Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 271 of 1324 (701006)
06-10-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by onifre
06-08-2013 1:09 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by onifre, posted 06-08-2013 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 3:30 PM GDR has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 272 of 1324 (701018)
06-10-2013 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
06-10-2013 2:36 PM


Resurrecting History
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:
Enraged, he tore the body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout the land. Isis gathered up all the parts of the body, less the phallus (which was eaten by a catfish) and bandaged them together for a proper burial. The gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and resurrected Osiris as the god of the underworld. Because of his death and resurrection, Osiris was associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and thus with the crops along the Nile valley.
Being that the Hebrews were the slaves of the Egyptians, one can see where the source of resurrections may have come from.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 2:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 3:59 PM onifre has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 273 of 1324 (701020)
06-10-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by onifre
06-10-2013 3:30 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
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:
In one version of the myth, she used a spell learned from her father and brought him back to life so he could impregnate her. Afterwards he died again and she hid his body in the desert. Months later, she gave birth to Horus. While she raised Horus, Set was hunting one night and came across the body of Osiris.
Enraged, he tore the body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout the land. Isis gathered up all the parts of the body, less the phallus (which was eaten by a catfish) and bandaged them together for a proper burial. The gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and resurrected Osiris as the god of the underworld. Because of his death and resurrection, Osiris was associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and thus with the crops along the Nile valley.
Diodorus Siculus gives another version of the myth in which Osiris was described as an ancient king who taught the Egyptians the arts of civilization, including agriculture, then travelled the world with his sister Isis, the satyrs, and the nine muses, before finally returning to Egypt. Osiris was then murdered by his evil brother Typhon, who was identified with Set. Typhon divided the body into twenty-six pieces, which he distributed amongst his fellow conspirators in order to implicate them in the murder. Isis and Hercules (Horus) avenged the death of Osiris and slew Typhon. Isis recovered all the parts of Osiris' body, except the phallus, and secretly buried them. She made replicas of them and distributed them to several locations, which then became centres of Osiris worship
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:
Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenets, the resurrection of the dead, was widely recognized as false--except, of course, by Judaism.
Jews believed in resurrection, Greeks believed in immortality. So I was taught many years ago. But like so many generalizations, this one isn’t even half true. There was a spectrum of beliefs about the afterlife in first-century Judaism, just as there was in the Greco-Roman world. The differences between these two sets of views and those that developed among the early Christians are startling. Let’s begin with the Greeks. Some Greeks (and Romans) thought death the complete end; most, however, envisaged a continuing, shadowy existence in Hades. Homer, for example, tells of a murky world full of witless, gibbering shadows that must drink sacrificial blood before they can think straight, let alone talk. For Homer, Hades was no fun[1]. The soul in Homer, though, was not the real person, the immortal element hidden inside a body, but rather the evanescent breath that escaped. The true self remained lifeless on the ground.
But there are happier variations on the theme. For Platonists, death’s release of the soul from its prison was cause for rejoicing. And even within Homer’s scheme, some heroes might conceivably make their way to the Elysian fields, to the Isles of the Blessed, or, in some very rare cases, to the abode of the gods themselves. Hercules, then the Hellenistic rulers and finally the Roman emperors were believed to follow this route. Mystery cults enabled initiates to enjoy a blessed state in the present, which would, it was hoped, continue after death.
All, however, were agreed: There was no resurrection. Death could not be reversed. Homer said it; Aeschylus and Sophocles seconded it. What’s it like down there? asks a man of his departed friend, in a third-century B.C.E. epigram. Very dark, comes the reply. Any way back up? It’s a lie!
In Greek thought, the living could establish contact with the dead through various forms of necromancy; they might even receive ghostly visitations. But neither experience amounts to what pagan writers themselves referred to as resurrection, or the return to life, which they all denied. Thus, Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenets, resurrection, was universally recognized as false.
Except, of course, in Judaism. Resurrection was a late arrival on the scene in classic biblical writing, however. Much of the Hebrew Bible assumes that the dead are in Sheol, which sometimes looks uncomfortably like Hades: The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence (Psalm 115:17). Clear statements of resurrection are extremely rare[2]. Daniel 12 is the most blatant, and remembered as such for centuries afterwards: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Daniel is, however, the latest book of the Hebrew Bible.
