|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
onifre writes: There's also the blatant plagiarism. The story of "Jesus" mimics the same story of a number of other gods. Out of curiosity can you give me an example of where the resurrection in a new bodily form of Jesus would have been plagiarized from? He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Out of curiosity can you give me an example of where the resurrection in a new bodily form of Jesus would have been plagiarized from? Resurrections have a long history, especially in Egyptian mythology. The earliest that I've read about (there might be earlier one's) is Osiris pre-dating the story of Jesus by more than 2500 years. Just a snippet:
quote: Being that the Hebrews were the slaves of the Egyptians, one can see where the source of resurrections may have come from. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
onifre writes: Resurrections have a long history, especially in Egyptian mythology. The earliest that I've read about (there might be earlier one's) is Osiris pre-dating the story of Jesus by more than 2500 years. Here is that quote in a broader context. It is clear that what they refer to as resurrection here quite different. From one thing it is essentially an unearthly event involving the gods. Also it is a renewal of life in the same form as before. In Jesus we see a new kind of resurrection where His life form is similar and yet not so similar to what was before.
quote: onifre writes: Being that the Hebrews were the slaves of the Egyptians, one can see where the source of resurrections may have come from. Certainly many but not all of the early Jews had a belief in resurrection but it was going to be for them at the end of time when they would all be resurrected simultaneously. Here is what N T Wright says about the idea of resurrection at that time.
quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Firstly you apply your own definition of what it means to be a Bible believer. No, I apply the commonly accepted historically accepted definition of what it means to be a Bible believer: believing the entire Bible as God-inspired without exception.
I'm a Bible believer but I certainly don't understand the Bible the way you do. You are not a Bible believer as the term has always been understood.
Go through the NT and look at how many times that Jesus, His questioners and then later on Paul refer to the wirter of their scriptures as Moses. They don't say that God told us this in the scriptures. They simply say that Moses said..... Are you saying that Moses was also inerrant? "ALL scripture is God breathed," it says elsewhere in scripture. ALL scripture. That includes Moses. A Bible believer reads everything in the Bible in the light of everything else in the Bible.
It isn't a modernist position. Even Josephus writes that Moses wrote great metaphors. I have NO idea what that means to you.
Your definition of heretic is someone who disagrees with you. My definition of a heretic is someone who disagrees with the historical teachings of Christianity back 2000 years.
I would suggest that a heretic is someone who believes that God ordered genocide as well as ordering His followers to get together and stone people to death for minor offences. That makes you a modernist AND a heretic. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Here is that quote in a broader context. It is clear that what they refer to as resurrection here quite different. Yes, Christian mythology does change the details a bit. But it's a resurrection nonetheless. They had, what, over 2500 years and loads of other resurrection stories to come up with their own? Does that some how save it for you or make it unique?
Certainly many but not all of the early Jews had a belief in resurrection but it was going to be for them at the end of time when they would all be resurrected simultaneously. Yes, and? From the history and creation of the Bible we see that a few authors of the Gospels took it upon themselves to claim Jesus was such a "god" tortured (like Osiris) in a blood bath and resurrected - but anyone who knows a bit of Greek/Egyptian mythology can see that he was not unique. Also to note, who was the first witness of the resurrection? Mary Magdalene (claimed by some Gospels to be the "wife" of Jesus) And who resurrected Osiris? His wife Isis. Again here we see huge similarities. And like that so many others: Adonis died in Aphrodite's arms - who then sprinkles his blood with necter and he is resurrected as a plant (or something like that). Asclepius castrates himself and dies and is brought back to life by the goddess Astronoe. The goddess Ishtar descended into the realm of the dead to rescue Tammuz (mentioned in the OT). The story of tortue, death, resurrection and somehow involving a woman (goddess or wife) is nothing unique to Christian mythology. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
