Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
656

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?[/quote]

Can you please refer me to the book of Jesus where Jesus put pen to paper? You said Jesus quotes from the OT all the time. Please provide a reference for such quotes.

658

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…You said Jesus quotes from the OT all the time. Please provide a reference for such quotes.[/quote]

You lazy bastard. Type “Jesus quotes old testament” into your search engine.

You might get something that looks like this:

Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?
Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. …
www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm - Cached - Similar

A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New …
The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, … And Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. …
www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm - Cached - Similar

Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture
Apr 6, 2004 … Jesus need not verify every passage in the Canon or else we would find the whole Old Testament requoted in the New Testament, …
Jesus Christ on the Infallibility of Scripture | Answers in Genesis - Cached - Similar

The Old Testament in the New Testament > The Good News : March …
How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? … If ever Jesus Christ wanted to convey the idea that the Old Testament was …
www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn15/otnt.htm - Cached - Similar

Quotations from the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament - Wikipedia …
For example, at Matthew 21:42 Jesus says "Did ye never read in the scriptures that the stone which … Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament …
en.wikipedia.org/.../Quotations_from_the_Hebrew_Bible_in_the_New_Testament - Cached

Where are the places that Jesus quotes the old testament? - Yahoo …
May 30, 2008 … Just need some help … Jesus quotes Old Testament Scripture when he is in the desert for 40 days and nights, and is tempted by the devil : …
answers.yahoo.com Ã?¢?Ã?º … Ã?¢?Ã?º Religion & Spirituality - Cached - Similar
What percentage of the Old Testament did Jesus quote in His …Ã?¢?? - Feb 24, 2010
Did Jesus negate the whole Old Testament or just the parts that …Ã?¢?? - May 23, 2009
How many times does the New Testament actually quote (not just …Ã?¢?? - Dec 23, 2008
Did Jesus quote scripture to non-believers?�¢?? - Nov 2, 2008

More results from answers.yahoo.com �?�»

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English …
Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation. The following is a table of New Testament (NT) quotations of the Old Testament …
Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation - Cached - Similar[/quote]

Oh, okay. So you’re telling me that Jesus wrote a book of the Bible? Which one?

659

A quick search yields that Jesus was quote as having quoted the OT in Luke, John and Matthew. Correct? Question: Who wrote Luke, John and Matthew?

660

For giggles, let’s examine what Wikipedia has to say about the Gospel of John:

Would anyone here suggest that Wikipedia is hostile to Christianity? Is the Wikipedia entry decidely atheist? Is not the sourced entry filled with enough fertile ground to doubt the Gospel of John? After much thought, the heck with it, let’s have this “serious religious discussion”. Except, let’s not wander all over the place as in this thread - what with talk of physics, floods, OT, NT, on and on and on, meandering all over the place - is it any wonder someone would not want to participate? Let’s have a real bible study. And since it is the Gospels that connect so strongly to Jesus the savior, the divine, let’s examine them, one by one; their authoriship, editing, contradictions with one another, etc.

Let’s start with John. Someone from the orthodox side, please start a thread about the Gospel of John, and let’s have a discussion, LIMITED to the Gospel of John. From there, we will examine the other Gospels. One day, we might be able to move onto the OT.

662

More on the Gospel of John:

663

Is it not the Gospel of John that emphasizes Jesus’ deity and a believer’s salvation? And that it was divinely inspired with no error? How can you prove the latter when; what exists now is not the original copy, the author is unknown and subject to scholarly (unlike present company) debate and that the Gospel was copied, numerous times, by unknown authors?

664

Can someone start the Gospel of John thread? I’m ready for a serious religious discussion. We will follow that “discussion” by other threads discussing the other Gospels one by one. Guess what, at the end of the day, neither party will be swayed. Draw. I will point you to scholarly references that cast doubt on the content and authorship, and the opposition will point to faith, and draw different conclusions. At the end of the day, some of you will see the hand of God, and I will see the pen of man.

665

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
A quick search yields that Jesus was quote as having quoted the OT in Luke, John and Matthew. Correct? Question: Who wrote Luke, John and Matthew?[/quote]

You lazy bastard. Type “Who wrote Luke, John and Matthew” into your search engine.

