Freethought & Rationalism Archive

razlyubleno · 04-13-2009, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Frankly your bulldust and preaching is a blight on this forum, which is why so many people have you on ignore.

In fairness, he contributes good information at times, and if nothing else he forces people (those who don't have him on ignore) to defend positions that would otherwise be taken for granted. (He's one of the rare people willing to defend the Griesbach hypothesis, which means I've had to brush up on the synoptic problem just to reassure myself that Mark was first.)

razly

dog-on · 04-14-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

For Jesus to make this statement:

This says that the "god" that was seen by the various OT witnesses was not, in fact, the "father" about whom Jesus spoke.

This is the smoking gun.

But Jews didn't say that God was a burning bush. Also we can hardly imagine the claim that Moses saw God's back to be literal. God's appearances always seem to be in the form of angel messengers e.g. God wrestling with Jacob.

The difference with Jesus is that they are claiming that God is actually a man. This statement is more concerned with explaining how God can be a man and yet also be transcendent i.e. it is reconciling the God-man with Judaism, not dismissing Judaism.

I do not agree. The Jewish god directly interacted with his people.

The Christian "father" does not.

It is obvious that the Christians did, in fact, dismiss Judaism along with it's laws, as they were redeemed from them.

The Christian god is not YHWH.

The Christian god is unknown.

Sounds more like Marcion's god, as a matter of fact.

aa5874 · 04-14-2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Look at the post again. Show me where I did everything to draw attention away from the errors.

I did just that above, you snipped it all out.
Now you disingenuously ask what I already answered !
So typical of your dishonest bluster.

Your post :

* failed to use any form of "I was wrong".
That's how a normal, honest and decent admission of error goes.
You failed to say anything like that.

* failed to use any any word like "error" or "mistake".
A genuine admission of error would actually admit error. You failed to say anything like that.

Nothing in your post stated you were wrong.

All you did was say someone else was right.
and
post the correct passage.

Someone reading this post without any background on the thread would NOT KNOW you made any error, because no where in your post do you state or imply that you were wrong !

You did everything you could to AVOID drawing attention to YOUR error.

But now you pretend that posting the correct passage is the same as actual direct admission of error. And you now dishonestly pretend to be a honest and open about your errors, when the evidence is crystal clear that the exact opposite is true.

Frankly your bulldust and preaching is a blight on this forum, which is why so many people have you on ignore.

Kapyong

I would have missed all this if I had you on "ignore".

show_no_mercy · 04-14-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

But Jews didn't say that God was a burning bush. Also we can hardly imagine the claim that Moses saw God's back to be literal. God's appearances always seem to be in the form of angel messengers e.g. God wrestling with Jacob.

The difference with Jesus is that they are claiming that God is actually a man. This statement is more concerned with explaining how God can be a man and yet also be transcendent i.e. it is reconciling the God-man with Judaism, not dismissing Judaism.

I do not agree. The Jewish god directly interacted with his people.

The Christian "father" does not.

It is obvious that the Christians did, in fact, dismiss Judaism along with it's laws, as they were redeemed from them.

The Christian god is not YHWH.

The Christian god is unknown.

Sounds more like Marcion's god, as a matter of fact.

Yes. The Jewish god YHWH was always a perosnal god. Not the Tao, Beingness, etc. (YHWH doesn't mean "beingness" anyway - אהיה is not יהוה) which are all impersonal gods.

And it actually seems as though the Christian god, if we try to reconcile all of the variously convoluted theology, first became "personal" when Jesus arrived on the scene. Prior to that, it was simply an impersonal "love" or "wisdom" (logos) sort of god, and its son was sent to YHWH as a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind.

dog-on · 04-15-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I do not agree. The Jewish god directly interacted with his people.

The Christian "father" does not.

It is obvious that the Christians did, in fact, dismiss Judaism along with it's laws, as they were redeemed from them.

The Christian god is not YHWH.

The Christian god is unknown.

Sounds more like Marcion's god, as a matter of fact.

Yes. The Jewish god YHWH was always a perosnal god. Not the Tao, Beingness, etc. (YHWH doesn't mean "beingness" anyway - אהיה is not יהוה) which are all impersonal gods.

And it actually seems as though the Christian god, if we try to reconcile all of the variously convoluted theology, first became "personal" when Jesus arrived on the scene. Prior to that, it was simply an impersonal "love" or "wisdom" (logos) sort of god, and its son was sent to YHWH as a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind.

That is how I see it, as well.

From this point of view, one removes the ridiculous issue of a god sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself.

fatpie42 · 04-17-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

But Jews didn't say that God was a burning bush. Also we can hardly imagine the claim that Moses saw God's back to be literal. God's appearances always seem to be in the form of angel messengers e.g. God wrestling with Jacob.

The difference with Jesus is that they are claiming that God is actually a man. This statement is more concerned with explaining how God can be a man and yet also be transcendent i.e. it is reconciling the God-man with Judaism, not dismissing Judaism.

I do not agree. The Jewish god directly interacted with his people.

The Christian "father" does not.

Christians would disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It is obvious that the Christians did, in fact, dismiss Judaism along with it's laws, as they were redeemed from them.

Eventually, yes. But that does not appear to have happened yet in the earliest gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The Christian god is not YHWH.

Once again, Christians would disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The Christian god is unknown.

I see you are referring the small degree of inclusivism from Paul. I don't see how that rules out identifying the God of Christianity with the God who prefers to remain nameless calling Himself only "I am". :huh:

show_no_mercy · 04-17-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The Christian god is not YHWH.

Once again, Christians would disagree.

Well they have to disagree. The Christianity that won out the battle for orthodoxy is the one that latched itself onto the god of the Jews. However, Christians had no idea who YHWH was; that YHWH was the god of the Jews.

If you told a Christian 1,000 years ago that their god was YHWH, they would firmly rebuke you and say "no, my god is Jesus".

aa5874 · 04-17-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Once again, Christians would disagree.

Well they have to disagree. The Christianity that won out the battle for orthodoxy is the one that latched itself onto the god of the Jews. However, Christians had no idea who YHWH was; that YHWH was the god of the Jews.

If you told a Christian 1,000 years ago that their god was YHWH, they would firmly rebuke you and say "no, my god is Jesus".

Or, perhaps as found in many passages in the OT, The Lod's Anointed, transliterated in Greek to be The Lord's CHRIST and then finally our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The Lord's Anointed became Jesus Christ through a mis-interpretation/translation.

The tower of Babel syndrome?

fatpie42 · 04-17-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

If you told a Christian 1,000 years ago that their god was YHWH, they would firmly rebuke you and say "no, my god is Jesus".

That most Christians would refer to "God, the father" does not mean that this figure was not continuous with YHWH from the Tanakh.

dog-on · 04-20-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I do not agree. The Jewish god directly interacted with his people.

The Christian "father" does not.

Christians would disagree.

You mean the ones that believe the gospels were eye-witness testimonies?

Quote:

Eventually, yes. But that does not appear to have happened yet in the earliest gospels.

Doh!

Quote:

Once again, Christians would disagree.

Once again, irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The Christian god is unknown.

I see you are referring the small degree of inclusivism from Paul. I don't see how that rules out identifying the God of Christianity with the God who prefers to remain nameless calling Himself only "I am". :huh:

Because the god of the Jews (the creator) was the dude we got saved from by the ransom paid with the blood of the Christ.

The gospel writers either completely misunderstood, or purposefully obscured this fact in order to attach a history to their new religion.

It is as plain as day...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.