Moreover, you need to find a position for yourself and hold to it. One minute you claim there is virtually no evidence for Jesus’ miracles, and the next minute, you posit that Jesus did miracles because he was an alien. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ PAUL, you would know (just like scholars have noted for DECADES) that Paul says next to NOTHING about the life of Jesus. His focus is ENTIRELY on Jesus’ death and resurrection; he does NOT talk about Jesus’ miracles. That means that there is NOTHING in Paul’s depiction of Jesus that requires us to believe that Jesus was a space alien. Paul attributes Jesus’ rise from the dead entirely to God’s action, not Jesus’.
Furthermore, you’re anachronistic reading of history is both comical and insulting. Paul was NOT semi-literate; his intelligence and training far surpassed your own. [/quote]
I’m well-aware of how Paul had all these fantasies. I know that ‘young woman’ got mistranslated as ‘virgin’ and blah-blah-blah.
I also know that, and as you’ve said, that there is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus performing miracles, except for stories written hundreds of years after Jesus died at Masada.
And you guys believe in this stuff…
[/quote]
Hooked on phonics, HH. It’s worked for a lot of people. I’m sure it’ll work for you.
I love how you COMPLETELY ignored the first portion of my post; you were too embarrassed to deal with it, which I understand. I don’t expect you to admit you’re wrong. Getting you to shut up is good enough for me.
I did NOT say that there is no evidence for Jesus performing miracles. I said that YOU SAID (and I quote), “there is LITTLE EVIDENCE…” More importantly, I said that PAUL’S WRITINGS do not provide evidence for Jesus’ miracles. That doesn’t mean Paul didn’t believe that Jesus did miracles. More importantly, THE GOSPELS (“stories,” as you called them) WERE NOT WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEAR AFTER JESUS DIED (and Jesus certainly did NOT die at Masada). The gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus’ death, some considerably earlier. Jesus died at Calvary, NOT Masada.
We don’t believe in the nonsense you are spouting. You don’t even know what we believe. And every time I present a cogent argument, you ignore it. Once again, find a position and hold to it.
Are you bipolar? One of my family members is bipolar, and he fancies himself a scholar just like you. He’s equally bigoted and ignorant about every other belief system as you are. He cannot focus; he jumps from one position to the next, just like you. [/quote]
It usually took days for people to die on the cross. In fact, Pilate is surprised (read yer bible, dude) when Jesus has died after a few hours…“What! A young strong carpenter dies after only a few hours??”
And then, it was strictly forbidden to take a body down from a cross. Carrion birds were supposed to eat the victim. Yet they took him down…
Truth: Pilate got bribed, Jesus recovered at a brah’s house, and Pilate told him to GTFO or next time its the real deal.
Jesus died at Masala,dude.
Jesus was probably a pretty good dude. Too bad scoundrels took his good name and attached all these fairy tales.
[/quote]
Are you serious dude? I don’t post often but I just had to step in at this point. Please provide a smidgen of evidence for these claims. I don’t even care if its a wikipedia article, just provide something.
[/quote]
I’ve done this before and unless the Pope himself says it, then ‘Your source is crazy!’ or similar. What’s the point…
One of the Gospels records Pilate’s surprise at Jesus dying so soon…prbly because…well, he didn’t.
One of the Gospels has Jesus being crucified on private land, far from onlookers. Why? Romans crucifying someone on private land away from prying eyes (aka witnesses?)
You could try googling ‘Jesus+died+Masala’. But you won’t believe it…so wtf…
Moreover, you need to find a position for yourself and hold to it. One minute you claim there is virtually no evidence for Jesus’ miracles, and the next minute, you posit that Jesus did miracles because he was an alien. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ PAUL, you would know (just like scholars have noted for DECADES) that Paul says next to NOTHING about the life of Jesus. His focus is ENTIRELY on Jesus’ death and resurrection; he does NOT talk about Jesus’ miracles. That means that there is NOTHING in Paul’s depiction of Jesus that requires us to believe that Jesus was a space alien. Paul attributes Jesus’ rise from the dead entirely to God’s action, not Jesus’.
Furthermore, you’re anachronistic reading of history is both comical and insulting. Paul was NOT semi-literate; his intelligence and training far surpassed your own. [/quote]
I’m well-aware of how Paul had all these fantasies. I know that ‘young woman’ got mistranslated as ‘virgin’ and blah-blah-blah.