You might get something that looks like this:

Who wrote the Gospels in the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke …
In fact, the Gospels are all anonymous - they don’t actually say who wrote them. But: The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were linked with them as …
www.facingthechallenge.org/gospels.php - Cached - Similar

Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Item, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews … Modern scholars are in agreement that Matthew did not write Greek Matthews which is 300 …
Gospel - Wikipedia - 3 hours ago - Cached - Similar

Exploring the Gospels - An introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke …
Wrote Acts as sequel. Fisherman, apostle, and elder. Wrote 5 NT books. Died at an old age. … Key Verse, Matthew 27:37, Mark 10:45, Luke 19:10, John 3:16 …
www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/glance.asp - Cached - Similar

The Four Gospels
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The first three gospels are sometimes called … Mark was Peter’s son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down …
www.domini.org/tabern/gospel.htm - Cached - Similar

WikiAnswers - Who were Matthew Mark Luke and John
Why did Matthew Mark Luke and John write the four gospels? … Who wrote Matthew Mark Luke and John? Who was Mathew Mark Luke and St john? …
wiki.answers.com/.../Who_were_Matthew_Mark_Luke_and_John - Cached - Similar

When were the gospels written and by whom? | Christian Apologetics …
This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have … Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no …
www.carm.org/...and.../when-were-gospels-written-and-whom - Cached - Similar

The Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as Complementary …
Feb 10, 2009 … Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels. … four witnesses either spoke or wrote word for word accounts that were exactly …
Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try - Cached - Similar

FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ: the story of the storytellers …
The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the …
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/.../gospels.html - Cached - Similar

How were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John named and can you tell me …
How were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John named and can you tell me … Each of the gospels get its name from the names of the human authors who wrote them, …
bible.org/.../how-were-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-named-and-can-you-tell-me-something-about-authors-these - Cached - Similar

Who Really Wrote the Gospels, and Why Should We Care?
possible self-references: Mark 14:51-52; Matt 13:52; Luke 1:1-4; John 21:20, 24; 19:35 ? … Communities to/for whom the Evangelists wrote; When/Where; …
Who Really Wrote the Gospels, and Why Should We Care? - Cached - Similar [/quote]

Well Push, that’s clever, but I knew all that. But you’re intelligent enough to know where I’m heading with this. You just fired a bullet in your own manner of “drive by”.

666

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
More on the Gospel of John:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm[/quote]

Dang, you got us. I’ve never seen this kind of comparison before. No sir. Why did my Church overlook this? Why has it not discussed these differences? This! This, changes everything.

667

Is he really going down that road? Hasn’t anyone informed him that we don’t have original works for any of the ancient documents?

668

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
More on the Gospel of John:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm[/quote]

Might want to take a word from the web address you put up. We know you do not care about the Bible, God, and or Jesus. You are just like Saul before his conversion except you are not killing Christians, are you?

If the 4 books were written by 4 different people or more, would they all not have a different view of what was taking place infront of them? This does not mean that the books are wrong.

Just because Jesus did not physically write the books does not mean he did not quote the Old Testament. These people may not have had a copy of the text, but they knew them, and when he quoted the Old Testament, they knew of what and where he was quoting. The Pharasees had the scriptures memorized. Paul was a pharisee before he converted after seeing the risen Christ. Watch out if you are ever on the road to Damascus.

669

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
More on the Gospel of John:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm[/quote]

Might want to take a word from the web address you put up. We know you do not care about the Bible, God, and or Jesus. You are just like Saul before his conversion except you are not killing Christians, are you?

If the 4 books were written by 4 different people or more, would they all not have a different view of what was taking place infront of them? This does not mean that the books are wrong.

Just because Jesus did not physically write the books does not mean he did not quote the Old Testament. These people may not have had a copy of the text, but they knew them, and when he quoted the Old Testament, they knew of what and where he was quoting. The Pharasees had the scriptures memorized. Paul was a pharisee before he converted after seeing the risen Christ. Watch out if you are ever on the road to Damascus. [/quote]

LOL.

And by the way, I know what road I’m going down. Care to play chess with me? Do we really need to travel down the road to stalemate? I know where this age old argument ends for both believer and non-believer. The question is, where is the wisdom of playing it out over the internet? What is the wisdom of playing it at all?

670

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Is he really going down that road? Hasn’t anyone informed him that we don’t have original works for any of the ancient documents?[/quote]

I know this. It’s why I raised it. If they are divinely inspired, without the error of man, why then do they suffer from inconsistency and why were they edited? But already, you cannot stick to the rules of engagement, much like your former champion. Let’s examine the gospels, one by one. What’s wrong with shining some light there?

671

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
More on the Gospel of John:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm[/quote]

Might want to take a word from the web address you put up. We know you do not care about the Bible, God, and or Jesus. You are just like Saul before his conversion except you are not killing Christians, are you?

If the 4 books were written by 4 different people or more, would they all not have a different view of what was taking place infront of them? This does not mean that the books are wrong.

Just because Jesus did not physically write the books does not mean he did not quote the Old Testament. These people may not have had a copy of the text, but they knew them, and when he quoted the Old Testament, they knew of what and where he was quoting. The Pharasees had the scriptures memorized. Paul was a pharisee before he converted after seeing the risen Christ. Watch out if you are ever on the road to Damascus. [/quote]

LOL.

