[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The thing is, this is true of language universally including our own. The middle English of the 15th century is quite a bit different from the English we speak today. Shoot, the English of the colonies is quite a bit different than what we speak. I was telling TigerTime about this in the “Ask Moshe” thread recently. The vernacular. The common usage at the time in the culture and context in which the word or phrase under discussion occurs determines meaning there. What’s funny is that most will think “ok, big deal. This is common sense”. Yeah, except where the bible is concerned. Suddenly this goes out the window and websites go up claiming all kinds of absurdities, a very large percentage of which are simply the result of not practicing this principle. [/quote]
[quote]The 3 basic steps in my view are:
1-What does it say? That is, the bare language.
2-What does it mean? That is, once it’s determined what it says the next step is determining what it means in the cultural and historical context in which a given piece occurs.
3-How does it work? That is, once it’s been determined what the language says and what it meant to the people it was originally written to, how does it apply to me today.
A very short procedural outline of the historico-exegetical method. A method which when followed yields strikingly similar results for all who competently engage therein. [/quote]
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ok, so then why did the church itself brand Peter a heretic? Why is that the only mention of those words out of the accounts of that moment, if those words are so important?
You keep following the Apostles. I’ll keep following Jesus. [/quote]
When did the Church brand Peter a heretic? He’d have to declare himself a heretic, being the Prince of the Church…quite strange.[/quote]
Serapion of Antioch condemned the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century, claiming (without any evidence that I’ve ever seen) that it was a forgery.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
John 8:12 “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.” No mention of the Church.[/quote]
The Church is the body of Christ, ergo Christ himself.[/quote]
Are those your words, or His?
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Serapion of Antioch condemned the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century, claiming (without any evidence that I’ve ever seen) that it was a forgery.[/quote]His most royal majestic graciousness said on the last page:[quote]Here you have a big problem. You seem to think that the gospel of Peter is a credible document, and that it was only rejected because of a single anomaly (saying Jesus never appeared to be in pain). That is false. There were several other factors that contributed, even though the docetic influence of the text was clear. First of all, I don’t think you know anything about Docetism. Docetists had a problem with the TRADITIONAL church teaching that Jesus CHrist was fully God and fully human simultaneously; they thought the addition of a truly human nature would somehow show dishonor to God. Therefore, they argued that Jesus was NOT truly human, that his body was a mere apparition. Thus, they argued, Jesus did not truly experience any suffering, because God (in their view) was too special to suffer. Here’s the point - if Jesus didn’t experience pain, then yes, that fact DOES diminish his suffering. THERE IS NO SUFFERING WITHOUT PAIN.
Secondly, you are obviously reading from an English version of the gospel of Peter. The word translated “as” or “as if” doesn’t indicate a mere semblance of reality - i.e., Jesus only SEEMED to not be in pain - but rather an expansion of the main clause, and thus should be translated, “he did not cry out, having no pain.”
Thirdly, putting aside the obvious question of the dating of the gospel of Peter (which is so late that it COULDN’T HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY PETER), you actually think that it provides an accurate eyewitness account of Jesus’ death and resurrection? You know, it flat out contradicts the four gospels in several places? And that the supposed eyewitnesses to the event of Christ’s resurrection are the centurions and the Jewish elders? Where would Peter have gotten that information from, dude? And even if he did, why would the church hide it?! THAT IS THE EXACT HOLE IN THE JESUS STORY THAT EVERYONE WANTED FILLED! IF THE DOCUMENT WAS LEGITIMATE, the church would have jumped for joy to finally have an account from people who SAW JESUS’ GET RESURRECTED. The fact is that church authorities knew that the document was a forgery from the docetists; that’s why they rejected it. It had no more historical value or credibility than the gnostic forgeries. >>>[/quote]Even if there were nothing else, it’s being dated at the very earliest to around 70 (destruction of Jerusalem), but almost certainly not before 130, and it’s being just about also certain that Peter was already dead, even if the very unlikely 70ad date were assumed, makes it pert near impossible to have been written by him. Yes, I looked that up. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are those your words, or His?
