Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 09-14-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Yes, because the end of all things was near, according to John the Baptist and everyone else in the NT. If we take them at their word, no-one expected the world to survive even into the 2nd C.

I would have to say this is wrong. Since we know Jesus said, "No one knows of that Hour or Day, Not the Angels, Nor the Son, but only the Father".

So you think the NT authors expected the Christian church to survive two millenia after Jesus? I think you underestimate the strength of apocalyptic expectation in the period between Daniel and Revelation. Paul's mission was about evangelizing the gentiles before the end arrived, and the other epistles all mention the coming return of Christ. By the mid-2nd C it's true the "end of the world" theme had diminished, and the developing Catholic church turned to building a permanent institution, but I don't see how you can deny the pervasive sense that the end times were near for the first generation of Christians.

semiopen · 09-14-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Using a Jews for Jesus link in conjunction with the phrase "Jewish scholars and Biblical scholars" needs further explanation.

They link the scholars' names and books.

The explanation is quite simple. There are several meanings for the word "hate". God said, "he hates the angels, but loves mankind". Now, we know from common sense that God does not hate anyone. Especially his angels. You have to investigate the meanings of the words in the bible before you can conclude the bible is a lie, or it holds many errors.

Yes, I can agree with you on that. There are alot of religious people out there that probably never even opened a bible. They believe in God because they just have that gut feeling.

Quote:

Finally, the Hebrew that you use doesn't really make things clearer, it seems to only be a veneer to give whatever point you are trying to make a profundity that isn't there. What is the point of telling us that ahavah means love in Hebrew? Perhaps this is included because you copied from the "Jewish scholars and biblical scholars."

The point I'm trying to make is quite simple. Jesus didn't use the word "hatred" in Luke. He used the terms, "to love lesser than, or greater than". There is a huge difference.

Holding that the bible is not true is not an atheistic opinion, per se.

The majority scholarly view of Deuteronomy is that it is based on a convenant, based on the Esarhaddon treaties of seventh century BCE Assyria. In this context the word love is used in conjunction with serving and loyalty. An opinion that analyzes "hate" outside of this context has to deal with this.

Hate, can be considered the opposite of serving God (not obeying his commandments). for example:

Quote:

Deut 5:9 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I
the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and
fourth generation of those who hate me,

This is not atheistic, it is not a lie or an error in the bible, and is somewhat independent of knowing Hebrew. This view of hatred is at least as valid as yours and has the advantage of being consistent with our current understanding of Deuteronomy.

I don't debate NT concepts, my objection is to your implications that all atheists believe the bible is a lie, do not understand Hebrew, etc. My impression is that academic, secular understanding and interpretation of the bible is generally equal or superior to that of the religious.

IBelieveInHymn · 09-14-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

So you think the NT authors expected the Christian church to survive two millenia after Jesus?

Yes, I do believe the N.T authors expected the world to survive for 2,000 years after Christ. Because they said, "the gospel will be preached to the ends of the earth, then the end shall come". There is no way they believed the Gospel was spread all across the world before the end of the first century. No way. Most importantly, how was the Gospels spread all throughout the world if they hadn't finished writing them?

Quote:

I think you underestimate the strength of apocalyptic expectation in the period between Daniel and Revelation. Paul's mission was about evangelizing the gentiles before the end arrived, and the other epistles all mention the coming return of Christ.

No one expected the end of the world to happen in their lifetime. That is a misread error by many atheists, and uneducation Christians. They say "JESUS promised a swift return after he died". Yes, we call that the Ressurection. He proved the power of God. And secondly, Paul's mission was to gather all non-Jews and convert them to Christianity.

Quote:

By the mid-2nd C it's true the "end of the world" theme had diminished, and the developing Catholic church turned to building a permanent institution, but I don't see how you can deny the pervasive sense that the end times were near for the first generation of Christians.

The "End of the World" theme has never really faded away. People have waited for Jesus to return since the day he was Ressurected. The Catholic Church has done nothing to develope a permanent institution. Jesus Christ established Christianity in 4 B.C through 33 A.D. Catholicism became an organized Church in 325 A.D at the Council of Nicea. I can show you Christian Churches that have existed since the days of Christ.

Toto · 09-14-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

...The point I'm trying to make is quite simple. Jesus didn't use the word "hatred" in Luke. He used the terms, "to love lesser than, or greater than". There is a huge difference.