No, I apply the commonly accepted historically accepted definition of what it means to be a Bible believer: believing the entire Bible as God-inspired without exception. Where did you hear/read/were told that this is the commonly accepted definition of what it means to believe in the Bible? What evidence do you have? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All the Reformers, the originals and today's as well, starting with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wycliffe, Tyndale, also the Waldensians (Peter Waldo), the Albigensians and millions of others who were persecuted and killed by the RCC for being Bible believers. All of today's evangelicals who haven't gone liberal, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley, all the Puritans such as John Owen, Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter and many others; A W Pink, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill. John MacArthur, R C Sproul, John Piper, Alister Begg, Alistair Grath, other names that aren't coming to mind. I'm just touching a few names off the top of my head, probably about a tenth of the ones I might list given more time, not even mentioning local preachers nobody's heard of or various ministers that aren't preachers (oh such as Chris Pinto, Jan Markell, Eric Barger, Brannon Howse, Jimmy DeYoung, Kay Arthur.) All the preachers I regularly read and listen to are Bible believers according to the definition I gave. Ravi Zacharias, K P Yohannan, Bakht Singh, Zac Poonen. Watchman Nee, Jessie Penn-Lewis. Bishops Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Cromwell. Look at the list of names of preachers at Sermon Audio.com and Sermon Index.com. I won't say all of them fit the definition but at least 95% of them do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : keep thinking of names to add. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
All the Reformers, the originals and today's as well, starting with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wycliffe, Tyndale, also the Waldensians (Peter Waldo), the Albigensians and millions of others who were persecuted and killed by the RCC for being Bible believers. All of today's evangelicals who haven't gone liberal, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley, all the Puritans such as John Owen, Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter and many others; A W Pink, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill. John MacArthur, R C Sproul, John Piper, Alister Begg, Alistair Grath, other names that aren't coming to mind. I'm just touching a few names off the top of my head, probably about a tenth of the ones I might list given more time, not even mentioning local preachers nobody's heard of or various ministers that aren't preachers (oh such as Chris Pinto, Jan Markell, Eric Barger, Brannon Howse, Jimmy DeYoung, Kay Arthur.) All the preachers I regularly read and listen to are Bible believers according to the definition I gave. Ravi Zacharias, K P Yohannan, Bakht Singh, Zac Poonen. Watchman Nee, Jessie Penn-Lewis. Bishops Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Cromwell. Look at the list of names of preachers at Sermon Audio.com and Sermon Index.com. I won't say all of them fit the definition but at least 95% of them do. So you've placed your faith on the biblical interpretation of other men? Because at no point did you say, "This is what God said to do." - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was supplying evidence of the common definition of Bible believer as believing the whole Bible. All those I listed accept that definition and some of them preach on it. John MacArthur comes to mind.
Of course I take into account the Biblical interpretation of other men, the more the better. That's why God gave the Church preachers and teachers, as scripture tells us He did. My faith isn't in THEM, it's in God's word and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Scripture itself says ALL of it is inspired by God, I already said that earlier. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Of course I take into account the Biblical interpretation of other men, the more the better.
Well then, so do others. And those men are no better or worse at interpreting than the men you referenced.
My faith isn't in THEM, it's in God's word and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So then, it should be a relationship between you, the Bible and God/Jesus. In no way should the interpretation of other people have any bearing on how YOU interpret the Bible. You place your faith in the words how YOU see them, not in faith in other people's interpretation. What if they're wrong?
Scripture itself says ALL of it is inspired by God, I already said that earlier. We're not talking about inspiration now. This is about how to interpret scripture. Of course the Bible would say it's inspired by God... What else would it say?! "Hey we're not too sure about all this"...? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well then, so do others. And those men are no better or worse at interpreting than the men you referenced. How do YOU know? You haven't a clue. My point to GDR has been that my sources go back to the apostles, and his are all very recent.
So then, it should be a relationship between you, the Bible and God/Jesus. In no way should the interpretation of other people have any bearing on how YOU interpret the Bible. What kind of nonsense is that? We MUST make use of the interpretations others who know more, read the Bible more deeply or consistently than we do. There's a Biblical proverb that says there is safety in many counselors: you shouldn't ever put all your trust in just one or a few when it comes to understanding the word of God or anything important. Nobody takes the words of commentators and exegetes as gospel truth, that's why it helps to read many of them and decide among many points of view where there are differences.
