graymouser

Ah. Back when I was in college (and a Catholic), I personally debunked Stephen White* on the issue of Christian sin. Specifically, he was claiming that Christians don't sin; I used the example of Peter's 3 denials of Christ after having professed Jesus as the Christ to demonstrate that, biblically, there was a basis for Christians still sinning. He shut up on the subject after that.

*Stephen White is a Pentecostal preacher and a Republican activist. He appeared on my college campus to stir up religious dissent, attacking atheists, Catholics, and even the fundie Baptists in the InterVarsity program (a trap I wish I could've gotten someone I once knew out of), decrying Islam and claiming that President Bush was a great Christian. White was arrested for allegedly offering a 14 year old boy $20 to perform oral sex on him - which sets his abovementioned claim off nicely.

This tangent has been set up nicely by your question.

-Wayne

Mageth

Well, as I do sometimes, I type a little fast and forget to properly qualify my statements. I should have said the first two chapters of Job are possibly or appear to be post-exilic additions to a pre-exilic story.

I picked up this idea from reading Gregory Riley's book The River of God. (He states it as fact, IIRC). It sounds quite reasonable to me that the first two chapters of Job are a later addition, since Satan does his thing in the first two chapters, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again in the rest of the book, I believe.

The idea of God vs. Satan as enemies in a cosmic struggle was picked up from Zoroastrianism during the Exile. However, note that Satan is portrayed more or less as one of God's servants in Job, getting permission from God to do evil on Job. However, it is Satan that actually does the evil, with God permitting him to do so. In earlier Biblical texts, and even in the rest of Job IIRC, full credit for everything including "evil" acts is generally given to God.

This makes me wonder if the first two chapters of Job are perhaps somewhat transitional between God being responsible for everything, both good and evil, and the full-blown God vs. Satan, with God wholly good and Satan wholly evil, that's seen later in the Bible. In Job, the actual commission of evil is simply attributed to this fellow named Satan instead of God, and he has to get permission from God to do so. The chapters were perhaps added to try to make sense of the older story of Job with the newer version of the Cosmos that was developing in Judaism, one in which God would be wholly good and thus incapable of committing evil himself.

I admit that's all pretty speculative on my part. I'd like to research it some more before committing to it.

Mary.

Thanks for adding another book to my 'to read' list!

Mary.
God Is Smiling On Me
The God of Coincidence

Amlodhi

Hi Mageth,

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post. However, one point that maybe should be noted is that "the satan" referred to in Job is not a proper name.

The Hebrew term "satan" means "adversary".

In I Kg. 11:14 & 23, it is used (without the definite article) to refer to a human adversary.

In Job, it is used (with the definite article, i.e. "ha-satan") to refer to a specific (apparently supernatural) adversary, i.e. the satan.

The only (possible) use of "satan" as a proper name in the OT is in I Chr. 21:1.

Thus, in Job, all we are given to know is that "the adversary" was among the sons of the Elohim when they presented themselves before YHWH.

Just a point that is interesting to me,

Amlodhi

Mageth

Good points, Amlodhi.

Soul Invictus

I thank you for the response. Please don't think I'm being cantankerous by saying that I think that the evangelical and Messianic Jewish thought is a cop out. If anything, the acknowledgement of someone engaging in sin is not only relevant, but the primary issue at hand. Could you offer some insight into how Jesus' sacrifice "covers one's debt" and exactly what does that do? Regardless of the negative consequence of sin, since the sinner and the saved both sin, correct? What does salvation equip the saved with, that the sinner does not have?

Note that being considered righteous and being righteous are two different things; the first entails a legal standing whereas the second entails some sort of existential and ontological quality.

Can you be one and not the other?

Magus55

Jesus' life was infinitely valuable to God, and His blood ( blood is life, and sin condemns us to death) had the power (spiritually speaking) to cover the sins of the world. When one accepts Jesus as their Savior, and accepts His sacrifice for their sins, they are make "right" with God again. For the saved, when God looks on them, He sees Christ and His Sacrifice. For a sinner, God sees their sin.

Here is a listing of why Jesus died for our sins:

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusdieforsins.htm

Opera Nut

:banghead: I'm tired of having to cut and paste the many reasons why Jesus is not the messiah, according to the Old Testament, from jewsforjudaism.com. Magus has never answered these questions satisfactorily.

Jesus fulfilled none of those requirements other than being Jewish, and he was not even of the proper lineage.



Requirements:

1) He must be Jewish. Deuteronomy 17:15.
2) From the tribe of Judah. Genesis 49:10.
3) Direct male descendent of David & Solomon. 2 Samuel 7:12-13.
4) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. Isaiah 11:12.
5) He must rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. Ezekiel 37:26-27.
6) He must rule at a time of world wide peace. Micah 4:3.
7) He must rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe God's commandments. Ezekiel 37:24.
8) He must rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God. Isaiah 66:23.

These rules are summarized at Ezekiel 37:24-28.

So that I don't cut and paste, and don't violate copyright, please read and comprehend the above as well as the following material:

The Jewish Response to the Messiah Question

And no, I am not a Jew, nor am I a Christian.

:banghead:

Opera Nut

To Converted:

My experience with Christianity is the opposite of yours. When I was a Christian and going to church, I became suicidal because of the depressing and abusive sermons telling me what a worthless sinner I was. The Christians who are busy condemning others feel superior when they do it.

To me, Christianity is socially sanctioned emotional and mental abuse. The whole premise of Christianity, that we are all sinners or bad people just because we are walking around, due to original sin, is an abusive concept.
It's also gross and bloody and glorifies torture, pain and death by calling it wonderful because it happened to Jee-Susss.

It's manufacturing a problem unnecessarily, and then providing the magic solution that will make everything totally friggin' wonderful.

It is analagous to going up to somebody and saying "Aha! You have DANDRUFF but you don't know it!!! Use THIS shampoo to get rid of your DANDRUFF!!"
Victim: "But I don't HAVE dandruff!!"
Christian: "Yes, you do, you just don't KNOW you do, and you can't see it. Everyone has Dandruff and must constantly use this shampoo to get rid of it. Otherwise, you will go to hell."

Talk about a set-up!!


People do the best they can, and great minds have fought the churches for centuries, trying to use science to discover how the things of the world operate. It's been a tough road figuring out our world and our place in it, and how to make life better, all in spite of the Christians who don't want people to ask questions or use the scientific method to find out what helps people live longer, happier lives, and alleviate the suffering of people and animals.

Everybody makes mistakes and does things that are wrong, but we don't need putdowns from authority figures. Putdowns from authority figures (like preachers) make us depressed, feeling helpless, and paralysed with hopelessness.

WCH

For me, the biggest contradiction is the Quirinius Problem. The reason it's big for me is that it's not something you can explain by saying the two writers had different perspectives... my friend Alan and I might remember different things about our mutual friend Blake, but, even if neither of us know his birthday, we're quite definitely going to guess it to be no more than a year or so off. When we have two accounts of someone's life which give two birthdates for him 10 years apart, you've got a serious problem, and it suggests that at least one of them had never met the man and his sources didn't remember very clearly, which means that the rest of the biography is discredited as well.

All the little details can be ignored, but his age being off by 10 years really can't.