On the Third Day

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“Why was Stephen considered a martyr when he was stoned to death for speaking what amounted to blasphemy?”
[/quote]

???

[Tiribulus]

JP, I just don’t get how you refuse to accept these allegedly unreliable documents until you think you see them saying something useful to your truly outlandish points. I wish you could believe that I’m not trying to beat you up, but your whole paradigm for approaching the Christian religion is way out there dude. Seriously.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]

Moreover, GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. I did not say that God did not speak to Miriam and Aaron; I said God did not speak to them FACE TO FACE! The text of Exodus 33-34 also says that Moses, while seeing the back of the divine being, NEVER SAW HIS FACE. And regarding Jacob, anyone with ANY training in the study of literature (ancient OR modern) knows that in a narrative, the LEAST trustworthy perspective (i.e., the perspective with the worst grasp on the situation) is that of the CHARACTER. Just because JACOB, the CHARACTER, interprets his confrontation with the being as “seeing God face to face,” that doesn’t mean that the NARRATOR, the one with the trustworthy perspective, thinks that he did! This is English 101![/quote]

OK, one more time, and I’ll spell it out line by line:
Aaron, Miriam, Moses and Jacob all heard his voice. Jesus said ‘you have never heard His voice…’
Moses saw his form. Jesus said “…or seen His form”
Jacob saw God face to face, and even named the place Peniel “because I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared.”

OK, so now we are tracing all of this back to your interpretation of John 5. Got it. I’ll deal with that aspect below, though for now I do want to point out that just because your ENGLISH translation uses the word “form” to translate both a HEBREW word and a GREEK word, that doesn’t mean that the Hebrew and Greek words mean the same thing.[/quote]
Please enlighten me. What were the Greek and Hebrew words and what do they mean. Better yet, just go ahead and post your translations of both verses.

Regarding your continued mention of Jacob, I am going to make the same point I made before, the one you just cannot wrap your mind around - the voice of the CHARACTER in the story does NOT necessarily reflect the opinions of the NARRATOR/AUTHOR, the one telling the story. Just because the text reports what JACOB believed (i.e., that he had actually wrestled with God), that doesn’t imply that the NARRATOR/AUTHOR thought that. Thus, your point is mute. It doesn’t matter how Jacob interpreted his experience; unless you can demonstrate that the NARRATOR shared Jacob’s view, then all you are saying is that, “in Jacob’s opinion, he saw God.”

So Moses wrote the book under the instruction of God, and God failed to mention that Jacob only thought he saw Him? I highly doubt it.

You do realize that Jacob wasn’t a monotheist, right?

Yes.

You do realize that the monotheistic theology of Moses and the later Israelites was NOT Jacob’s?

Yes.

The WHOLE POINT of the book of Genesis is to demonstrate that the same God who created the cosmos was ALSO the same God who attached himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even if THEY didn’t know this fact.

I understand the point of the book of Genesis. What I don’t understand is; If this is TRULY the work of the Father as exemplified by Christ, the real God who could conceal His Truth in all these books to be revealed at the right time, and get EVERY DETAIL correct, then WHY ARE THERE SO MANY INCONSISTENCIES in it. He thought to mention that Christ would not cry out during His torturous death, but He forgot to mention that Jacob only thought he saw Him??

You need to find someone more gullible to sell this to.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

In Exodus, God tells Moses “I am sending you to Pharaoh so that you may lead My people, the Israelites, out of Egypt.” In response to which, Moses replied “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” And he protested several more times. The context here tells me that Moses did not know.

You also don’t know what context is. What you are calling “context” is the really the notion that you’re extrapolating from Moses’ statements. That’s not the context, i.e., the narrative and discursive framework in which those statements are uttered and which ultimately regulate their meaning. What is the context in this case? The context is the narrative framework[/quote]
I could pick this apart, but I am not interested in having a meta-argument.
[/quote]

Your refusal to engage in “meta-arguments,” i.e., to actually analyze the foundation and legitimacy of your most basic interpretive presuppositions, is why I do not find any of your arguments compelling. Your readings are no more substantial than houses built on sand.