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?[/quote]This is gittin painful man and here I was trying to sincerely warn you before. (that was sincere btw) You are NOT paying any attention to anything that is being said to you.
Nope, The Book Of Enoch beat me to it WAYYYYYY before that.
[/quote]
I didn’t say you were the ONLY one who extrapolated a lot out of Genesis 6, but you are certainly continuing the tradition.
Before getting into this, I need to make three points.
(1) An argument is not legitimate if its truth value depends on the reality of its conclusion. In other words, an argument is illegitimate if it presupposes its own conclusion. That is circular reasoning.
(2) Theodicean arguments (i.e., arguments meant to defend God’s reputation), especially those that supply novel interpretations of biblical passages to explain away dissonant passages in the text (like God’s order of execution on the inhabitants of Canaan), are by nature weak arguments. You may be able to supply an interpretation that gets God “off the hook,” so to speak, for some ostensibly awful actions, but that does NOT make your interpretation plausible or accurate. That only makes it comforting.
(3) Just because you are able to supply an answer to a difficult question, that doesn’t mean that your answer is correct. Having an answer is NOT a point in favor of your position, especially if your answer is simplistic and/or anachronistic (i.e., not fitting the time to which the text refers).
Now, to your statements…
A) The Rephaim were only ONE (1) of the people groups that had inhabited the promised land. According to Deuteronomy 7:1-2, the Israelites were supposed to kill “the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” The Rephaim are mentioned in Genesis 15:20, along with the groups listed above, as possessors of the promised land. However, Deuteronomy 2:20-21 implies that the Rephaim had already been virtually wiped out by the Ammonites prior to the conquest of Canaan; in fact, by the time of the Israelite wandering in the wilderness, only Og king of bashan was left of the Rephaim, and he had already been defeated before Moses’ death (Deut. 3:11, Joshua 13:12). So by the time the Israelites began to invade Canaan, their enemies were not the Rephaim; the Rephaim were simply remembered by this point as former (albeit powerful) inhabitants of the land. While the Rephaim are depicted as giants, they are neither called Nephilim nor represented as the ancestors of the seven people groups listed in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and elsewhere.
IN FACT, the Canaanites, Girgashites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites are ALL explicitly described as the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, (Gen. 10:6-18, esp. 15-17), descended from the line of Seth. So the problem still remains - God sent the Israelites into the promised land to wipe out the sinful (BUT VERY HUMAN) descendants of Seth’s descendant Ham, NOT the Rephaim (who may or may not even be related to the Nephilim).
This is why reading the genealogies is important. You don’t end up with ridiculous claims like you are making when you actually take the time to read THE WHOLE BIBLICAL TEXT CAREFULLY.
This is very poor reading on your part. First of all, it doesn’t say that “ONLY MEN OF REKNOWN” were born from the union of the Sons of God and the daughters of men. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The text does not say that the ONLY progeny of the Sons of God and the daughters of men were the famous ones. It highlights a specific group of those born from the unions - the Nephilim; it does NOT say that the Nephilim were the ONLY ones born from those unions. That kind of absolute language is not used in the text.
Secondly, this line of Cain/ line of Seth stuff misrepresents the key point of the argument I am espousing - the Sons of God ARE KINGS. They aren’t to be identified only with Cain’s line or only with Seth’s line; they are simply kings among humankind at the time. The text does NOT make those kinds of distinctions. It simply refers to the daughters of men, NOT the daughters of Cain or the daughters of Seth. And the text does NOT say that the descendants of the Sons of God/daughters of men unions were the ONLY inhabitants of the earth; in fact, it says that people were already having children before the unions of the Sons of God and daughters of men (Gen. 6:1). Therefore, we can only assume that there were many human beings alive that were NOT Nephilim.
Again, you need to read the text, and a lot more closely.
This is EXACTLY why I made the point earlier about circular reasoning. EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT YOU MAKE HERE PRESUPPOSES THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CONCLUSION.
First of all, I’m not the one going outside of Scripture; YOU’RE the one using 1 Enoch to interpret Scripture, which only a small subgroup of Christians today hold as Scripture.
