WishboneDawn

I'm a housewife...It's all a bunch of zeros for me.

andy5

While I'm here, and I still hold out that Nazarite thing in case anyone wants to address that, but I have also always heard there are selected parts of the old testament like with the three guys in the furnace where they say it says a Son of God appeared-obviously it could be something else and have inspired this idea, but I am curious what your thoughts are on it-and all of these things of course, lend some people to believe it has to be right since how could there be a reference to Son of God and all these other things and so on, and believe me I'm coming around, but it is very hard to escape this way of thinking. I sort of doubt I may ever be able to actually-I don't even know how I should raise my kids when and if I have them. Very troubling stuff.

The Evil One

the moral of this story is, never trust one translation, or if you do, make sure it is one with footnotes giving alternatives, not just the KJV.


It is very difficult to get a grasp on these issues without some understanding of how concepts evolve. The term "son of God" is all over the OT, but it doesn't refer to a single individual who is God. It refers to minor gods or angels, and there are lots of them. See Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Deuteronomy 32:8, Job 1:6 and passim, Psalm 82 etc etc. (Warning! some translations twist the wording to conform with christian beleifs.)

We see the idea in polytheism very strongly - many pantheons are set up as divine families, with second-tier gods explained as sons and daughters of the most powerful gods. The idea was clearly present in the early beliefs of the Hebrews too.

This is all very distinct from the Christological use of the term "Son of God", which owes an awful lot to the much later Greek philosophical concept of the Logos.

Jobber

You miss the point. Back up in the story first. What was wrong was that God actually asked Abraham to kill his son in the first place. To test someone in this manner is wrong. For example, if I were to test my son's love by commanding him to walk down to the local minimart and steal a candy bar would be wrong. If he were to begin walking, knowing that I would run after him in order to stop him before he follows through is messed up. The correct answer from my son would be, "no, Daddy; it is wrong to steal." In the same way, Abraham's correct answer would have been, "no, God; it is wrong to kill."

Doug Shaver

I don't think it was a simple matter of kicks and preferences. In any case, I would find it hard to picture only if I were assuming that Luke (a) believed Mark's gospel was historical fact and (b) was himself intending to write historical fact.

Luke could have believed that Mark tried to write historical fact but got some facts wrong and left out some important material. I don't happen to think that was the case, but it would easily explain the differences between Mark's and Luke's gospels.

Personally, I think both were writing fiction and Luke just thought he could do a better job with the same material, plus some other material that he had and Mark didn't have.

Clouseau

Is that of the least significance? Has Catholicism finally triumphed in the USA in establishing Mary as the one true God?

'Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.' Hebrews 11:19 NIV

Note also that Isaac carried the wood used for sacrifice, as Jesus carried his cross.

Amaleq13

If he had more than one son, the death of just one would not deny the promise.

andy5

Well this has all been very thorough. One last thing here-kind of related, sort of fits topic-if gospels are being written when they were for such purposes, why weren't more things retroactively written into them to justify their authority-they could have had Jesus say some rules of the Church, things Paul and Peter had to set up later, or they could have had him say something against Homosexuals or something more down on women-this is reflected well by the other parts of the New Testament, yet not there. Was it Jesus none of their materials ever had Jesus saying that? I know this is splitting hairs since perhaps he didn't say some of the stuff they claim he did, but I guess I'm just thinking if you're rewriting history, why not rewrite it all the way to reflect your view.

Toto

Having Jesus say that Peter was the rock upon which the church would be built was enough.

Homosexuality was not a big deal then, and is only tangentially mentioned in Paul's letters.

I think the texts were rewritten somewhat to reflect the views of Christians in the second century when the texts were more in state of transition, but these were not necessarily the views of later Christians, who would have had a harder problem rewriting the texts.

Roger Pearse

I work full time, and the same is true of the amount left over after tax..

All the best,

Roger Pearse