God speaks to Moses after Moses had spent 40 years in the wilderness. Moses had gone from the heights of power in Egypt to the life of a shepherd. This is not the same Moses who left Egypt. Is it not feasible that, after the Israelites denied Moses’ role as arbitrator and savior, and after spending 40 years at a relatively humiliating job, Moses had lost faith in himself and had come to deny the legitimacy of his own calling? That is CERTAINLY a possibility, and there is nothing in Moses’ statements that conflicts with that possibility. Nothing in Moses’ protest obviates that possibility; his statements are perfectly consistent with the scenario I presented.

Nothing in Moses’ protest indicates it, either. You’re reaching too far for vindication, even to the point of wild speculation.

As I said, I am not arguing that this is DEFINITELY how it happened (see the very next statement of mine you that cite!). My point is that, before you go claiming that Stephen misinterpreted Scripture, you have to demonstrate that his readings conflict with the passages he cites. If they don’t conflict with the text itself, then the possibility exists that his assessment is correct. This becomes all the more possible if Stephen was a recipient of divine revelation. I don’t have to simply dismiss Stephen as a noble Christian martyr simply because YOU don’t like his interpretation.

[quote]

I am not saying this is DEFINITELY how it happened. I am saying that, if you are going to argue that Stephen was a blasphemer and a liar, you are going to have do better than that. Stephen’s statements about Moses may represent divine revelation given to him. On the other hand, they may represent nothing more than an extra-biblical extrapolation, but nothing he says CONFLICTS with meaning of Exodus 2-3. Moreover, Stephen’s point about Moses is ancillary to his greater rhetorical purpose in his speech - to show that the Israelites had continually, throughout their history, resisted the God who would save them.

My actual point through all of this is something you touched on earlier. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the story of Stephen ever happened. No historical reference. No corroboration.

I am not necessarily calling Stephen a liar as much as I am Paul. After all, he obviously dictated much of Luke’s writing.[/quote]

You really shouldn’t use words like “obviously” when an issue is far from obvious. Conservative AND secular scholars alike have noted that Luke actually seems to be relatively uninfluenced by Paul’s theology. They’ve looked for the distinctive markers of Pauline thought (themes, language, etc.) and have consistently found that, rather than simply being Paul’s hack, Luke possesses a theological voice uniquely his own. Consequently, you have an entire world of scholarship to deal with here, bud, and any references to the supposedly close relationship between Luke and Paul are NOT sufficient evidence to say that Luke is simply Paul’s mouthpiece.

But here again we have an even more fundamental problem. If you’ve already decided that Luke and Paul are both liars, how can you trust ANYTHING they say, including Luke’s seeming portrayal of their relationship? Could it not be that Luke, hoping to get attention, claimed to be closer to Paul than he actually was? How do we tell if there is any factual content to the stories Luke narrates, including the ones about Paul? It’s a very slippery slope, Jay.

[Brother_Chris]

Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

White Noise: The Light

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?

[Headhunter]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

Aww Headhunter, I’m sorry you haven’t gotten your fair share of attention in a little while. Here, I’ll oblige you, little one.

One of my graduate courses was on The Quests for the Historical Jesus, and as one of our assignments for that class, we had to analyze two different “popular” level texts providing a particular construction of Jesus’ history (The DaVinci Code, etc.) and present our findings to the class. Guess what one of the two books I was assigned was? Yup - The Jesus Scroll by Joyce (I forget his first name), a radio show host rather than a legitimate scholar. That’s the book that engendered this nonsense about Jesus’ dying at Masada.

