Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mordy · 09-22-2004, 03:41 AM

This was taken from another thread... and this is for 'serious' atheist readers of the bible or serious ex-christians only for posting please. Also there must be an emphasis on science and attempting to 'take the bible seriously' for the moment. Instead of just a flawed human work of literature.

Over 90% of mainstream christians aren't really christian and do not have a handle on what the bible says despite their study they pre-decide bringing assumptions to the bible that are not found there and come up with crazy doctrines that are not there. The closest people to true christians I have ever met were the christadelphians. http://www.thechristadelphians.org, they have some odd things that are "off" (specifically demonology, Mathew 8:30-34) but thats about it. Most of their doctrines are 100% biblical compared to the rest of christianity.

First lets get these things out of the way:

Immortal soul - Not in the bible, everywhere in the old testament death is as we understand it scientifically. Ecclesiastes 9:10--Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [ 9:10 Hebrew [ Sheol ] ] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

Hell is the grave not otherworldy torments -- Hell as a reality is not in the bible... see Eccl: 9:10. Also death is equated with sleeping forever (unconsciousness) -- Jeremiah 51:57-I will make her officials and wise men drunk, her governors, officers and warriors as well; they will sleep forever and not awake," declares the King, whose name is the LORD Almighty.

Heaven as an otherworldy realm is not in the bible -- The promise to abraham was that he was going to inherit the land of israel this earth and the kingdom of god would be established on this planet. The Throne -- "I will establish the throne of his (Christ's) kingdom for ever...thine (David's) house and thy kingdom...thy throne shall be established for ever (2 Sam. 7:13,16 cp. Is. 9:6,7)". Christ's kingdom is therefore to be based on David's kingdom of Israel; this means that the coming kingdom of God (in the bible) was tol be a re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel. To fulfill the promise, Christ must reign on David's "throne", or place of rulership. This was literally in Jerusalem. This is just one of many proofs that the kingdom of god was to be established here on earth in order to fulfill these promises according to the bible.

The "heavens and earth" are figurative language used as a system of things in the bible, not the universe or the planet.

Closer examination of 2 Pet. 3 confirms this. Having described how the present 'heavens and earth' will be ended, v.13 continues: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness". This is referencing His (God's) promise of Is. 65:17: "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth". The rest of Is. 65 goes on to describe this new system of things as being a perfect situation here on this earth:

"Behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing...They shall not build and another inhabit...the child shall die an hundred years old (i.e. life-spans will be increased)...the wolf and the lamb shall feed together" (Is. 65:18-25).

The name of God

Also the name of god can be used interchangably with angels, so when you read about God walking around the garden asking where adam and eve were, it was an angel carrying the name of god.

God's Angel to Prepare the Way

20 "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.

This easily solves all the contradictions where it says god does something but its really an angel carrying the name of god. (for instance "god walking" in the garden and "not knowing" where his subjects are). This is to be expected though since many atheists do not have that level of bible knowledge because they've never seriously studied or been in a serious student of christianity.

The Trinity

Mark 10:18--"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone.

Much more could be said on unitarian view of god, especially when you realize how the name of god can be used in relation to angels (as I posted above).

Simple logic dictates, if Jesus is god and co-equal and eternal, why does he not possess goodness? Thats because he's not god. Hence the name Son of God, not God the son.

Men With God's Name

One of the passages which is most helpful in demonstrating all this is Jn. 10:34-36. Here the Jews made the mistake which many so-called 'Christians' do today. They thought that Jesus was saying he was God Himself. Jesus corrected them by saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them 'gods'...how say ye of (me)...'Thou blasphemest' because I said, I am the son of God?'" Here Jesus is saying in the Old Testament men are called 'gods'; so he says "I am only saying I am the Son of God so why are you getting so upset?" He was actually quoting from Ps. 82, where the judges of Israel were called 'gods'.

---

I will add more as time permits, feel free to add your own.

Amaleq13 · 09-22-2004, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

The name of God

Also the name of god can be used interchangably with angels, so when you read about God walking around the garden asking where adam and eve were, it was an angel carrying the name of god.

First, could you provide the specific location of the passage from which you quote?

Second, that passage does not appear to me to indicate that the name of God can be used interchangeably with angels but that this specific angel was being identified as speaking for God.

Third, even if I accept your interpretation of this passage, why should I generalize this to all angels when God appears to be speaking specifically only about this particular one for this particular occasion?