And by the way, I know what road I’m going down. Care to play chess with me? Do we really need to travel down the road to stalemate? I know where this age old argument ends for both believer and non-believer. The question is, where is the wisdom of playing it out over the internet? What is the wisdom of playing it at all?
[/quote]

I know what road you are going down, and it will only come to a stale mate as you have so mentioned. They are written by humans, and I am not going to debate that, but you have to admit that the books have not changed much in its 2000-5000 year history. From the earliest manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls) we do have they have only changed 0.01%. Not too bad for humans with no electricity, no ball point pens, and no loose leaf paper or spiral notebooks if you please. I would say God has his hands in it. My opinion of course. I would say if the 0.01% made a theological change then maybe you would have a pot to piss in, but I guess you don’t.

672

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?

Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]

I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.

Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.

At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”

In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.

At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.

Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.

You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]

I do not think that Pat is saying that the Genesis did not take place.

I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?[/quote]

It did take place. Just not likely that it took place like Genesis 1 & 2 says it did word for word. I am not looking for it to be a historic account. These stories were handed down by oral tradition for a long time before they were put to papyrus. It’s the moral of the story not the ball on accuracy of the account which counts.

673

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[
I know what road you are going down, and it will only come to a stale mate as you have so mentioned. They are written by humans, and I am not going to debate that, but you have to admit that the books have not changed much in its 2000-5000 year history. From the earliest manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls) we do have they have only changed 0.01%. Not too bad for humans with no electricity, no ball point pens, and no loose leaf paper or spiral notebooks if you please. I would say God has his hands in it. My opinion of course. I would say if the 0.01% made a theological change then maybe you would have a pot to piss in, but I guess you don’t.[/quote]

You are disingenuously trivializing the inconsistencies and criticisms either out of ignorance or a blind loyalty to your position. Taken as a whole, they are far greater than a 0.01% discrepancy and have even greater import on a theological level. I do agree that it’s a stalemate - I’ve said that all along, but was never properly credited.

674

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

…So Satan’s rebellious attitude that developed before God created humans…[/quote]

You made another good post but one small point to consider is that Satan’s rebellion could’ve occurred after God created humans. In fact the Bible doesn’t say.

You can speculate and say maybe Satan was jealous of the close pre-Fall relationship God had with Adam and Eve (He, God, apparently walked and talked with them daily) and that is why he rebelled.

I have heard and read valid opinions that the Fall occurred fairly soon after creation (because of the fact that no children apparently had been born yet to Adam and Eve after God’s command to be fruitful) but it’s not inconceivable to think otherwise, I guess.[/quote]
You’re right the Bible doesn’t say so it is hard to say conclusively. And that is a good point that Satan could’ve and probably was jealous of God’s relationship with Adam and Eve. The reason we believe that his sinful course started before sin was introduced on earth is because of how James 1:14,15 states that the cultivation of wrong desire to the point of fertility precedes the birth of sin. So we believe the spirit creature who turned opposer had already begun to deviate from righteousness, had experienced dissatifaction toward God prior to the actual manifestation of sin. As you stated since the Bible doesn’t say conclusively so the reason I just gave would be considered a valid opinion.

Push, have you ever read Ezekiel 28:11-19? We think this verse parallels both the King of Tyre and Satan.
11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 18 By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. 19 All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.’ "

From those verses we believe that as a cherub, Satan was a high ranking angel who was assigned the task of watching over the Garden of Eden. Which explains why it was Satan who used Adam and Eve to rebel against God. The parallels are that fact that he was blameless and perfect when he was created until wickedness was found in him as stated in verse 15 states. He was an angel of importance as the passage points out and he is thrown to the earth as stated in verse 17 which happens at Revelation 12:7-9. He is destroyed by symbolic fire as stated in verse 18 which is also stated at Revelation 20:10 when Satan is thrown into the symbolic lake of fire and sulphur.

What do you think?

675

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Is he really going down that road? Hasn’t anyone informed him that we don’t have original works for any of the ancient documents?[/quote]

I know this. It’s why I raised it. If they are divinely inspired, without the error of man, why then do they suffer from inconsistency and why were they edited? But already, you cannot stick to the rules of engagement, much like your former champion. Let’s examine the gospels, one by one. What’s wrong with shining some light there?[/quote]

Let’s start with your basic premise. According to your line of reasoning Plato, Aristotle, Homer - all of these are untrustworthy and should be discarded because we don;t have the orginal documents written with their own hand, the texts are incomplete, contain errors or are too far removed from the original document to considered valid.

That is manuscript criticism and you must be willing to apply it equally across all lines.

Secondly - even given the human rate of error in copying documents, there are so many thousands of them that any single copyist error can be corrected by comparison with the other 3499 examples. There are more ancient copies of the Bible than all other ancient manuscripts combined. . .that says something for textual authority.