The book completely failed at the level of both external and internal criteria. In terms of external criteria, all scholars agreed that only fragments of scrolls were found at Masada, NOT entire scrolls. Joyce claims to have been shown an entire intact scroll, the whereabouts and even existence of which has NEVER been verified. In fact, the Israeli scholar who led the study, Yigael Yadin, disavowed ANY knowledge of the existence of such a scroll. Now, if a scroll existed that proved that Jesus of Nazareth (remember that name) died at Masada rather than at Golgotha, why would a JEWISH (NOT CHRISTIAN!) scholar deny that?

In terms of internal criteria, Joyce’s claims become even more ridiculous. According to Joyce, the scroll was supposedly written by “Yeshua son of Ya’akov from Gennesareth.” First of all, Yeshua (Jesus) and its variants was one of the most common names given to Jewish boys in the first century. Secondly, the gospels are UNANIMOUS in referring to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Yosef), even to the detriment of Jesus’ reputation. Here’s a simple fact for you - no matter how you shake it, Ya’akov (Jacob) is NOT and CANNOT BE a variant of Yosef (Joseph). They are two completely different names. Finally, and most importantly, Gennesareth (Kinnereth in the Hebrew Bible) was NOT Nazareth; they were actually two different towns.

Consequently, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, was the same man as Jesus of Gennesareth, son of Jacob, if the latter figure even existed at all.

Don’t you see how comical this is, Headhunter? You say we Christians negate our minds through faith, yet you BELIEVE in a reconstruction of Jesus’ life without ANY evidence for it whatsoever! You mock us for relying on the Scriptures, and yet you BELIEVE in a version of “Jesus” without ANY evidence, textual or otherwise, for its existence!

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

No, Jesus conquered death. The Bible was written for those who read Greek and Aramaic who belonged to the Catholic Church, and before the Septuagint…Hebrew for the Jews.

Did you just say that Jesus died as a car?

[JayPierce]

[quote][quote]KingKai25 wrote:

You are creating a difficulty where there actually isn’t one, if you just knew ANYTHING about Second Temple Judaism. But you don’t. If you did, you would understand that when John says, “no one has ever seen God,” he was speaking into a context where ALL THE JEWS interpreted the supposed theophanies (i.e., divine appearances) in the OT as appearances of God’s special representative, an angel. Jesus is TRULY God, not just a representative, so in that sense, until people had seen Jesus, they had never really seen God.

How very convenient.

“He saw God face to face! He struggled with Him all night and won!”
“No one has ever seen God”
“Oh, uh, I mean, he saw an angel that, uh, named him Israel “because you have struggled with God and men and have prevailed”, and he, uh, thought the angel was God… Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

And who thought up this farce and sold it to you? And you have the nerve to call someone else naive?
[/quote]

That is what the VAST majority of Jews in the first century believed, sir. That is how they explained these issues. Even secular scholars agree on this.[/quote]
Consensus does not determine truth. Do you believe everything that first century Jews believed, or everything that secular scholars believe?

[quote][quote]

[quote]And stop quoting John 5:37. He has a particular audience in view there; that passage is too specific to make your point. Jesus was talking to a specific audience, not making a general comment applicable to everyone. READ IN CONTEXT PLEASE.
[/quote]

Again, very convenient to you argument. You shape context to suit your argument the same way everyone else does (myself included). Him referring to the Jews as a whole suits my argument, Him referring to those specific Jews that were standing right there with Him supports yours. There is no way for either of us to prove our viewpoint, but to me it makes more sense that He was referring to Jews as a whole.[/quote]

Haha what’s convenient? That I just happen to have determined my position based on the various aspects of the text’s contextual field (linguistics, history, sociology, literary theory, etc.)? Yup, it’s pretty amazing how I’ve started from context and used that to determine the meaning of words. You should try that, sir. I’m not shaping the context; you are DENYING the context.[/quote]
A word’s meaning is determined by the words around it (context). Those words’ meanings are derived from the words around them. Those words derive their meaning from the words around them. Ad infinitum.