You place your faith in the words how YOU see them, not in faith in other people's interpretation. What if they're wrong? For cryin out loud what do YOU know about what I put my faith in? Of course I can only understand as I understand, that's true of anyone. That's why everybody is always demanding evidence, BECAUSE one's personal take isn't enough. That's why I'm referring to a great many back 2000 years who understand what it means to be a Bible believer, which disagrees with GDR's much more recent and much shorter list of authorities. No other book has ever said it's inspired of God that I know of. People may believe other books are inspired of God, but the Bible is the only book that SAYS it is. The only reason I'm saying this is that you seem to think if it doesn't say they aren't sure of the message they have no choice but to say it's inspired of God. Weird logic there it seems to me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
How do YOU know? You haven't a clue. My point to GDR has been that my sources go back to the apostles, and his are all very recent. Your sources are just regular people, nothing special about them. You also reference modern day people as well - as you put it "the one's who haven't gone liberal." So what's the point of bringing up time frames when you reference recent "scholars also? In fact, if you were to really look at it, modern scientist know more than scientist from even just 100 years ago. Take any current university Bio major and they know more than Darwin did about evolution. Perhaps the same goes for Biblical scholars.
We MUST make use of the interpretations others who know more, read the Bible more deeply or consistently than we do. Who says they do that? You?
Nobody takes the words of commentators and exegetes as gospel truth, that's why it helps to read many of them and decide among many points of view where there are differences. Well there in lies the rub. They're all simply points of views that you've decided on. A point of view is subjective in it's very nature. Accepting one point of view over another doesn't make one any better than the other.
For cryin out loud what do YOU know about what I put my faith in? Your words, when you say you decided among many points of views. And when you said you accept the interpretation of all those other people. I assume you've never actually spoken to god, right? So your faith lies in the interpretation of men.
That's why I'm referring to a great many back 2000 years who understand what it means to be a Bible believer, which disagrees with GDR's much more recent and much shorter list of authorities. Who cares how many one lists? An authority on the Bible is an authority on the Bible. You don't like his because they are in direct conflict with the one's you've chosen to put your faith on. But that doesn't make your Biblical authorities any better than his.
No other book has ever said it's inspired of God that I know of. Well "that you know of" is kind of limited. One other book is the Koran. I believe Joseph Smith said the same thing also.
People may believe other books are inspired of God, but the Bible is the only book that SAYS it is. Just to be clear here: you only accept that the Bible is the word of god because the Bible says so?
The only reason I'm saying this is that you seem to think if it doesn't say they aren't sure of the message they have no choice but to say it's inspired of God. Weird logic there it seems to me. No. What I'm saying is, of course they would write in the Bible "this is inspired by god" what else would they write? If I was writing a book about god surely one of things I'd write in there is this was inspired by god. Here again you're placing your faith on the people who wrote the Bible to be telling the truth. How do you know they were telling the truth about it being inspired by god? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
onifre writes: Yes, Christian mythology does change the details a bit. But it's a resurrection nonetheless. They had, what, over 2500 years and loads of other resurrection stories to come up with their own? Does that some how save it for you or make it unique? Here is a quote that I used earlier from the book "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright.
quote: My view is that God reached out to us through our hearts, minds and imaginations. The idea that there had been a foreshadowing of the idea of resurrection in other cultures is what I would expect to be the case. There is a foreshadowing of Christ in the OT. The OT laws are a foreshadowing of the law of love as we see it in the teachings of Christ. Jesus says that by the God's Spirit we will be led in truth and so it seems to me that as the centuries roll by we should continue to gain a more focused view of God. People continue to pour over the words of Jesus as we see them in the Gospels and we have individually discern what the truth of it all is. I think that Faith for example twists the Gospel message to fit her specific beliefs, but then she accuses me of exactly the same thing. It doesn't show that either of us is wrong, but if God does exist it is evidence that we do require discernment and my contention that it isn't a discernment applied strictly by reason but more importantly by the heart.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My sources "regular people?" Most of them I listed are big names in Christianity. Of course everybody starts out as "regular people." What's your point?
This idea that because I personally share these views makes them bogus is ridiculous. That could be said about ANYBODY, certainly about you. So let's start with the premise that since EVERYBODY shares views with some block of others that ALL the views are bogus. That means yours too. Either that ends all discussion right there or we might as well ignore that obvious point and go on and discuss the issues from the reasonable perspective that it doesn't matter who agrees with whom, the facts are separate elements unto themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanks for that quote from Wright. A raving heretic if there ever was one. Yikes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024