I also know that, and as you’ve said, that there is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus performing miracles, except for stories written hundreds of years after Jesus died at Masada.
And you guys believe in this stuff…
[/quote]
And you believe Rand LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Only idiots do that!
My dog shit more wisdom on my lawn that Rand could eek out in a life time. And you’re dumb enough to buy it LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!!!
Please don’t ever become religious, you’d be an embarrassment to the branch dividians.[/quote]
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< Are you serious dude? I don’t post often but I just had to step in at this point. Please provide a smidgen of evidence for these claims. I don’t even care if its a wikipedia article, just provide something. [/quote]Dear little brother forbes, you should know that contrary to Pat’s assertions, HeadHunter is ALREADY quite religious holding to a brand of utterly arbitrary and subjective personal delusions that take blind faith to soaring new heights. Evidence he says LOLOLOLOLOL. HeadHunter needs no evidence. God told him what to believe. Just ask him. He’ll tell you God spoke to him personally and he knows it was God ,but it has nothing to do with faith. There are several very pertinent passages of holy scripture that come galloping into mind. You jist watch. Headhunter’s gonna git saved. I can hear him already. Sobbin n snottin n pitiful begging mercy of the almighty gracious God who most assuredly was NOT the voice he heard. (Because God will never contradict His Word before anybody asks. For how I know that the bible is His Word see the one thousand posts on biblical epistemology I already have here.)
Moreover, you need to find a position for yourself and hold to it. One minute you claim there is virtually no evidence for Jesus’ miracles, and the next minute, you posit that Jesus did miracles because he was an alien. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ PAUL, you would know (just like scholars have noted for DECADES) that Paul says next to NOTHING about the life of Jesus. His focus is ENTIRELY on Jesus’ death and resurrection; he does NOT talk about Jesus’ miracles. That means that there is NOTHING in Paul’s depiction of Jesus that requires us to believe that Jesus was a space alien. Paul attributes Jesus’ rise from the dead entirely to God’s action, not Jesus’.
Furthermore, you’re anachronistic reading of history is both comical and insulting. Paul was NOT semi-literate; his intelligence and training far surpassed your own. [/quote]
I’m well-aware of how Paul had all these fantasies. I know that ‘young woman’ got mistranslated as ‘virgin’ and blah-blah-blah.
I also know that, and as you’ve said, that there is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus performing miracles, except for stories written hundreds of years after Jesus died at Masada.
And you guys believe in this stuff…
[/quote]
Hooked on phonics, HH. It’s worked for a lot of people. I’m sure it’ll work for you.
I love how you COMPLETELY ignored the first portion of my post; you were too embarrassed to deal with it, which I understand. I don’t expect you to admit you’re wrong. Getting you to shut up is good enough for me.
I did NOT say that there is no evidence for Jesus performing miracles. I said that YOU SAID (and I quote), “there is LITTLE EVIDENCE…” More importantly, I said that PAUL’S WRITINGS do not provide evidence for Jesus’ miracles. That doesn’t mean Paul didn’t believe that Jesus did miracles. More importantly, THE GOSPELS (“stories,” as you called them) WERE NOT WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEAR AFTER JESUS DIED (and Jesus certainly did NOT die at Masada). The gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus’ death, some considerably earlier. Jesus died at Calvary, NOT Masada.
We don’t believe in the nonsense you are spouting. You don’t even know what we believe. And every time I present a cogent argument, you ignore it. Once again, find a position and hold to it.
Are you bipolar? One of my family members is bipolar, and he fancies himself a scholar just like you. He’s equally bigoted and ignorant about every other belief system as you are. He cannot focus; he jumps from one position to the next, just like you. [/quote]
You’re arguing with a child, which is why I stoop to his level, so he can understand what I am saying. You’re trying to be reasonable with HH? You know that’s impossible right?
Anyhow, sent you an email, I look forward to hearing from you.
