Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-02-2002, 10:10 PM

Amos:
---------
Bar-abbas (son of man).
---------

Bar-abba means "son of (the) father".

Tristan Scott · 04-03-2002, 06:02 AM

Wndell said:

Quote:

That said, iDa 7:13 and Da 8:17 are the only other places in the OT where the phrase "son of man" is used as a title (besides in Ezekiel). "Jesus' frequent use of the phrase in referring to himself showed that he was the eschatological figure spoken of in Daniel 7:13" (NIV notes).

Please. You have already pointed out a referrence in Psalms 8. In addition there are also similar referrences in Psalms 80, 144 and 146. You will also find it mentioned (as a general title) in Isiah, Job, Jeremiah, and Numbers.

Search engines are much more efficient research tools than Bible notes.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]

abe smith · 04-03-2002, 06:18 AM

Don"t pay too much credence to Amos's ideas of orthodox belief, dear members. ... All the questions you have raised have "CAtholic" answers; if you can swallow those. For people who aren't able to swallow those con-fictions, the alleged answers will never make any sense. Amos's allegation , that dogs have souls, is not supported by any standard Christian religions; that fact does not inhibit Amos from alleging any junk ideas he likes, of course. Those are not Standard Issue tho. Hi, darling Kally! What's up? Love from Grandpa.

04-03-2002, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
Amos:
---------
Bar-abbas (son of man).
---------

Bar-abba means "son of (the) father".

Right, sorry son of man born from the father.

04-03-2002, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree:
So...where does the idea of the Trinity come into play?

Gen.1, 2 and 3. Gen 1 is God, Gen 2 is Lod God and Gen 3 is like God (later reborn as "like son of man.)"

The argument is 6000 years old and nothing has changed since the three curses.

04-03-2002, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:

This of course explains how she could pop out another four sons according to the gospels, but perhaps they didn't actually come from her -- or they could also have been virgin births. This perpetual virgin had five kids according to the only literature available. 

Well if you can have one, why not five? To "call him Jesus" and to call them brothers are demonstrative pronouns (I think is the right word for it). 

Amos:
-----------
It is a necessary condition for rebirth and is the gate to heaven.
-----------

This may be Catholic dogma, but what has that got to do with the religion as a whole? 

Key factors are dogmatic for that reason.
Amos:
-----------
Mary will meet us at the beginning of purgatory and lead us into heaven.
-----------
And when you see her, say "hail Mary" from me.
This concept is quite universal and is part of all major mythologies. From an ancient Buddhist poem "I will meet you at the narrows of Cho-Fu-sa in the river Kiang."

Amos:
-----------
We get that from tradition and don't have to search the scriptures to prove us right.
-----------

Tradition is based on people. People are often wrong. How can one prove it right or wrong in this case? You simply have an opinion not based on the earliest material available to us and so have no support for it.

Sorry, Catholic traditions are inspired and I can easily prove what I write but probably not if you insist on the literal interpretation.

The liberation (LK.1:47) of Mary is the beginning of Purgatory and she will be the major player that leads us to Calvary. After that she is Assumed (because her liberation had brought her down from heaven to earth) and Coronated queen of heaven and earth.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Tristan Scott · 04-03-2002, 08:59 AM

Bree asks:

Quote:

So...where does the idea of the Trinity come into play?

I highly recommend an excellent book on the subject:

When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein

04-03-2002, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith:
 Amos's allegation , that dogs have souls, is not supported by any standard Christian religions; that fact does not inhibit Amos from alleging any junk ideas he likes, of course. Those are not Standard Issue tho. Hi, darling Kally! What's up? Love from Grandpa.

Grandpa Abe, maybe your idea of a soul is different than mine but all sentient beings have a soul wherein they are incarnate reproductions of their heritage. "Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones" signifies the soul to make "woman" the soul of man and the "womb of man" in which man is conceived after the image of God who is in charge of destiny.

spin · 04-03-2002, 09:32 PM

Amos:
-----
Sorry, Catholic traditions are inspired and I can easily prove what I write but probably not if you insist on the literal interpretation.
-----

Aren't all religious traditions "inspired", Amos, be they Christian or Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever? Is being "inspired" a means of saying unreasonable? or unable to be reasoned with?

Metaphorical interpretations are metaphorical because they do not relate directly to the text but are seen to hint at other meaning by the interpreter. There is no necessary connection between the metaphor and the original text. Many metaphors are simply bad interpretations of people who don't want to face what the text actually says. Are you, Amos, one of those who don't want to deal with what the text actually says?

04-04-2002, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
Amos:
Aren't all religious traditions "inspired", Amos, be they Christian or Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever? Is being "inspired" a means of saying unreasonable? or unable to be reasoned with?

Sorry to object but by definition there can be no Christian religious traditions because Christianity is not a religion but a state of being without religion. When Jesus became fully Christ he left the scene and nobody really knows what he did after Ascention into heaven. If only by definion, Christians are in heaven and since there are no Churches in the New Jerusalem it is even ignorant to suggest Christian traditions exist. You probably mean protestant traditions. 

Metaphorical interpretations are metaphorical because they do not relate directly to the text but are seen to hint at other meaning by the interpreter. There is no necessary connection between the metaphor and the original text. Many metaphors are simply bad interpretations of people who don't want to face what the text actually says. Are you, Amos, one of those who don't want to deal with what the text actually says?

Metaphors relate directly to the text but not to the literal interpretation of it. Parables and metaphores are used to describe non-conventional ideas of events with conventional words.

Yes I can deal with the text and hold that the bible is inerrant. Paradoxes only exist in the mind of the interpreter.

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

04-02-2002, 10:10 PM	#41
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Amos: --------- Bar-abbas (son of man). --------- Bar-abba means "son of (the) father".

04-03-2002, 06:18 AM	#43
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Don"t pay too much credence to Amos's ideas of orthodox belief, dear members. ... All the questions you have raised have "CAtholic" answers; if you can swallow those. For people who aren't able to swallow those con-fictions, the alleged answers will never make any sense. Amos's allegation , that dogs have souls, is not supported by any standard Christian religions; that fact does not inhibit Amos from alleging any junk ideas he likes, of course. Those are not Standard Issue tho. Hi, darling Kally! What's up? Love from Grandpa.

04-03-2002, 09:32 PM	#49
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Amos: ----- Sorry, Catholic traditions are inspired and I can easily prove what I write but probably not if you insist on the literal interpretation. ----- Aren't all religious traditions "inspired", Amos, be they Christian or Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever? Is being "inspired" a means of saying unreasonable? or unable to be reasoned with? Metaphorical interpretations are metaphorical because they do not relate directly to the text but are seen to hint at other meaning by the interpreter. There is no necessary connection between the metaphor and the original text. Many metaphors are simply bad interpretations of people who don't want to face what the text actually says. Are you, Amos, one of those who don't want to deal with what the text actually says?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.