Intelligitimate · 09-22-2004, 09:11 AM

There is no coherent theology in the bible, especially from OT to NT. Such a project is worthless and uninteresting, but it may be worthwhile to talk about what specific authors believed.

Atticus_Finch · 09-22-2004, 09:12 AM

Although I am neither an athiest nor an ex-christian I hope you will read my post. I think your analysis and conclusions are quite wrong. Certainly many Christians and sects of Christianity are misguided on doctrine. However, there is a core belief that has been pretty consistent over the centuries.

I do not have time to address all of your points now so I will just take the first and deal with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

First lets get these things out of the way:

Immortal soul - Not in the bible, everywhere in the old testament death is as we understand it scientifically. Ecclesiastes 9:10--Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [ 9:10 Hebrew [ Sheol ] ] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

[

First, do you not consider the NT to be part of the "bible"? The NT certainly refers to the immortal soul. Also, you are wrong to say that the NT does not refer to the immortal soul. See Daniel 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake— some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence." New English Translation (emphasis added).

I will address your other points as time permits.

Regards,

Finch

Mordy · 09-22-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

First, could you provide the specific location of the passage from which you quote?

Exodus 23:20-24

Also some more info:

Angels Carrying God's Name

We are told in Ex. 23:20,21 that God told the people of Israel that an angel would go ahead of them; "My Name is in Him", they were told. The personal name of God is 'Yahweh'. So the angel carried the name of Yahweh, and could thus be called 'Yahweh', or 'The LORD', in small capitals, as the word 'Yahweh' is translated in the N.I.V. and A.V. We are told in Ex. 33:20 that no man can see the face of God and live; but in Ex. 33:11 we read that "The LORD (Yahweh) spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend" - i.e. in a relaxed, friendly way. It could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person, who spoke to Moses face to face, because no man can see God Himself. It was the angel who carried God's Name who did so; and so we read about the LORD speaking face to face with Moses when it was actually an angel who did so (Acts 7:30-33).

So this gets rid of most unstudied atheists so-called 'contradictions' and shows how baseless many of them are (god walking in the garden of eden, not knowing where they were, etc).

There are many other examples of the words 'God' and 'LORD' referring to the angels as opposed to God Himself. One clear example is Gen. 1:26 "And God (the angels) said, Let us make man in our image".

Quote:

Second, that passage does not appear to me to indicate that the name of God can be used interchangeably with angels but that this specific angel was being identified as speaking for God.

Already answered above.

Quote:

Third, even if I accept your interpretation of this passage, why should I generalize this to all angels when God appears to be speaking specifically only about this particular one for this particular occasion?

Like I said if you were taking the bible seriously for a moment, any use of 'god' in a context where it would make 'the' god violate one of his properties, is best interpreted as an angel carrying the name of god. Also the bible says 'the' god has never been seen, so any instance where 'god' is seen, is logically an angel carrying the name of god. Allowing the bible to interpret itself, all your objections raised objections fall away.

For instance:

The whole "Has anyone seen god?" bit most (unstudied) atheist love to throw around

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father."
I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."

vs.

Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

Taking into the account my explanation after the first paragraph, that is an adequate answer if you are attempting 'take the bible seriously' (as a true christian would). The use of the name of god applied to men and angels also adds even more weight to the argument.

Answerer · 09-22-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus_Finch

First, do you not consider the NT to be part of the "bible"? The NT certainly refers to the immortal soul. Also, you are wrong to say that the NT does not refer to the immortal soul. See Daniel 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake— some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence." New English Translation (emphasis added).

Wait a second. I don't think the above verse refers to an "Immortal Soul", rather it probably refers to "corpses" that are turned to dust over the centuries and are given new bodies to live again.

I don't see why Soul need to "sleep" in dusty ground. Besides, its strange to note that the verse refers only to "many" rather than "all".

funinspace · 09-22-2004, 11:34 AM

Just to pick one of your many subjects...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

Immortal soul - Not in the bible, everywhere in the old testament death is as we understand it scientifically. Ecclesiastes 9:10--Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [ 9:10 Hebrew [ Sheol ] ] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

This is just one passage out of many that sugest otherwise. I noticed that you are favoring the Hebrew Canon over the NT for terms like hell, imortal, and heaven. Why?