This is why meta-arguments are useless. You can argue about an argument (or someone’s method of argument) for eternity and never get down to the truth of the matter.

Here’s the point - Jesus was talking to specific individuals at a specific point in time. I argue that “you” refers only to those to whom Jesus was speaking. You argue that “you” encompasses the Jews as a whole. Now since context governs meaning, we have a problem. If you see me standing in the middle of the street, surrounded by a group of women, and you hear me say, “none of you are attractive,” are you going to assume that I am saying “no women anywhere are attractive?” No, it is fairly obvious based on the context, the setting in which my statements are uttered, that I am talking about a specific group of women.

You could be talking to a group of Jewish women, and literally mean that you don’t find Jewish women attractive. Or you could be gay, and literally mean that you don’t find women attractive at all.

The case is the same here - given the setting, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that Jesus speaks beyond his immediate context. There is no way to demonstrate that; you just have to assume it. But that means I have to take your word for it. Frankly, if the only way that passage means what you say it means is if you presuppose that it does, then the problem doesn’t really exist.

You do realize that your ‘presupposition’ argument is the intellectual’s equivalent to calling someone a doody-butt-poop-head, right? Just sayin’. Because it is impossible to read without presupposing anything.

But let’s go one step further. You are only quoting John 5:37, but that is only the beginning of a longer sentence. What else does Jesus say in that sentence, which carries over to vs. 38? "You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he has sent." Now if Jesus is talking to ALL Jews, not merely those standing in front of him, we have a problem, because the gospel clearly notes some Jews who did believe!

Moot point. The Revelation clearly points out that Satan will fool the entire world, yet also clearly states that there will be some who achieve their victory over him.

John 2:11 states, "Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." Jesus’ disciple group was composed primarily (though not entirely) of Jews; thus, if Jesus’ statements in John 5:37-38 apply to all Jews and not just to Jesus’ audience in particular, then Jesus was wrong. If, however, Jesus’ statements about no one seeing God’s form or hearing his voice applied only to Jesus’ audience, AS THE CONTEXT ITSELF SUGGESTS, then the supposed disagreement between Jesus’ words and the Old Testament disappears.

And right here, you point out exactly what I was referring to as ‘convenient’ above.

[Headhunter]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

Aww Headhunter, I’m sorry you haven’t gotten your fair share of attention in a little while. Here, I’ll oblige you, little one.

One of my graduate courses was on The Quests for the Historical Jesus, and as one of our assignments for that class, we had to analyze two different “popular” level texts providing a particular construction of Jesus’ history (The DaVinci Code, etc.) and present our findings to the class. Guess what one of the two books I was assigned was? Yup - The Jesus Scroll by Joyce (I forget his first name), a radio show host rather than a legitimate scholar. That’s the book that engendered this nonsense about Jesus’ dying at Masada.

[/quote]

I’m fascinated that anyone would spend time and money studying such ‘stuff’. Wouldn’t a nice class in elementary biology (like one where it said that dead things can’t come back to life) have been a better choice? Maybe a chemistry class or a class that discusses how intelligence is an end product of evolution, not the other way around (see Creationism thread)?

Fascinating what humans will waste their time doing…just fascinating…

[SexMachine]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Did you just say that Jesus died as a car?[/quote]

If Jesus was around today he’d drive a Holden Commodore or possibly a Ford Falcon - certainly not a Mazda. “Mazda” is actually a pagan, Zoroastrian god - Ahura Mazda. Yes, if Jesus was around today he would definitely drive a Holden Commodore; no question.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

Aww Headhunter, I’m sorry you haven’t gotten your fair share of attention in a little while. Here, I’ll oblige you, little one.

One of my graduate courses was on The Quests for the Historical Jesus, and as one of our assignments for that class, we had to analyze two different “popular” level texts providing a particular construction of Jesus’ history (The DaVinci Code, etc.) and present our findings to the class. Guess what one of the two books I was assigned was? Yup - The Jesus Scroll by Joyce (I forget his first name), a radio show host rather than a legitimate scholar. That’s the book that engendered this nonsense about Jesus’ dying at Masada.

