, is it not written in your Law I have said you are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own.

I have been accused at times of not interpreting scripture within its context, but here Jesus take that practice to its extreme. He invokes the authority of scripture in his assertion that he held some special relation to god that exceeded that of the persons who had been referred to god in the Hebrew scripture. This passage comes from Psalms and I don’t think that it was considered part of the Law by the Jews anyway.

Psalm 82:1 “ God presides in the great assembly, he gives judgment among the gods�

If one were to read just this passage, it could be interpreted that perhaps the Jewish concept of monotheism could accommodate other gods, but if one reads a little further the nature of these gods become apparent. After berating these gods the chapter closes with this statement.

Psalm 82:6-7 “ I said you are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler�

It now becomes apparent that this chapter is about human rulers and kings and their refusal to act justly. And it also indicates that at the time Psalms was written a king could hold the title of god or son of God.

This bit of information totally destroys the legitimacy of the proof text which come from the Book of Psalms that are used to bolster the claim that Jesus is also god.

Matthew 22:45 “ While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, What do you think about the Christ, whose son is he? The son of David, they replied. How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him Lord, For he says The Lord said to my Lord. Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. If David called him Lord how can he be his son? No one could say a word in reply, and from that day no one dared to ask him any more questions�

Verses like these are the reason that fundamentalists insist that the Psalms were written by David himself. First Because Jesus said so and second because if they acknowledge that the Psalms were written by others about David then all those instances were it appears that David is addressing a divine entity, simply can be understood as a subject of David addressing the King in language appropriate for the circumstances of a lesser addressing a superior

This is something that liberal Christians should consider. For if they admit (correctly) that to hold to the position that the author of Psalms was David, can not be substantiated considering the internal evidence contained in the text, then they throw out all the proof text supporting his divinity as well. This statement by Jesus which is used as the better part of the claim by Christianity that Jesus was divine depends totally on the assumption that David was the author of the text.

Some would object that the term Lord was reserved only for god. But the Bible contains many instances where the subordinate addressees his superior as lord. Here is a passage were both David and God are addressed as L/lord in the same sentence.

1 Chronicles 21:3 “ But Joab replied, May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lords subjects?�

So if the Psalm was written by a subordinate of David, there is no problem interpreting the passage “ The Lord (god) said to my lord ( the king) Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.� This interpretation is much more plausible and destroys what I consider a rather weak argument to begin with, That the Hebrew scriptures indicate that the Messiah would be a divine figure.

I would like to address some passages from the book of Hebrews which try to impress on the reader the divinity of Christ


Hebrews 1:5 “ For which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son, today I have become your Father? Or again I will be his Father and he will be my Son�

I have shown that Kings could be referred to as Sons of God and in the context of Psalm 2, it becomes obvious that It was written by a subordinate of David about David and that the author is writing in a manner that reflected the semi divine status that Kings held at the time. A status that the Jews did not hold of kings by the first century.

Here is how the author of Hebrews abuses the difference of opinion of the status of kings that had developed from the time when Psalms was written until the time Hebrews was written. Here the author quotes Psalm 45:6-7

Hebrews 1:8-9 “ But about the Son he says Your throne oh God will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions�

This Quote is almost correct but there is one difference. In Psalms it is a scepter of justice rather than righteousness which is referred to. I am not certain why the author replaced justice with righteousness, perhaps justice was to closely associated with the Law for the authors taste�

Again the author assumes that it is David who wrote the Psalm in reference to some future divine Messiah. In the case we can exclude this theory on the internal evidence of the Psalm itself.

Psalm 45:1 “ My heart is stirred by a noble theme as I recite my verses for the king, my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer�

In the first verse the author is identified as someone other than the king.

The author of Hebrews then assumes that the phrase God your God is meant to be understood as one divinity addressing another when in fact it can just as easily be understood as the author of this Psalm emphasizing that god Davids god has set David above his companions. And even if the Psalmist had intended David to be addressed as god, I have shown that this was not impossible at the time the Psalms were written.