Quote:

Ma 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 25:32 All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 25:33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 25:34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 25:36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 25:37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 25:38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? 25:39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 25:40 And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’
25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. 25:43 I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 25:44 Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’ 25:45 Then he will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ 25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�?

The problem isn't the "wrong interpretation", it's the reality that there are so many divergent ideas within a canon written over a 1,000 years. Your quest simply is not logical, there can be no perfect dogma from an imperfect document. So the "no true Christian" is just as spurious, as if a fundy said it... I would agree that some groups try harder than others to follow the doctrines contained within the canon.

Amaleq13 · 09-22-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

We are told in Ex. 23:20,21 that God told the people of Israel that an angel would go ahead of them; "My Name is in Him", they were told. The personal name of God is 'Yahweh'.

The most obvious reading of this passage is that the angel is to be considered has having the authority of God.

Quote:

So the angel carried the name of Yahweh, and could thus be called 'Yahweh', or 'The LORD', in small capitals, as the word 'Yahweh' is translated in the N.I.V. and A.V.

Unless you can show where this is described in your Bible (or even in Jewish tradition), I can only assume it is fabricated solely to avoid the apparent inconsistencies (ie ad hoc). Making up an unsubstantiated reinterpretation doesn't really constitute "taking the Bible seriously".

Quote:

So this gets rid of most unstudied atheists so-called 'contradictions' and shows how baseless many of them are (god walking in the garden of eden, not knowing where they were, etc).

It only accomplishes this goal if you provide substantiation for the reinterpretation.

Quote:

Like I said if you were taking the bible seriously for a moment...

Why does "taking the bible seriously" require me to assume there can be no inconsistencies or contradictions? Is this where it is necessary to add "as a true christian would" so that faith must also be involved? If so, I have to wonder why you addressed this thread to atheists.

alienward · 09-23-2004, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

Angels Carrying God's Name

We are told in Ex. 23:20,21 that God told the people of Israel that an angel would go ahead of them; "My Name is in Him", they were told. The personal name of God is 'Yahweh'. So the angel carried the name of Yahweh, and could thus be called 'Yahweh', or 'The LORD', in small capitals, as the word 'Yahweh' is translated in the N.I.V. and A.V. We are told in Ex. 33:20 that no man can see the face of God and live; but in Ex. 33:11 we read that "The LORD (Yahweh) spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend" - i.e. in a relaxed, friendly way. It could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person, who spoke to Moses face to face, because no man can see God Himself. It was the angel who carried God's Name who did so; and so we read about the LORD speaking face to face with Moses when it was actually an angel who did so (Acts 7:30-33).

How do you know it’s not the other way around, maybe Exodus 33:20 is talking about an angel and Exodus 33:11 is talking about God?

Quote:

So this gets rid of most unstudied atheists so-called 'contradictions' and shows how baseless many of them are (god walking in the garden of eden, not knowing where they were, etc).

No, it doesn’t even come close and we don’t need to talk about atheists to know this. I just had a bible believer tell me yesterday in another thread on this site that Exodus 33:11 and 33:20-23 is “anthropomorphic language�?, he didn’t start making excuses about God being an angel in one verse but then being God in another verse.

Quote:

There are many other examples of the words 'God' and 'LORD' referring to the angels as opposed to God Himself. One clear example is Gen. 1:26 "And God (the angels) said, Let us make man in our image".

We can also look at one of the examples you already gave, and include a few more verses:

Quote:

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a lift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:20-23)

Mordy wrote:

Quote:

Like I said if you were taking the bible seriously for a moment, any use of 'god' in a context where it would make 'the' god violate one of his properties, is best interpreted as an angel carrying the name of god. Also the bible says 'the' god has never been seen, so any instance where 'god' is seen, is logically an angel carrying the name of god. Allowing the bible to interpret itself, all your objections raised objections fall away.

You’re contradicting your own example. You say God has never been seen, but Exodus 33:23 clearly has God showing his ass.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-23-2004, 08:44 AM

Quote:

There are many other examples of the words 'God' and 'LORD' referring to the angels as opposed to God Himself. One clear example is Gen. 1:26 "And God (the angels) said, Let us make man in our image".

Judaism was originally polytheistic. You don't have to be an "unstudied atheist" to believe that: this is well-known.