[/quote]

I’m fascinated that anyone would spend time and money studying such ‘stuff’. Wouldn’t a nice class in elementary biology (like one where it said that dead things can’t come back to life) have been a better choice? Maybe a chemistry class or a class that discusses how intelligence is an end product of evolution, not the other way around (see Creationism thread)?

Fascinating what humans will waste their time doing…just fascinating…[/quote]

Lol Headhunter, thank you for once again generously deigning to demonstrate your inability to engage in a substantive argument. I demonstrate the ridiculousness of your own BELIEFS; you make fun of me for studying essentially the same thing YOU studied (i.e., alternative characterizations of Jesus). THAT, sir, is the definition of hypocrisy. Thanks for playing, though. Did you get enough attention for the day?

[pat]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

Aww Headhunter, I’m sorry you haven’t gotten your fair share of attention in a little while. Here, I’ll oblige you, little one.

One of my graduate courses was on The Quests for the Historical Jesus, and as one of our assignments for that class, we had to analyze two different “popular” level texts providing a particular construction of Jesus’ history (The DaVinci Code, etc.) and present our findings to the class. Guess what one of the two books I was assigned was? Yup - The Jesus Scroll by Joyce (I forget his first name), a radio show host rather than a legitimate scholar. That’s the book that engendered this nonsense about Jesus’ dying at Masada.

The book completely failed at the level of both external and internal criteria. In terms of external criteria, all scholars agreed that only fragments of scrolls were found at Masada, NOT entire scrolls. Joyce claims to have been shown an entire intact scroll, the whereabouts and even existence of which has NEVER been verified. In fact, the Israeli scholar who led the study, Yigael Yadin, disavowed ANY knowledge of the existence of such a scroll. Now, if a scroll existed that proved that Jesus of Nazareth (remember that name) died at Masada rather than at Golgotha, why would a JEWISH (NOT CHRISTIAN!) scholar deny that?

In terms of internal criteria, Joyce’s claims become even more ridiculous. According to Joyce, the scroll was supposedly written by “Yeshua son of Ya’akov from Gennesareth.” First of all, Yeshua (Jesus) and its variants was one of the most common names given to Jewish boys in the first century. Secondly, the gospels are UNANIMOUS in referring to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Yosef), even to the detriment of Jesus’ reputation. Here’s a simple fact for you - no matter how you shake it, Ya’akov (Jacob) is NOT and CANNOT BE a variant of Yosef (Joseph). They are two completely different names. Finally, and most importantly, Gennesareth (Kinnereth in the Hebrew Bible) was NOT Nazareth; they were actually two different towns.

Consequently, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, was the same man as Jesus of Gennesareth, son of Jacob, if the latter figure even existed at all.

Don’t you see how comical this is, Headhunter? You say we Christians negate our minds through faith, yet you BELIEVE in a reconstruction of Jesus’ life without ANY evidence for it whatsoever! You mock us for relying on the Scriptures, and yet you BELIEVE in a version of “Jesus” without ANY evidence, textual or otherwise, for its existence![/quote]

[Headhunter]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

Aww Headhunter, I’m sorry you haven’t gotten your fair share of attention in a little while. Here, I’ll oblige you, little one.

One of my graduate courses was on The Quests for the Historical Jesus, and as one of our assignments for that class, we had to analyze two different “popular” level texts providing a particular construction of Jesus’ history (The DaVinci Code, etc.) and present our findings to the class. Guess what one of the two books I was assigned was? Yup - The Jesus Scroll by Joyce (I forget his first name), a radio show host rather than a legitimate scholar. That’s the book that engendered this nonsense about Jesus’ dying at Masada.