Secondly, you ask, why write about the marriage of human believers/unbelievers? Well, two responses to that. One, this unbeliever/believer language is terribly anachronistic and, more importantly, inapplicable; as far as Genesis 6-7 is concerned, the only believer alive is Noah (and maybe his family). The rest of humanity is evil; only Noah could be called a believer. The descendants of Seth are not “believers” - they are lumped in with the rest of sinful humanity. Second, the answer to your question arises from the nature and genre of the book of Genesis. It is not a history book meant originally for YOU or ME; it was written several thousand years ago with an audience in mind that was VASTLY different in EVERY way from you and me. The genre of Genesis 1-11 in particular is etiology, meaning that the text is meant to explain (at least in part) how a certain state of affairs contemporaneous with the time of the text’s composition came into being. The author of Genesis answers a TON of different questions - how the cosmos came into being, how death entered the world, how humanity lost its grip on immortality, how murder originated, how the various languages came into existence, etc. Logically, the original readers of Genesis would have wanted to know how the fabled heroes of old (the Nephilim) fit into the ancient history the Genesis-author is writing, and so he obliges them - the fabled heroes lived prior to the flood, and they were the mighty sons of kings. See? I didn’t have to go outside of logic to explain ANY of that. IN FACT, I showed the kind of historical and literary sensitivity that is absent from your treatment of these passages.
Thirdly, if “those Cain/Seth Marriages” don’t seem horrible enough to you to end the world, THAT’S BECAUSE THE CAIN/SETH MARRIAGES WERE NOT THE REASON FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF HUMANITY. That would only be true if the reason why God destroyed the world was because of the marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of MEN. But there is NO indication in the text that the reason why God destroyed humanity is because of these unions of the sons of God and the daughters of men. The text explicitly says that there reason for the destruction is the fact that, "the LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, “I WILL WIPE FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH THE HUMAN RACE I HAVE CREATED - and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground - FOR I REGRET THAT I HAVE MADE THEM” (Gen. 6:5-7). The sinfulness of humanity is what bothered God and caused him to regret having made humanity, and BECAUSE OF THAT REGRET, God decided to destroy humankind. The fact that the text mentions the marriage issue at the beginning of chapter 6 is misleading; there is NO indication in the text that the REASON why God destroyed humanity is because of the marriages. An explicit reason is given - human wickedness.
Finally, you ask how marriages of human beings can produce giants? Variations in the gene pool, dude. Plus, within Genesis itself, the dates given for people’s life spans FAR surpass current standards. Is it not possible that human beings were in a better physiological state at that time, and could produce viable giantish people (rather than the tall but brittle and immobile genetic freaks we see today)? I don’t know - I’m not a geneticist. My guess is as good as yours.
But the text does NOT say that the Nephilim were giants! There may have been descendants of the Nephilim who were giants, but that doesn’t mean that ALL the Nephilim were giants. As I said before, they were more likely just the heroes of fable, like Gilgamesh. There is NO evidence that ALL the Nephilim were giants.
Why? Because he promised not to until the end of time, the day of the resurrection and the destruction of the world as we know it (Gen. 9:8-17). God needs no better reason than that. I can throw in 2 Peter 3:7-10 - God is patient - though of course that passage most likely refers to Christians (i.e., he awaits our full repentance before he will destroy the world and save believers).
And as I pointed out, just because you like a pet theory doesn’t mean it’s true. The Scriptures do not back it up; the people groups massacred by the Israelites were NOT Rephaim/Nephilim. They were descendants of Ham, the son of Noah and thus a descendant of Seth. You’ll have to find another way to save God, or better yet, realize that he doesn’t NEED YOU TO SAVE HIM. He’s God; you’re not. And personally, I don’t think your kind of Nazi argumentation clears God anyway - “oh, its okay for God to order the Israelites to kill the half-human, half-angels, cause they aren’t FULLY human.” What the heck is wrong with you?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are those your words, or His?
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?[/quote]This is gittin painful man and here I was trying to sincerely warn you before. (that was sincere btw) You are NOT paying any attention to anything that is being said to you.