Quote:

Like I said if you were taking the bible seriously for a moment, any use of 'god' in a context where it would make 'the' god violate one of his properties, is best interpreted as an angel carrying the name of god.

No, it's "best interpreted" as different authors, writing at different times, having different concepts of God. Your prejudices are showing.

09-22-2004, 03:41 AM	#1
Mordy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 420	Most christians believe in false doctrines, hashing out the bible's real theology This was taken from another thread... and this is for 'serious' atheist readers of the bible or serious ex-christians only for posting please. Also there must be an emphasis on science and attempting to 'take the bible seriously' for the moment. Instead of just a flawed human work of literature. Over 90% of mainstream christians aren't really christian and do not have a handle on what the bible says despite their study they pre-decide bringing assumptions to the bible that are not found there and come up with crazy doctrines that are not there. The closest people to true christians I have ever met were the christadelphians. http://www.thechristadelphians.org, they have some odd things that are "off" (specifically demonology, Mathew 8:30-34) but thats about it. Most of their doctrines are 100% biblical compared to the rest of christianity. First lets get these things out of the way: Immortal soul - Not in the bible, everywhere in the old testament death is as we understand it scientifically. Ecclesiastes 9:10--Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [ 9:10 Hebrew [ Sheol ] ] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. Hell is the grave not otherworldy torments -- Hell as a reality is not in the bible... see Eccl: 9:10. Also death is equated with sleeping forever (unconsciousness) -- Jeremiah 51:57-I will make her officials and wise men drunk, her governors, officers and warriors as well; they will sleep forever and not awake," declares the King, whose name is the LORD Almighty. Heaven as an otherworldy realm is not in the bible -- The promise to abraham was that he was going to inherit the land of israel this earth and the kingdom of god would be established on this planet. The Throne -- "I will establish the throne of his (Christ's) kingdom for ever...thine (David's) house and thy kingdom...thy throne shall be established for ever (2 Sam. 7:13,16 cp. Is. 9:6,7)". Christ's kingdom is therefore to be based on David's kingdom of Israel; this means that the coming kingdom of God (in the bible) was tol be a re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel. To fulfill the promise, Christ must reign on David's "throne", or place of rulership. This was literally in Jerusalem. This is just one of many proofs that the kingdom of god was to be established here on earth in order to fulfill these promises according to the bible. The "heavens and earth" are figurative language used as a system of things in the bible, not the universe or the planet. Closer examination of 2 Pet. 3 confirms this. Having described how the present 'heavens and earth' will be ended, v.13 continues: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness". This is referencing His (God's) promise of Is. 65:17: "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth". The rest of Is. 65 goes on to describe this new system of things as being a perfect situation here on this earth: "Behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing...They shall not build and another inhabit...the child shall die an hundred years old (i.e. life-spans will be increased)...the wolf and the lamb shall feed together" (Is. 65:18-25). The name of God Also the name of god can be used interchangably with angels, so when you read about God walking around the garden asking where adam and eve were, it was an angel carrying the name of god. God's Angel to Prepare the Way 20 "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. This easily solves all the contradictions where it says god does something but its really an angel carrying the name of god. (for instance "god walking" in the garden and "not knowing" where his subjects are). This is to be expected though since many atheists do not have that level of bible knowledge because they've never seriously studied or been in a serious student of christianity. The Trinity Mark 10:18--"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone. Much more could be said on unitarian view of god, especially when you realize how the name of god can be used in relation to angels (as I posted above). Simple logic dictates, if Jesus is god and co-equal and eternal, why does he not possess goodness? Thats because he's not god. Hence the name Son of God, not God the son. Men With God's Name One of the passages which is most helpful in demonstrating all this is Jn. 10:34-36. Here the Jews made the mistake which many so-called 'Christians' do today. They thought that Jesus was saying he was God Himself. Jesus corrected them by saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them 'gods'...how say ye of (me)...'Thou blasphemest' because I said, I am the son of God?'" Here Jesus is saying in the Old Testament men are called 'gods'; so he says "I am only saying I am the Son of God so why are you getting so upset?" He was actually quoting from Ps. 82, where the judges of Israel were called 'gods'. --- I will add more as time permits, feel free to add your own.

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

09-22-2004, 09:11 AM	#3
Intelligitimate Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 464	There is no coherent theology in the bible, especially from OT to NT. Such a project is worthless and uninteresting, but it may be worthwhile to talk about what specific authors believed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.