[/quote]

I’m fascinated that anyone would spend time and money studying such ‘stuff’. Wouldn’t a nice class in elementary biology (like one where it said that dead things can’t come back to life) have been a better choice? Maybe a chemistry class or a class that discusses how intelligence is an end product of evolution, not the other way around (see Creationism thread)?

Fascinating what humans will waste their time doing…just fascinating…[/quote]

Lol Headhunter, thank you for once again generously deigning to demonstrate your inability to engage in a substantive argument. I demonstrate the ridiculousness of your own BELIEFS; you make fun of me for studying essentially the same thing YOU studied (i.e., alternative characterizations of Jesus). THAT, sir, is the definition of hypocrisy. Thanks for playing, though. Did you get enough attention for the day?[/quote]

LOL! I never ‘studied’ this stuff (being polite) as a college course (LOLOLOLOL!) and am fascinated that anyone would pay to study this stuff. What I write about this stuff is gleaned off of web conspiracy sites, which seems rather apropos given the topic we’re discussing, no?

OT: Someone pays and someone else actually gets paid for twirling about with this nonsense. Perhaps in the case of humans, intelligence is NOT an end product of natural selection.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Let’s be honest. Catholic Church is right and everyone else are pretenders. Discussion finished.[/quote]

Tria Mera

“Wanting to learn more about Henry, Abe visits his house only to learn that Henry survived his suicide. Investigating further, Abe discovers the phenomenon of “Tria Mera”, The Third Day, when Christ was resurrected. Also on the third day the devil takes possession of the mortals who cheated death. Abe concludes that three days after he saved their lives, those he saved will be possessed and compelled to take the lives of others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise:_The_Light[/quote]

Lol, wat?[/quote]

Maybe Jesus cheated death. Tria Mera is ancient Greek for ‘Third Day’. The bible was written for ppl who read and wrote ancient Greek btw. So perhaps the battle with Satan was about Satan possessing Jesus. Jesus had to flee to his heavenly father, to escape Satan.

Of course, I believe that Jesus died as Masada.
[/quote]

Aww Headhunter, I’m sorry you haven’t gotten your fair share of attention in a little while. Here, I’ll oblige you, little one.

One of my graduate courses was on The Quests for the Historical Jesus, and as one of our assignments for that class, we had to analyze two different “popular” level texts providing a particular construction of Jesus’ history (The DaVinci Code, etc.) and present our findings to the class. Guess what one of the two books I was assigned was? Yup - The Jesus Scroll by Joyce (I forget his first name), a radio show host rather than a legitimate scholar. That’s the book that engendered this nonsense about Jesus’ dying at Masada.

The book completely failed at the level of both external and internal criteria. In terms of external criteria, all scholars agreed that only fragments of scrolls were found at Masada, NOT entire scrolls. Joyce claims to have been shown an entire intact scroll, the whereabouts and even existence of which has NEVER been verified. In fact, the Israeli scholar who led the study, Yigael Yadin, disavowed ANY knowledge of the existence of such a scroll. Now, if a scroll existed that proved that Jesus of Nazareth (remember that name) died at Masada rather than at Golgotha, why would a JEWISH (NOT CHRISTIAN!) scholar deny that?

In terms of internal criteria, Joyce’s claims become even more ridiculous. According to Joyce, the scroll was supposedly written by “Yeshua son of Ya’akov from Gennesareth.” First of all, Yeshua (Jesus) and its variants was one of the most common names given to Jewish boys in the first century. Secondly, the gospels are UNANIMOUS in referring to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Yosef), even to the detriment of Jesus’ reputation. Here’s a simple fact for you - no matter how you shake it, Ya’akov (Jacob) is NOT and CANNOT BE a variant of Yosef (Joseph). They are two completely different names. Finally, and most importantly, Gennesareth (Kinnereth in the Hebrew Bible) was NOT Nazareth; they were actually two different towns.

Consequently, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, was the same man as Jesus of Gennesareth, son of Jacob, if the latter figure even existed at all.