In the postbiblical period, the Jewish group known as the Sadducees famously denied the future life altogether. The Sadducees, according to the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, held that the soul perishes along with the body (18.16). Other Jews spoke, platonically, of a disembodied immortality; according to the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, at death the philosopher’s soul would assume a higher existence, immortal and uncreated.[3] Still others appear to display some kind of resurrection belief, as in Josephus and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over people, and the Lord will reign over them for ever (Wisdom of Solomon 3:7-8)[4]. The clearest statements of resurrection after Daniel 12, however, are found in 2 Maccabees, the Mishnah and the later rabbinic writings. In 2 Maccabees, a martyr on the verge of death puts out his tongue, stretches out his arms and declares: I got these from Heaven, and because of his Laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again (2 Maccabees 7:11). According to Mishnah 10.1, All Israelites have a share in the world to come; ... and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.
Remember, resurrection does not mean being raised to heaven or taken up in glory. Neither Elijah nor Enoch had been resurrected in the sense that Daniel, 2 Maccabees and the rabbis meant it; nor, for that matter, had anyone else. Resurrection will happen only to people who are already dead. To speak of the destruction of the body and the continuing existence, however blessed, of something else (call it a soul for the sake of argument) is not to speak of resurrection, but simply of death itself. Resurrection is not simply death from another viewpoint; it is the reversal of death, its cancellation, the destruction of its power. That is what pagans denied, and what Daniel, 2 Maccabees, the Pharisees and arguably most first-century C.E. Jews affirmed, justifying their belief by reference to the creator God and this God’s passion for eventual justice[5].
The doctrine remained, however, quite imprecise and unfocused. Josephus describes it, confusingly, in various incompatible ways. The rabbis discuss what, precisely, it will mean and how God will do it. Furthermore, the idea could be used metaphorically, particularly for the restoration of Israel after the Exile, as in Ezekiel 37, where the revived dry bones represent the House of Israel.
The early Christian hope for bodily resurrection is clearly Jewish in origin, there being no possible pagan antecedent. Here, however, there is no spectrum of opinion: Earliest Christianity simply believed in resurrection, that is, the overcoming of death by the justice bringing power of the creator God.
For early Christians, resurrection was seen to consist of passing death and out the other side into a new sort of bodily life. As Romans 8 shows, Paul clearly believed that God would give new life to the mortal bodies of Christians and indeed to the entire created world: If the Spirit of the God who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who lives in you (Romans 8:11). This is a radical mutation from within Jewish belief.
Resurrection hope (as one would expect from its Jewish roots) turned those who believed it into a counter-empire, an alternative society that knew the worst that tyrants could do and knew that the true God had the answer. But the Christians had an extra reason for this hope, a reason which, they would have said, explained their otherwise extraordinary focus on, and sharpening of, this particular Jewish belief. For the Christians believed that the Messiah had already been raised from the dead.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 3:30 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 4:45 PM GDR has replied
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 4:01 AM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 274 of 1324 (701023)
06-10-2013 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
06-10-2013 2:00 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 2:00 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 4:52 PM Faith has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 275 of 1324 (701024)
06-10-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
06-10-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 3:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 8:21 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 276 of 1324 (701026)
06-10-2013 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
06-10-2013 4:35 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 5:02 PM onifre has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 277 of 1324 (701027)
06-10-2013 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by onifre
06-10-2013 4:52 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 4:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 5:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 301 by GDR, posted 06-11-2013 11:29 PM Faith has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 278 of 1324 (701029)
06-10-2013 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
06-10-2013 5:02 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 5:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 5:36 PM onifre has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 1324 (701031)
06-10-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by onifre
06-10-2013 5:25 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 5:25 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 5:47 PM Faith has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 280 of 1324 (701032)
06-10-2013 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
06-10-2013 5:36 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 5:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 6:14 PM onifre has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 1324 (701035)
06-10-2013 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by onifre
06-10-2013 5:47 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 5:47 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 6:49 PM Faith has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 282 of 1324 (701039)
06-10-2013 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
06-10-2013 6:14 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 11:04 PM onifre has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 283 of 1324 (701043)
06-10-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by onifre
06-10-2013 4:45 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
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:
I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things in human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on.
But I don’t think a materialist account of religion’s origin, history, and future — like the one I’m giving here — precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.
It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusionary.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 4:45 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 11:05 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 284 of 1324 (701049)
06-10-2013 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by onifre
06-10-2013 6:49 PM


Re: murder versus justice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 6:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by onifre, posted 06-11-2013 1:56 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 1324 (701050)
06-10-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by GDR
06-10-2013 8:21 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
Thanks for that quote from Wright. A raving heretic if there ever was one. Yikes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 8:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 06-10-2013 11:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024