If one reads the rest of the Psalm it become clear that is about David rather than by David. The rest of the Psalm is mostly concerned about the sexual interest the king has for women and to state the promise that sons would take the places of their fathers to perpetuate his memory forever.

At any rate with the preponderance of scripture indicating that god was a single entity, I think that most Jews in the first century would have found the concept of the trinity hard to justify.

johntheapostate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought that this post which I used in the " Was Paul a liar?" thread would also be applicable here, as it illustrates the singular nature of god as depicted by the author/s of the book of Isaiah. Here it is.

Philippians 2:5-11 Paul attempt to show that although Jesus had humbled himself to die as a man on the cross, he was by nature an equal of god.

“ Your attitude should be the same as that of Jesus Christ: Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.�

Here Paul shows that although Jesus was the equal of god he had not selfishly held on to that status but had willingly become human to sacrifice himself on the cross.

“ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name that is above every name�

Paul shows that Jesus regains his stature

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father�

This verse is a rip- off of Isaiah 45:23 and with the context surrounding it Paul appears to be on very shaky ground.

Isaiah 45:21-25 “ Was it not I the Lord? And there is no God apart from me a righteous God and a Savior, there is none but me.

Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked.

Before me every knee shall bow, by me every tongue will swear They will say off me, In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength. All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.

Did Paul consciously rip-off the text of Isaiah and insert Jesus in the place of god, knowing full well that in the context of the verse the author had gone to great lengths to emphasize the singularity of god and that there was no credible justifications for contorting the meaning of one on some concept of the trinity which can not in honesty be extracted from the text and was foreign to the Jews and had not been formulated by the Christian church at the time Paul wrote his letter at any rate.

It is interesting that contained in the chapters surrounding this verse there is a determined effort by its author to emphasize the singularity of god. Here are some others that I found in the vicinity.

Isaiah 42:8 “ I am the Lord, that is my name. I will not give my glory to another�

Isaiah 43:10-11" Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I even I am the Lord and apart from me there is no savior�

Isaiah 44:6" I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is no God�

Isaiah 44:24 “ I am the Lord who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.�

Isaiah 46:4 “ To whom will you compare me or count me equal?�

Isaiah 46:9 “ I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me.

Isaiah 48:11 “ For my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another�

Isaiah 48:12 “ Listen to me O Jacob, Israel who I have called, I am he, I am the first and the last�



There is no other place in the Hebrew scriptures that contains as many passages affirming the singular nature of god as the section of Isaiah from which Paul plagiarized.

johntheapostate

Nehemiah 9:6 " You alone are the Lord. you made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything"


This verse in Nehemiah contradicts completely the concept of the trinity. Arguments have been made by defenders of that concept, that although there is only one god, that within that god there is more than one lord. In this way they can have Jesus take ownership of some passages in the Hebrew scripture where the lord is referred to. Yet this verse clearly indicates that god alone is lord.

I

Sheshbazzar

You can "prove" a lot of things, by using a "version" of the "bible" where the text has been willfully corrupted by deliberate additions and by omissions, and by mistranslations, done deliberately, or in ignorance.
Very few of your myriad quotations above accurately reflect any the actual statements of the Hebrew text, "cooked books make for a bad stew".

johntheapostate

Deuteronomy 18:22 " You may say to yourself, how can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That Prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."

I to would like to claim a one hundred percent success rate by only claiming the obvious successes and denying the failures, but that is beside the point.

In this passage, directions are made to distinguish a false prophet from all the would be contenders. In my opinion the entire text of the New Testament should be considered a false prophecy, using this guideline.

I could go to some length to show that Jesus and the New Testament made claims about the second coming, that while not specific to the exact day, do indicate an immanent return. But as Christians will cling to even the slightest ambiguity to prove that the text does not really say what it appears to say, I don’t know if it would be of any worth. But just to pass the time I will illustrate one such occurrence.