[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I never post here in pwi but what the hell. Ive noticed some here are VERY troubled by other peoples belief systems. I for one do believe in god, now i also believe in evolution and im pro-choice. I dont care if people choose to worship satan and drink blood (as long as blood is given willingly). Why should i care what others believe? Do i think some beliefs are crazy or stupid? yes but I have to ask HH why are you so troubled by christianity? I think maybe you were assaulted sexually or otherwise by a person of faith? No? did one of those televangilist take your money? fuck your wife? Im sorry for the wrong they did to you sincerely. Now can we let people worship whatever god, deity, spirit, space alien or golden statue they like without going out of our way to stir shit among them? Give it a shot devote some of your faith hate to something productive, or maybe start your own church called “i dont believe in shit and neither should you”[/quote]
It becomes a problem when people’s religious beliefs start affecting others, whether through law, policy, or in some other fashion.
[/quote]
Everyone’s beliefs affect everyone else. That’s how things work.[/quote]
Alright damn it… I tried to send you 2 PM’s, but they are not in my ‘sent items’ did you get anything? I am going to send you a test, if you get that one, then I will send you what I wanted to ask you about.
Not receiving any of those. I tried sending you one just now and nothing shows up in my sent box either. [/quote]
Just tried again…[/quote]
Nope.
Enable viewer comments on your hub. [/quote]
It is, hmmm. Do you still have my email address? I cannot seem to find yours. Send me a test email and I will respond and save it.[/quote]
These threads are all kind of boring…I get you guys fired up, you can’t offer cogent points outside of scripture verifying scripture (LOLOLOL!), and end by insulting me. Those insults really hurt btw, coming from strangers on an internet…forum…LOLOLOL!
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
Besides, there are more important and thought-provoking questions to ask (well, at least to me), like:
“What were the original commands, statutes and ordinances and how do they differ from the ones given at Mount Sinai?”
“Why was Stephen considered a martyr when he was stoned to death for speaking what amounted to blasphemy?”
“How is it that Jacob, Moses, Miriam, Aaron and a few more folks saw and even spoke face to face with God, but then Jesus tells us no one has heard His voice or seen Him?”
I mean, really. If you want to start some real poo-flinging; quit asking the old, tired, obvious questions and delve into some that make it look like you’ve actually read the Bible. (You have read it, right?)
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
Besides, there are more important and thought-provoking questions to ask (well, at least to me), like:
“What were the original commands, statutes and ordinances and how do they differ from the ones given at Mount Sinai?”
“Why was Stephen considered a martyr when he was stoned to death for speaking what amounted to blasphemy?”
“How is it that Jacob, Moses, Miriam, Aaron and a few more folks saw and even spoke face to face with God, but then Jesus tells us no one has heard His voice or seen Him?”
I mean, really. If you want to start some real poo-flinging; quit asking the old, tired, obvious questions and delve into some that make it look like you’ve actually read the Bible. (You have read it, right?)
;)[/quote]
All those questions have answers. St. Stephen blasphemy? That’s new one on me… Anyhow, Feel free to start a thread on it if you are interested and sincere about real answers. If you want to fling poo though, you’ll get it right back.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
Besides, there are more important and thought-provoking questions to ask (well, at least to me), like:
“What were the original commands, statutes and ordinances and how do they differ from the ones given at Mount Sinai?”
“Why was Stephen considered a martyr when he was stoned to death for speaking what amounted to blasphemy?”
“How is it that Jacob, Moses, Miriam, Aaron and a few more folks saw and even spoke face to face with God, but then Jesus tells us no one has heard His voice or seen Him?”
I mean, really. If you want to start some real poo-flinging; quit asking the old, tired, obvious questions and delve into some that make it look like you’ve actually read the Bible. (You have read it, right?)
;)[/quote]
All those questions have answers. St. Stephen blasphemy? That’s new one on me… Anyhow, Feel free to start a thread on it if you are interested and sincere about real answers. If you want to fling poo though, you’ll get it right back.[/quote]
Hey Pat, I will respond soon to your email - it’s just a super busy time right now.
NONE of JayPierce’s “questions” are legitimate. He, like HH, is a cursory reader with no knowledge of historiography. He, like HH, uses the internet as his primary source of information. They don’t know anything about legitimate scholarship, be it conservative, liberal, OR secular. They exhibit the least critical thought of anyone on this forum.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]
False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
Again, a contextual (not selective) reading of Genesis clearly reveals what God was referring to by “commandments, laws, and teachings” (Gen. 26:5). God had already forbidden murder and the consumption of blood in Noah’s days (Gen. 9:2-6); he specifically commanded Abraham to leave his home and travel to the place God would show him (Gen. 12:1); and God also commanded, most fundamentally, that Abraham and all his descendants should be circumcised as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-14).