[/quote]
You are not the Authority to whom I answer.
I say again, and always will; You can follow the apostles if you’d like. I follow the Word of Christ.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are those your words, or His?
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?[/quote]This is gittin painful man and here I was trying to sincerely warn you before. (that was sincere btw) You are NOT paying any attention to anything that is being said to you.
[/quote]
You are not the Authority to whom I answer.
I say again, and always will; You can follow the apostles if you’d like. I follow the Word of Christ.[/quote]
But there is no word of Christ outside of what the apostles have interpreted and relayed to you! You have no access to Christ’s words EXCEPT THROUGH THE APOSTLES! That’s why what you are saying is utter nonsense.
JayPiearce says[quote]That’s right, YOU idiots just go right ahead and keep livin in the United States. As for ME!?!?!?!?!? I’m stayin in Alabama thank you very much.[/quote]
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are those your words, or His?
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?[/quote]This is gittin painful man and here I was trying to sincerely warn you before. (that was sincere btw) You are NOT paying any attention to anything that is being said to you.
[/quote]
You are not the Authority to whom I answer.
I say again, and always will; You can follow the apostles if you’d like. I follow the Word of Christ.[/quote]
But there is no word of Christ outside of what the apostles have interpreted and relayed to you! You have no access to Christ’s words EXCEPT THROUGH THE APOSTLES! That’s why what you are saying is utter nonsense.[/quote]
OK , I understand the disagreement now. Of course the only access I have is through the apostles, undeniably. They were instructed to go into the world and share the story and teachings of Christ.
I am just not concerned with their personal opinions and answers to questions that were posed to them, as those are not included in what they were told to teach. Jesus gave us enough information, so I don’t need Paul’s opinion.
[quote]Karado wrote:
KingKai25 wrote: “You are extrapolating WAAAAAYYY too much out of that passage”
Nope, The Book Of Enoch beat me to it WAYYYYYY before that.
[/quote]
I would admit, it would be cool if the Book of Enoch was inspired…dragons! And, other weird stuff. However, it’s not. Cool book though, read it a few times.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ok, so then why did the church itself brand Peter a heretic? Why is that the only mention of those words out of the accounts of that moment, if those words are so important?
You keep following the Apostles. I’ll keep following Jesus. [/quote]
When did the Church brand Peter a heretic? He’d have to declare himself a heretic, being the Prince of the Church…quite strange.[/quote]
Serapion of Antioch condemned the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century, claiming (without any evidence that I’ve ever seen) that it was a forgery.[/quote]
Yes, so how does the Gospel of Peter being declared a forgery have anything to do with Peter being branded a heretic? It does not follow.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JayPiearce says[quote]That’s right, YOU idiots just go right ahead and keep livin in the United States. As for ME!?!?!?!?!? I’m stayin in Alabama thank you very much.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JayPiearce says[quote]That’s right, YOU idiots just go right ahead and keep livin in the United States. As for ME!?!?!?!?!? I’m stayin in Alabama thank you very much.[/quote][/quote]
Lol. Is this what you meant by my ‘peril’? A misspelled, misquote of an ad hominem?
I love ad hominems because they tell you who has a valid argument and who doesn’t. Basically, first person to an ad hominem loses.
JP. If they are lying elsewhere? BIG TIME? What, I beg of thee, makes you confident in what they’ve told us Jesus said? Can you not understand what is goin on here? [quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JayPiearce says[quote]That’s right, YOU idiots just go right ahead and keep livin in the United States. As for ME!?!?!?!?!? I’m stayin in Alabama thank you very much.[/quote][/quote]
Lol. Is this what you meant by my ‘peril’? A misspelled, misquote of an ad hominem?