Don’t you see how comical this is, Headhunter? You say we Christians negate our minds through faith, yet you BELIEVE in a reconstruction of Jesus’ life without ANY evidence for it whatsoever! You mock us for relying on the Scriptures, and yet you BELIEVE in a version of “Jesus” without ANY evidence, textual or otherwise, for its existence![/quote]
[/quote]

Wouldn’t a pic with a flock of sheep have been better?

[Neuromancer]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Did you just say that Jesus died as a car?[/quote]

If Jesus was around today he’d drive a Holden Commodore or possibly a Ford Falcon - certainly not a Mazda. “Mazda” is actually a pagan, Zoroastrian god - Ahura Mazda. Yes, if Jesus was around today he would definitely drive a Holden Commodore; no question.[/quote]

Only if Jesus was Australian.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

1. Religion is cultism. So that makes you a hypocrite
2. You are a Protestant, are you not? You, then, are a heretic by definition. Hypocrite again.
   [/quote]

First, please define “Religion” and “cultism.” [/quote]
religion (r�?�ª�??l�?�ªd�??�??n)
�¢?? n

1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6. archaic
   a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
   b. sacred rites and ceremonies

cult (kÃ???lt)

�¢?? n

1. a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity
2. a sect devoted to such a system
3. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
4. sociol a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure
5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of yoga
6. the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion
7. a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group
   b. ( as modifier ): a cult show
8. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or cults: a cult figure

When I am referring to cults, I am employing the term as it is used in the field of sociology to distinguish a group diverging from a primary religious tradition by its emphasis on new beliefs, interpretations, etc. Based on the sociological definition, the one I am using, Protestantism is a Christian sect, NOT a cult. What’s the difference? Protestantism was a judgment (warranted or otherwise) on the legitimacy of some of the teachings of the Catholic church of the 16th century A.D. It is, in other words, a reformation movement sharing the majority of distinctive, defining Christian beliefs (divinity of Christ, Trinitarian nature of God, justification by faith, continuity of Israel’s faith and the church’s, inspiration of every part of the Scriptures, etc.).

Any religion is also a cult by definition. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim… different deities and different worship requirements, but all are cults as well as religions.

By denying the continuity of identity between the the God of Israel in the Old Testament and “the Father” of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the authority and inspiration of all the Scriptures, you prove that you stand outside of Christianity.

Actually, by following Paul more closely than you follow Christ, you place yourself outside of the definition of Christianity. No matter what you label it, if you believe the teachings of anyone who contradicts Christ or falls into the description of the people He warned us about, you are not Christian.

Secondly, I don’t think you know what the phrase “by definition” means. That phrase is used to refer to tautologies - “all bachelors are unmarried men” is an example of a statement that is true by definition. For your second assertion to be correct, “Protestant” would have to mean “heretic.” The word Protestant itself does not, however, mean heretic; it means “one who protests.” Now some Catholics may believe that Protestants are heretics, but that doesn’t mean that Protestants are, tautologically speaking, heretics. And last I checked, since Vatican II Catholics have called Protestants “separated brethren”

According to the definition of the word ‘heretic’, defined in Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies”, is basically anyone who disagrees with the ‘oral tradition’ of the Catholic church.

We are all heretics to someone else (usually to the Catholic church) by the current definition, which is the cause of all the disgusting finger pointing, judgmentalism and cursing amongst the different denominations.

[quote][quote]
3) You claim to be able to interpret the texts better than those who have published accepted versions of the Scriptures. And here you accuse me. Hypocrite.
[/quote]

Hmm, that’s not true. What I’ve most OFTEN taken issue with is your inability to understand the meaning of the English words chosen to translate the Greek. When I have disagreed with particular translations, it is because they are OUTDATED translations, ones which no longer garner any respect in critical circles. Your repeated use of the KJV in the past is an EXCELLENT example of what I am talking about. Despite the fact that the KJV is now widely recognized as a very poor translation, you still chose to use it.[/quote]
Actually, at your behest, I have taken to using the HCSB and bouncing its translation against other versions using the online parallel bible website.