What “blasphemy” did Stephen speak? Again, your reading is so selective, so inattentive to context, that it is painful. What blasphemy did he speak? Luke, the same guy who wrote the gospel of Luke, wrote Acts. He wasn’t trying to just record history; he had a very specific purpose in mind, and that was to provide a defense of the church as continuing the ministry of Jesus. That means that he was SELECTIVE IN WHAT HE INCORPORATED INTO HIS NARRATIVE. He wouldn’t have chosen to leave in things that specifically made revered figures, like STEPHEN, look bad.
Now please pay attention, because this is the point neither you nor Headhunter EVER grasped - if Luke thought Stephen committed the sin of blasphemy, the ultimate sin in the Jewish mind, LUKE WOULD NOT HAVE INCORPORATED STEPHEN’S STORY INTO HIS NARRATIVE. THAT WOULD MAKE THE CHURCH LOOK BAD. SO OBVIOUSLY, LUKE DOESN’T THINK THAT STEPHEN COMMITTED BLASPHEMY, AND IF LUKE, WHO LIVED IN THAT WORLD, DIDN’T THINK IT WAS BLASPHEMY, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? YOUR understanding of blasphemy is what you have to rethink.
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative.
If contextually sensitive readings are so far out of both your leagues, go back to reading Dr. Seuss. The fact is, if you want to convince any genuine believer of the ostensible ridiculousness of his or her beliefs, then you need to show that you accurately understand the beliefs to begin with. Neither Headhunter nor JayPierce show any historical or literary sensibilities, so neither can provide a legitimate critique of the Christian faith.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
[/quote]
Then why is it so difficult to provide the information that HH asks for? You obviously know exactly which sources provide the necessary corroboration to the events of Christ’s life, which are exactly what he’s asking for. Why not point him in the right direction instead of hurling insults?
What “blasphemy” did Stephen speak? Again, your reading is so selective, so inattentive to context, that it is painful. What blasphemy did he speak? Luke, the same guy who wrote the gospel of Luke, wrote Acts. He wasn’t trying to just record history; he had a very specific purpose in mind, and that was to provide a defense of the church as continuing the ministry of Jesus. That means that he was SELECTIVE IN WHAT HE INCORPORATED INTO HIS NARRATIVE. He wouldn’t have chosen to leave in things that specifically made revered figures, like STEPHEN, look bad.[/quote]
I agree that Luke had a very specific purpose in mind, but we disagree on what that purpose was.
Stephen misquoted the scriptures several times, and then rejected the temple as the dwelling place of God. To the Jews, this would not be considered blasphemy?
Obviously my understanding of what would qualify as blasphemy to the Jews of that time is superior to yours.
[quote][quote]
“How is it that Jacob, Moses, Miriam, Aaron and a few more folks saw and even spoke face to face with God, but then Jesus tells us no one has heard His voice or seen Him?”
[/quote]
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
I do not have a problem with context, so save your childish insults. The real fact is that anybody with any sense at all can see that the god of Israel and the Father, as exemplified by Christ, are two completely different entities. If you didn’t have the church to beat it into your head that they are the same, you would see it plain as day.
I do not doubt Christ. I do not doubt the Father. I also believe that Paul is exactly who and what the prophesies say he would be (not who he says he is).
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
[/quote]
Then why is it so difficult to provide the information that HH asks for? You obviously know exactly which sources provide the necessary corroboration to the events of Christ’s life, which are exactly what he’s asking for. Why not point him in the right direction instead of hurling insults?
[/quote]
HH isn’t interested in history. He is interested in providing his own interpretation of history without reference to sources or facts, and he is especially interested in new interpretations like those you love to provide.
At that point in time, potentially. I never said the Scriptural account was exhaustive; I simply provided examples that may be the very ones of which God speaks. Positing a long list of commandments of which there is no evidence in the text itself goes beyond the evidence. Your readings regularly go beyond the evidence; that is why they remain unconvincing.
What was Luke’s rhetorical aim, i.e., his purpose in writing, in your mind?