I love ad hominems because they tell you who has a valid argument and who doesn’t. Basically, first person to an ad hominem loses.[/quote]I cannot for the life of me put my finger on what is preventing me from believing you to be a unreachable low intelligence life form.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
But there is no word of Christ outside of what the apostles have interpreted and relayed to you! You have no access to Christ’s words EXCEPT THROUGH THE APOSTLES! That’s why what you are saying is utter nonsense.[/quote]
JP. If they are lying elsewhere? BIG TIME? What, I beg of thee, makes you confident in what they’ve told us Jesus said? Can you not understand what is goin on here? [quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JayPiearce says[quote]That’s right, YOU idiots just go right ahead and keep livin in the United States. As for ME!?!?!?!?!? I’m stayin in Alabama thank you very much.[/quote][/quote]
Lol. Is this what you meant by my ‘peril’? A misspelled, misquote of an ad hominem?
I love ad hominems because they tell you who has a valid argument and who doesn’t. Basically, first person to an ad hominem loses.[/quote]I cannot for the life of me put my finger on exactly what is preventing me from believing you to be an unreachable low intelligence life form.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are those your words, or His?
Point blank: Jesus told them to teach the Gospel. To share the story and teachings of Christ with the rest of the world. They taught the Gospel, but also preached from ideas in their own minds. If I recall, doesn’t God issue a warning about that very offense in the Old Testament?[/quote]This is gittin painful man and here I was trying to sincerely warn you before. (that was sincere btw) You are NOT paying any attention to anything that is being said to you.
[/quote]
You are not the Authority to whom I answer.
I say again, and always will; You can follow the apostles if you’d like. I follow the Word of Christ.[/quote]
But there is no word of Christ outside of what the apostles have interpreted and relayed to you! You have no access to Christ’s words EXCEPT THROUGH THE APOSTLES! That’s why what you are saying is utter nonsense.[/quote]
OK , I understand the disagreement now. Of course the only access I have is through the apostles, undeniably. They were instructed to go into the world and share the story and teachings of Christ.
I am just not concerned with their personal opinions and answers to questions that were posed to them, as those are not included in what they were told to teach. Jesus gave us enough information, so I don’t need Paul’s opinion.[/quote]
No dude, you’re STILL not getting it. The apostles did NOT provide us with a precise, word for word account of what Jesus said, and they certainly didn’t write down ALL the things Jesus said. In order to relay to us Jesus’ teachings, they had to (1) interpret what Jesus meant by his teachings, (2) translate them from Aramaic into Greek, and (3) put them in some sort of narrative framework to make sense of them. This is why the gospel accounts differ!
Why does Matthew have Jesus give one long speech (Matt. 5-7), whereas Luke intersperses Jesus’ teachings “on the mount” throughout the gospel of Luke? Can you say which is more original?
Why does Matthew have Jesus saying, “Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect,” WHEN ARAMAIC (the language Jesus originally spoke in) DOESN’T HAVE A WORD FOR “PERFECT?”
Why in Mark 9:29 does Jesus explain the disciples’ inability to cast out a demon with the statement, “this kind can only come out by prayer,” while Matthew 17:20, THE EXACT SAME STORY, has Jesus saying, “because of the littleness of your faith?”
These are REAL differences, dude. How is one to discern which are the REAL words of Jesus and which are interpreted? Answer: THEY ARE AAAALLLL interpreted. ALL of them. You have no idea WHAT Jesus said exactly; all you have access to are the words of Jesus AS ALREADY INTERPRETED by the apostles.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< all you have access to are the words of Jesus AS ALREADY INTERPRETED by the apostles.[/quote]Albeit under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which is also the point. They can be relied upon with the gospel accounts themselves for their faithfulness, but are lying when they make the claims they do in their epistles? Or that Luke makes for their authority in acts? (yes, btw, I do see this is NOT exactly the “plenary verbal” view)
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< all you have access to are the words of Jesus AS ALREADY INTERPRETED by the apostles.[/quote]Albeit under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which is also the point. They can be relied upon with the gospel accounts themselves for their faithfulness, but are lying when they make the claims they do in their epistles? Or that Luke makes for their authority in acts? (yes, btw, I do see this is NOT exactly the “plenary verbal” view)
[/quote]
Precisely. I am not denying inspiration. The point remains, however, that an inspired interpretation is STILL an interpretation, so the notion that one has access to the uninterpreted words of Christ is untenable.