I had been studying in the Old Testament for several weeks and I felt I needed a break in the routine. On the spur of the moment I flipped to the last book in the Bible. I had read through most of Revelations (And it appeared to me as if written by someone who had lost touch with reality) when on the last page near the end I came across a passage that I instantly associated with the book of Daniel ( which I believe it had been designed to do)

Revelations 22:10-11 “ Then he said to me, do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong, let him who is vile continue to be vile, let him who does right continue to do right, and let him who is holy continue to be holy�

On the face of it these passages seem to indicate that the end is so immanent that any further attempts at spreading the gospel should be halted and preparation made for ones personal meeting with Jesus. And directly following these passages we have the text declaring in Jesus’s own words the imminence of his return.

Revelations 22:7 " Behold I am coming soon! Blessed is he that keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."

But if one is to combine these passages with the passages from the book of Daniel which they seem deliberately designed to do, Then the original readers of this book would have been completely justified in expecting Jesus within a very short time period.

Daniel 12:2-4 “But at that time your people, everyone whose name is written in the Book will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

But you Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end�

That is the verse that anyone familiar with the book of Daniel would instantly have associated to the verse in Revelations “ Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book because the end is near�

If the message had not been clear enough before, the association with the verse in Daniel would surely have indicated to the readers of Revelation that they were to understand that the author intended for them to believe that the second coming was more than immanent it was almost immediate.

If the author of Revelation was so flawed in his interpretation of something as crucial as the second coming how can anyone be sure of any prophecy contained in the book . And as the New Testament is to be considered as one unit with each book testifying to the integrity of the others, how can we be sure of anything they say.

I am aware that Christians cling to their beliefs on the basis that there is no absolute method to disprove all of their claims. In fact it is the apologists favorite tactic to explain away all contradictions on the testimony of even the remotest possibility. I believe the scale of these contradictions and the impossibility of proving any of the Christians claims should lead the rational person to acknowledge the overwhelming probability that they are in fact false.

johntheapostate

I would be a little more impressed if you would take the time to show me passage by passage, how I have reached the wrong conclusions using the texts that I have( In which I have not deliberately changed a single word, but have copied as I found them)

Could you indicate how Paul is justified in his creative transmission of text in which he seemed to show no concern about about correctly using Hebrew scripture. And I don't want to hear that he worked under the authority of the holy spirit

Are you implying that all the contradictions found in the Bible would magically disappear if only a correct translation was used.


Its all very easy to hurl an unsubstantiated accusation from the side line. Prove your case.

Sheshbazzar

Hello, apostate,
Are you well versed in your Hebrew studies, with a good, strong ability to accurately translate these Hebrew texts word for word, idea for idea, into the English language, without overlaying the actual words of said text with ideas and terms that you have 'borrowed' from pagan Greeks and "Christian Theology"?

If yes, let us begin, not with Paul's words nor any assertions of his, but with what the text of The Tanaka actually said. (and still says)
You placed many, many verses in "quotation" marks, Choose the verse, and we will go at it letter by letter, word by word, idea by idea, in context, and we shall see how well you translate and understand The Scriptures.
-Zerubabble-

johntheapostate

Are you indicating that your knowledge of the language is superior to the whole teams of interpreters that create English translations of the Bible.

Why have you not published an interpretation based on your superior knowledge so that we may all be enlightened.

Where are your loyalties. Are you Jewish or are you Christian.

I will ask you again. Is it your assertion that Paul would not come across as such a blatant liar if the texts had been interpreted correctly?

Is this what apologetics has come to. You cant understand what it means because you cant read Hebrew or Greek?

How can I be condemned to hell if the evidence that I must consider is buried deep in some ancient language beyond my comprehension?

I am being condemned by an English translation of the Bible so I feel justified in critiquing it based on the English translation.

And from what I have seen, a better interpretation of the Hebrew scripture shows that the New Testament is further from the truth rather than closer.
The Christian translators have motivation to translate Hebrew Scripture favoring a Christian perspective wherever possible.

And it was my understanding that Paul used the Septuagint which appears to be a rather flawed interpretation to begin with.

Excuse me if my post seems a little antagonistic, but anyone would feel a little agitated if they where told that something that they had invested many hundreds of hours on, was useless.