Clarity, please - what constitutes a “misquotation” of Scripture in your mind? By what criteria do you, who lacks knowledge of Hebrew (and thus cannot read the Masoretic text) and Greek (and thus cannot read the Septuagint) and ancient culturally-conditioned quotation practices, call something a misquotation? If you have a theory that will actually convince someone who DOES possess knowledge of these things, I would like to hear it. That might finally lend some credibility to your radical claims.
Moreover, you have once again shown your inattention to context. Luke clearly calls those who accuse Stephen of “speaking against the holy place (the Temple) and against the law” FALSE WITNESSES (Acts 6:13). From Luke’s perspective, the men who accused Stephen of blasphemy were LIARS, men who had been PAID to bear false testimony about him (Acts 6:9-11). And even Stephen’s claim that “the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands” cannot be considered blasphemous, because what he means is elucidated by the Scripture he quotes (Is. 66:1-2). His point is that Yahweh is not dependent on human beings for anything, let alone shelter. Thus, Luke CLEARLY demonstrates that Stephen was UNJUSTLY accused of blasphemy.
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best.
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. There is a difference. God’s point in Numbers 12 is that Moses has a unique relationship with God, one in which Miriam and Aaron do not share, one in which Moses speaks to God “face to face.” As I noted previously, this means that Moses and God had a uniquely intimate relationship, not that Moses saw God’s face. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “form” or “LIKENESS” is mareh, the same word that Second Temple Jews often used (along with the term doxa/ cabod, meaning “glory”) to refer to the Angel of the Lord. In other words, Jews in Jesus’ time believed that it was not Yahweh that Moses saw, but Yahweh’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. THAT is why Stephen says that the law was revealed by angels (Acts 7:38, 53) rather than Yahweh directly.
[quote]
I do not have a problem with context, so save your childish insults. The real fact is that anybody with any sense at all can see that the god of Israel and the Father, as exemplified by Christ, are two completely different entities. If you didn’t have the church to beat it into your head that they are the same, you would see it plain as day.
I do not doubt Christ. I do not doubt the Father. I also believe that Paul is exactly who and what the prophesies say he would be (not who he says he is).[/quote]
There are two major options when Scripture presents a difficulty - we can either try to understand how others have coped with this problem previously and see if there is a fitting solution related to the definition and use of words, etc., OR we can take the coward’s route, the route Marcion took, and redefine which texts are Scripture so that we can throw the problem out. You, JayPierce, are doing a little of both, which is the primary strategy of cultists.
That’s really how Christian cults have been started for LITERALLY 2000 years…
(1) Someone sees that a biblical text presents an apparent contradiction (the goodness of an omnipotent God and human suffering, for example)
(2) That person offers a theory that seems to simplify the problem (God is good but not omnipotent; God is omnipotent but not God; etc.)
(3) That person eventually realizes that their theory does NOT fit all the evidence (too many passages say that God is omnipotent AND good)
(4) The cultist starts cutting out pieces of Scripture or even entire books that don’t fit his model (in your case, that includes most of the New Testament and much of the Old)
(5) The cultist offers others his “simplified” form of Christianity, and the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it
The sad thing, Jay, is that you aren’t even in the same league as guys like Joseph Smith, and people are more wary of easy answers today than they used to be, so your career likely won’t get off the ground. I praise our Heavenly Father for that.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
[/quote]
Then why is it so difficult to provide the information that HH asks for? You obviously know exactly which sources provide the necessary corroboration to the events of Christ’s life, which are exactly what he’s asking for. Why not point him in the right direction instead of hurling insults?
[/quote]
HH isn’t interested in history. He is interested in providing his own interpretation of history without reference to sources or facts, and he is especially interested in new interpretations like those you love to provide.
[/quote]
You have a funny way of dodging. Next time just say “because” and get it overwith.
How about pointing me in the right direction, then. I am very much interested in the historical references pertaining to Christ.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
[/quote]
Then why is it so difficult to provide the information that HH asks for? You obviously know exactly which sources provide the necessary corroboration to the events of Christ’s life, which are exactly what he’s asking for. Why not point him in the right direction instead of hurling insults?
[/quote]
HH isn’t interested in history. He is interested in providing his own interpretation of history without reference to sources or facts, and he is especially interested in new interpretations like those you love to provide.
At that point in time, potentially. I never said the Scriptural account was exhaustive; I simply provided examples that may be the very ones of which God speaks. Positing a long list of commandments of which there is no evidence in the text itself goes beyond the evidence. Your readings regularly go beyond the evidence; that is why they remain unconvincing.