It is time to stop asserting this as if you had some proof. All you have is a link to JewsforJesus, which cites F.F. Bruce:

Quote:

F. F. Bruce, late Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis, University of Manchester, England:

We know that in biblical idiom to hate can mean to love less. When, for example, regulations are laid down in the Old Testament law for a man who has two wives, "one beloved and the other hated" (Deut. 21:15), it is not necessary to suppose that he positively hates the latter wife; all that need be meant is that he loves her less than the other and must be prevented from showing favouritism to the other's son when he allocates his property among his heirs. The RSV indicates that positive hatred is not intended by speaking of the one wife as "the loved" and the other as "the disliked," but the Hebrew word used is that which regularly means "hated," and it is so rendered in the AV.

This is rather bizarre. Even if you can't imagine that God could hate anything (fags, figs, shrimp, whatever) surely you can imagine that there is a man who hates his wife. This idea that "hate" can mean something else requires more support that this.

Quote:

That hating in this saying of Jesus means loving less is shown by the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." ...

Well, if Jesus knows how to say "love more" without using the verb for hate, why should the word for hate mean something else in the verse under consideration?

show_no_mercy · 09-14-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Why do you refer to Hebrew when analysing quotations from Jesus? The language of the day was Aramaic, similar but not the same.

Because Jesus also spoke in Hebrew.

I guess you also think that "Jesus" is a Hebrew name as well?

Deus Ex · 09-14-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

So you think the NT authors expected the Christian church to survive two millenia after Jesus?

Yes, I do believe the N.T authors expected the world to survive for 2,000 years after Christ. Because they said, "the gospel will be preached to the ends of the earth, then the end shall come". There is no way they believed the Gospel was spread all across the world before the end of the first century. No way. Most importantly, how was the Gospels spread all throughout the world if they hadn't finished writing them?

:facepalm:

And you think that atheists are ignorant about the bible? Oh the delicious irony!

Keith&Co. · 09-14-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even if you can't imagine that God could hate anything (fags, figs, shrimp, whatever)

Esau....

IBelieveInHymn · 09-14-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Yes, I do believe the N.T authors expected the world to survive for 2,000 years after Christ. Because they said, "the gospel will be preached to the ends of the earth, then the end shall come". There is no way they believed the Gospel was spread all across the world before the end of the first century. No way. Most importantly, how was the Gospels spread all throughout the world if they hadn't finished writing them?

:facepalm:

And you think that atheists are ignorant about the bible? Oh the delicious irony!

Could you please specify where you disagree with my statement? bacht said, the bible claims the end was supposed to happen sometime between Daniel & Revelation. That is false information. The Bible clearly indicates the end of the world will happen when the Gospels are preached to the ends of the earth.

How in the world can you disagree with that?

spin · 09-14-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

...The point I'm trying to make is quite simple. Jesus didn't use the word "hatred" in Luke. He used the terms, "to love lesser than, or greater than". There is a huge difference.

It is time to stop asserting this as if you had some proof. All you have is a link to JewsforJesus, which cites F.F. Bruce:

Quote:

F. F. Bruce, late Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis, University of Manchester, England:

We know that in biblical idiom to hate can mean to love less. When, for example, regulations are laid down in the Old Testament law for a man who has two wives, "one beloved and the other hated" (Deut. 21:15), it is not necessary to suppose that he positively hates the latter wife; all that need be meant is that he loves her less than the other and must be prevented from showing favouritism to the other's son when he allocates his property among his heirs. The RSV indicates that positive hatred is not intended by speaking of the one wife as "the loved" and the other as "the disliked," but the Hebrew word used is that which regularly means "hated," and it is so rendered in the AV.

This is rather bizarre. Even if you can't imagine that God could hate anything (fags, figs, shrimp, whatever) surely you can imagine that there is a man who hates his wife. This idea that "hate" can mean something else requires more support that this.

Quote:

That hating in this saying of Jesus means loving less is shown by the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." ...

Well, if Jesus knows how to say "love more" without using the verb for hate, why should the word for hate mean something else in the verse under consideration?

So what we see here is one enormous attempt to massage the text into saying what the text doesn't say. Bruce is dead so we can't slap him around for fiddling the text. In fact we have a text which clearly says "hate" in all languages involved and a reader who doesn't want it to mean "hate". Any scholar will say "the reader loses".

spin

IBelieveInHymn · 09-14-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even if you can't imagine that God could hate anything (fags, figs, shrimp, whatever)

Esau....

God hates no one. He is pure and Holy. he is not capable of hatred. You must be careful when you see the word 'Hate' in the bible. It had several different meanings.

You must hate your parents.
God hates the angels.

no no no!!!

misreading the bible, and then becoming an atheist is a bad idea.

Research the truth before dismissing the Word of God.

In the end, you will see the answers were there all along..

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.