Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Evad · 08-12-2011, 02:33 PM

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.

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

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.

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.

Keep Talking? Pink Floyd featuring Steven Hawking?

Little Dot · 08-12-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

I've always understood the difference to mean that each gospel writer was presenting Jesus in different aspects.

Matthew as the prophesied coming King.
Mark as a servant
Luke as a man
John as God.

Perhaps I err, and you do intend to suggest that Matthew presents JC as a King. If so, can you offer a passage from Matthew, in support of this view?

Thanks,

avi

All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken bythe prophet, saying,...............

Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. Matt.21:4,5

Evad · 08-12-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

I feel comfortable in saying that the skeptical aren't so much skeptical of the divine inspiration of the Bible as much as they are politically and or socially motivated unbelievers.

I feel comfortable in saying that that is completely wrong.

K.

Only because you can't see the alternative in the possible future just as you can't see history repeating itself.

Evad · 08-12-2011, 03:12 PM

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.

Evad · 08-12-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

The Prologue of John is probably the least historical part of the whole NT.
And it's the ONLY passage you quoted - totally unconvincing.

Are you actually claiming that no Christian writing before 4th century mentions the cross?

So you're claiming the Gospels were written in 4th century?

K.

What makes the "prologue of John" particularly historically inaccurate to an atheist?

Consider Isaiah 9:6 / Psalm 82:1, 6 / John 10:34-35 / Exodus 4:16 where the Judges of Israel and Moses were also gods.

The cross was only popularized by Constantine and didn't appear in Christian teachings prior to that. Of course, there is some difficulty in establishing what was "Christian teachings." I'm sure you could find some, but the fact that Jesus died on a t shaped cross consisting of two beams is not supported by scripture.

Kapyong · 08-12-2011, 03:24 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

What makes the "prologue of John" particularly historically inaccurate to an atheist?

To an "atheist" ?
WHAT atheist?
I am not an atheist.

Why on earth did you say that?
Because all atheists are wrong in your eyes?

K.

Evad · 08-12-2011, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evad

What makes the "prologue of John" particularly historically inaccurate to an atheist?

To an "atheist" ?
WHAT atheist?
I am not an atheist.

Why on earth did you say that?
Because all atheists are wrong in your eyes?

K.

I'm sorry . . . a theist?

Little Dot · 08-12-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Julius Africanus interestingly is the first Patristic source I see to tackle why the genealogies don't match. His explanation is very complex (and forced in my opinion). Nevertheless he does bring up an interesting point while reporting what ancient detractors of the two genealogies pointed out. The purpose of the two genealogies apparently was to show that Jesus was both a 'son of David' and of priestly descent. Yet the difficult these critics pointed out was that - in the early period certainly - the Levites zealously guarded their marriages. We still see this from documents at Qumran.

It would be difficult to imagine an individual who was both 'of Levi' and 'of Judah' as the ancestors of Jesus are purported to have been.

Just an observation.

Psalm 110:1-4.........The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies they footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizdek.

Psalm 110:4 is a King/Priest example. Though the Old Testament regulations carefully keep the two offices seperate, this is probably intended to make the Messiah stand out as the one who combines the two in one person.

Psalm 110, recognized as Messianic in pre-Christian times,
(Edersheim, Life and Times, 2:720-21; note also Jesus' remark to the Pharisees in Matt.23:41-46) speaks of God establishing someone as ruler (vv 1-3) who is also priest.

But just because of the strict seperation of kingship and priesthood in Israel, it was necessary for the writer of psalm 110 to go all the way back to Genesis, centuries before Israel became a nation, to find in the mysterious figure Melchizedek (Genesis 14) an example of a righteous person who is both priest and king!

stephan huller · 08-12-2011, 04:41 PM

So are you now going to offer up a genealogy for Melchizedek? Come on. How can you use Melchizedek to argue for Jesus being both a Levite and of the tribe of Judah?

Hebrews 7.5 -6 settles matters once and for all. Melkizedek demonstrates that the appeal to the tribe of Levi was unnecessary and not part of the original formulation in Christianity. Jesus was not a Levite. Period.

spin · 08-12-2011, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Julius Africanus interestingly is the first Patristic source I see to tackle why the genealogies don't match. His explanation is very complex (and forced in my opinion). Nevertheless he does bring up an interesting point while reporting what ancient detractors of the two genealogies pointed out. The purpose of the two genealogies apparently was to show that Jesus was both a 'son of David' and of priestly descent. Yet the difficult these critics pointed out was that - in the early period certainly - the Levites zealously guarded their marriages. We still see this from documents at Qumran.

It would be difficult to imagine an individual who was both 'of Levi' and 'of Judah' as the ancestors of Jesus are purported to have been.

Just an observation.

Psalm 110:1-4.........The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies they footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizdek.

Psalm 110:4 is a King/Priest example. Though the Old Testament regulations carefully keep the two offices seperate, this is probably intended to make the Messiah stand out as the one who combines the two in one person.

Psalm 110, recognized as Messianic in pre-Christian times,
(Edersheim, Life and Times, 2:720-21; note also Jesus' remark to the Pharisees in Matt.23:41-46) speaks of God establishing someone as ruler (vv 1-3) who is also priest.

But just because of the strict seperation of kingship and priesthood in Israel, it was necessary for the writer of psalm 110 to go all the way back to Genesis, centuries before Israel became a nation, to find in the mysterious figure Melchizedek (Genesis 14) an example of a righteous person who is both priest and king!

This is a red herring. You need to be dealing with the bloodlines of Levi and Judah, not talking about priests and kings based on an interpretation of Melchizedek.

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

08-12-2011, 04:41 PM	#99
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So are you now going to offer up a genealogy for Melchizedek? Come on. How can you use Melchizedek to argue for Jesus being both a Levite and of the tribe of Judah? Hebrews 7.5 -6 settles matters once and for all. Melkizedek demonstrates that the appeal to the tribe of Levi was unnecessary and not part of the original formulation in Christianity. Jesus was not a Levite. Period.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.