What was Luke’s rhetorical aim, i.e., his purpose in writing, in your mind?
Clarity, please - what constitutes a “misquotation” of Scripture in your mind? By what criteria do you, who lacks knowledge of Hebrew (and thus cannot read the Masoretic text) and Greek (and thus cannot read the Septuagint) and ancient culturally-conditioned quotation practices, call something a misquotation? If you have a theory that will actually convince someone who DOES possess knowledge of these things, I would like to hear it. That might finally lend some credibility to your radical claims.
Moreover, you have once again shown your inattention to context. Luke clearly calls those who accuse Stephen of “speaking against the holy place (the Temple) and against the law” FALSE WITNESSES (Acts 6:13). From Luke’s perspective, the men who accused Stephen of blasphemy were LIARS, men who had been PAID to bear false testimony about him (Acts 6:9-11). And even Stephen’s claim that “the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands” cannot be considered blasphemous, because what he means is elucidated by the Scripture he quotes (Is. 66:1-2). His point is that Yahweh is not dependent on human beings for anything, let alone shelter. Thus, Luke CLEARLY demonstrates that Stephen was UNJUSTLY accused of blasphemy.
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best.
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. There is a difference. God’s point in Numbers 12 is that Moses has a unique relationship with God, one in which Miriam and Aaron do not share, one in which Moses speaks to God “face to face.” As I noted previously, this means that Moses and God had a uniquely intimate relationship, not that Moses saw God’s face. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “form” or “LIKENESS” is mareh, the same word that Second Temple Jews often used (along with the term doxa/ cabod, meaning “glory”) to refer to the Angel of the Lord. In other words, Jews in Jesus’ time believed that it was not Yahweh that Moses saw, but Yahweh’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. THAT is why Stephen says that the law was revealed by angels (Acts 7:38, 53) rather than Yahweh directly.
[quote]
I do not have a problem with context, so save your childish insults. The real fact is that anybody with any sense at all can see that the god of Israel and the Father, as exemplified by Christ, are two completely different entities. If you didn’t have the church to beat it into your head that they are the same, you would see it plain as day.
I do not doubt Christ. I do not doubt the Father. I also believe that Paul is exactly who and what the prophesies say he would be (not who he says he is).[/quote]
There are two major options when Scripture presents a difficulty - we can either try to understand how others have coped with this problem previously and see if there is a fitting solution related to the definition and use of words, etc., OR we can take the coward’s route, the route Marcion took, and redefine which texts are Scripture so that we can throw the problem out. You, JayPierce, are doing a little of both, which is the primary strategy of cultists.
That’s really how Christian cults have been started for LITERALLY 2000 years…
(1) Someone sees that a biblical text presents an apparent contradiction (the goodness of an omnipotent God and human suffering, for example)
(2) That person offers a theory that seems to simplify the problem (God is good but not omnipotent; God is omnipotent but not God; etc.)
(3) That person eventually realizes that their theory does NOT fit all the evidence (too many passages say that God is omnipotent AND good)
(4) The cultist starts cutting out pieces of Scripture or even entire books that don’t fit his model (in your case, that includes most of the New Testament and much of the Old)
(5) The cultist offers others his “simplified” form of Christianity, and the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it
The sad thing, Jay, is that you aren’t even in the same league as guys like Joseph Smith, and people are more wary of easy answers today than they used to be, so your career likely won’t get off the ground. I praise our Heavenly Father for that. [/quote] @KingKai this angel of the Lord stuff is interesting, what are your thoughts about this being a Christophany of the preincarnate Christ? Anywhere I can read up on the historical milleu concerning this?
At that point in time, potentially. I never said the Scriptural account was exhaustive; I simply provided examples that may be the very ones of which God speaks. Positing a long list of commandments of which there is no evidence in the text itself goes beyond the evidence. Your readings regularly go beyond the evidence; that is why they remain unconvincing.[/quote]
You are backpedaling right into the exact question I originally asked: “What were they originally and how do they differ from what was given on Mount Sinai?”
I’m not claiming that you have the answer or that it is some huge secret or that it even matters much, I just want to know. Especially since God tells Ezekiel that he gave the Jews statutes that were not good and ordinances they couldn’t live by (Ezk 20:25).
