Undercurrent

That must be it then. When the bible authors said that the earth was immovable, they meant to say that the earth is rigidly constrained to move only along the path along which it moves and not along any path along which it doesn't move.

This is why, before Copernicus, there was so much confusion as to what this verse meant, because it was so ambiguous as to what it meant, since the specific verbiage can be taken it so many ways. In fact a great number of the early church father's wrote extensively on this issue. To quote Clement of Rome, "By immovable, does the scripture mean 'not moving', or 'moving around a lot'? Beats the hell out of me."

And when Copernicus came along and put the issue to rest, the church immediately heralded him as a hero for settling this point of contention.

Good think davidH is here to tell us what God meant to say.

m.

Hey, there's that cannonball guy. He's cool.

Dude, are you, like, being sarcastic?

I don't know any more.

Pantera

</strong>

Actually the obvious conclusion is that the event did not happen. What was it reactor was saying about not starting with your conclusion and dogmticly looking for evidence?

Quote:

Ok, so do you think that Jesus having fasted 40 days and 40 nights walked with the devil all the way to Jerusalem and then proceeded to climb up the temple until he reached the highest point? That would have been impossible for a man having fasted all that time! Even climbing up the temple!

He was supposed to be God. How can something have been impossible for him?



Yup, that's what I always assumed it was supposed to mean. And of course, the main reason for taking him to a high place is that you can see so much further from there...

And of course, if he took him there instantanously, that would explain why he was shown all the kingdoms in an instant.

The story is, of course, mythical, and the simplest answer is probably that the original author didn't put too much thought into whether he was being geographically accutate. He was of course writing a morality tale, not a textbook. He would never have imagined that 2000 years hence people would be using his words to argue the shape of the earth. (In fact, as he would have expected the imminent end of the world, he would never even have guessed that we would be anyone around 2000 years hence). That's why the whole argument is really so boring, and why I just posted a link to one page for MOJO to judge for himself. It's only really a problem for literalists, and literalists can rationalise just about any impossibility or contradiction if they try hard enough, as you seem to be amply demonstrating. So why bother?

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Reactor

Hmmm... good question. I can't say I've given that one much thought. I'd say... some of them push their luck a little. I think Paul was treading on thin ice with a few of them, but I certainly can't pick on them like I can with some of the evangelical OT quotations I hear today Unless you can find a Jew who doesn't see the entire NT without "I hate the NT and everyone who had a hand in it" coloured glasses, I'd expect them to say they're all completely out of context.

As for the exegesis thingy... I don't understand all of the different types (though I'm not fond of a few I've seen around) Most of my understanding of exegesis and keeping a text in context come from a small book called simply "How to Interpret the Bible." The guy who wrote it isn't perfect, but he really did kick start a new understanding of scripture reading in me. I tend to bother people with my scripture exegesis by not always coming to a conclusion. Too many bible interpreters just have to have a conclusion about something, while I feel that if the information isn't solid enough to make an accurate conclusion (say, in the area of 1 Cor 14) just leave it be- and let leaving it go be your conclusion.

I hope that's an okay answer. I understand exegesis and textual critcism, but I'm no high and might scholar when it comes to it

davidH

He was supposed to be God. How can something have been impossible for him?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The devil brought him there instantaneously. The devil has powers too you know, and this is one example of where he used them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, that's what I always assumed it was supposed to mean. And of course, the main reason for taking him to a high place is that you can see so much further from there...

And of course, if he took him there instantanously, that would explain why he was shown all the kingdoms in an instant.

Ok, Pantera, so the reason for Jesus being taken to a high mountain was for him to be able to see further from there??!!
lol, you can't be serious or has all logic escaped you? Even if he was taken to a high mountain would he have been able to see all the kingdoms in their splendor?
No he wouldn't.

So you are also trying to say that Jesus was able from that mountain to see all the kingdoms in an instant?
He couldn't have.

You also say that he is God and why should anything be impossible for him to do.

You are forgetting that Jesus was God made man.
He felt the same pain as we feel, the same hunger and the same weakness. After 40 days and 40 nights fasting no one would be in a state to walk, climb a temple and climb a mountain.

The devil took him there instantaneously, showed him a vision of the kingdoms of the world.
It's the only rational explanation.

Why do you think Luke writes

" and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world"

Why would he put in the word instant?

Any logical mind will see the truth of this. Rather than trying to interprete it the way some of you believe it to be.
In fact the only reason why you interpret it that way is to try and twist it to show that the Bible is absurd. When there is a completely sensible explanation to it. Visions were common as shown by the Bible.

You also said this

"And of course, if he took him there instantanously, that would explain why he was shown all the kingdoms in an instant."

??? Why would that explain that? I don't remember implying that. Only that the devil took him there instantanously and showed him the vision.

All that I said in my previous post is the only logical explanation.
You think Jesus climbed up the temple?!! Infront of all the people and once he got to the top, rebuked the devil and then climbed down again, and went off and climbed a mountain?? lol , come on.

If you believe that Jesus went up a tall mountain to see the kingdoms of the world because the world was then believed to be flat - then you have to believe that he literally climbed up the temple walls to the highest point before climbing down again.
I seriously doubt anyone here believes this! Any person can see the truth in what I said.

Asha'man

Ok, so what about this passage:

A very tall tree can only be visible to the whole earth if the earth is flat.

Kosh

Sadly, yes.

Kosh

Reactor, if you got the Sec Web lib, there's
an article in there titled something like
"Jesus: False Prophet". Actually, I think there
are two in there, dealing with the many problems
of Mathews "prophesy fullfillment". If nothing
else, after reading that you'll understand why
a majority of the Jews never accepted him.

BTW - thanks for your open minded attitude.

Kosh

Actually, no, we don't believe any of it happened.

lpetrich

A context manufactured for the purpose of whitewashing the text, of course.

Everything. That passage states very clearly that the Devil showed "all the kingdoms of the world" to Jesus Christ from a mountain from which they would all be visible. It does not say that the Devil invited JC aboard his magic carpet and gave JC a guided tour of the world. And this sight is NOT described as a "vision".

If one stretches one's criteria for "immovability", one can make anything immovable, thus making immovability a meaningless concept. If davidH walks around his car (if he has one), would he agree that he is immovably fixed in that path around his car?

Yes, I know what "shooting stars" are. But the stars already in the sky don't disappear as a result, which is what that Revelation passage describes. In fact, that passage clearly presents the sky as some sort of outstretched sheet overhead, with the stars stuck onto it.

And why do you come to the conclusion that Jews all hate the New Testament? Because they view it the way that you view the Koran or the Bhagavad-Gita or other other-religion sacred books? I'm sure that you disagree with the Koran about Jesus Christ's crucifixion and whether God is a Trinity; does that mean that you hate the Koran and its authors? And I'm sure that you disagree with the Bhagavad-Gita when Krishna says in it that Krishna will listen to your prayers no matter what deity you pray to; does that mean that you hate the Bhagavad-Gita and its authors?

However, he was described as an unusual man, one who could zap fig trees, conjure up bread and fish, turn water into wine, walk on water, and send demons into pigs. Not to mention rise from the dead 3 days after deciding not to jump from a cross on which he had been hung. I wonder if davidH has really read his favorite book.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Same argument. Joshua making the sun stand still is just the same as my professor saying the sun will come out from behind the clouds. It's just the way we talk. God could put more krypton in the atmosphere and refract more light for a longer period.

Why would you expect it not to be gencentric? Its not written to be science.