And the notion that current scholars have a better idea of how to translate texts written 2000 years ago than early scholars did is laughable. Your intellectualism toward yourself leads to anti-intellectualism toward others, just as it always has.

That being said, even if I did disagree with the rendering of a word or phrase in a particular legitimate translation, I would not do so arbitrarily. THAT is the difference between us, JP. I am a trained exegete, trained by individuals who have worked on MULTIPLE translations. I know Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. I have a deep knowledge of Greco-Roman and Second Temple Jewish history and culture developed over several years of intense study. When I argue over the meaning of a word or phrase, I do it as someone who actually KNOWS that language. When you do it, on the other hand, it is completely arbitrary - you have no knowledge of the biblical languages or Greco-Roman and Jewish history and culture.

Not just a little bit self-absorbed are we? Maybe just a little naive about how the devil works his deceptions?

I could only be called a hypocrite if I was as inept of an exegete as yourself. If I knew nothing about the ancient world, like you, and I critiqued scholarly work, I would be a hypocrite. However, I am a scholar trained by scholars, so if I were to critique a particular scholar’s work, I would have a much more solid basis than you for doing so.

You tell others not to interpret for themselves, yet you interpret for yourself. You tell others that they do not know better than the scholars of the past, yet you claim to know better than the scholars of the past.

That is the very definition of hypocrisy. “Do as I say, not as I do.” Hypocrite.

[quote][quote]
4) Christians throughout history have also found the answers you provide to be lacking, dishonest, and deceitful. People know that there is something wrong here. They know they are being lied to. But like you said, the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it.
[/quote]

I’d LOVE to know who these “Christians” are, considering that, by your denial of the relationship between the God of Israel and Jesus’ “Father,” you don’t seem to know what a Christian is.[/quote]
I know Christians who go to church every single Sunday, but know they are being lied to. If you weren’t so judgmental of anyone who doesn’t bow down to your superior intellect and think the way you tell them to think, you might be able to interact with normal people who have serious questions but don’t want to be berated.

Try talking to people, not at them.

[quote][quote]
What would you say if He stood before you and asked why you didn’t believe His words? Why you take the teachings of a man whose spirit is not right within him over His? Because they are only interpretations and distillations? Not really His words? You needed someone else to expound on His teachings, instead of trusting in Him?

Got a clue as to what He would say in response?[/quote]

I demonstrated before that your reading of Habakkuk (an interpretation which you stole from someone else) is a bunch of ridiculous, non-contextual nonsense.[/quote]
That translation was taken from the DSS bible.

You are the one who should be worried, JP. Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul, one of the humblest and yet most gifted men this world has ever known, a man of whom this world was not worthy, and made Paul one of his apostles, charging him with the mission to the Gentiles.

You need to read Paul’s work again. He equated himself to an angel of the Lord. He claimed that people were baptized to him instead of Christ. He admitted to lying.

Paul was certainly not a humble man. He was certainly gifted, though.

[quote]Without Paul, sir, and his revelation of God’s desire to save the Gentiles WITHOUT making them become Jews, you and I would likely remain dead in our sins. Some day you will see Paul among the apostles, and you will realize how wrong you have been.
[/quote]
The apostle that ordered one of Christ’s people be handed over to Satan? The one who robbed churches? The one who couldn’t understand that lying for the greater glory of God was wrong?

Christ is the Saviour, not Paul. Without Paul, we would still be saved. As a matter of fact, without Paul, many more would be.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

When I am referring to cults, I am employing the term as it is used in the field of sociology to distinguish a group diverging from a primary religious tradition by its emphasis on new beliefs, interpretations, etc. Based on the sociological definition, the one I am using, Protestantism is a Christian sect, NOT a cult. What’s the difference? Protestantism was a judgment (warranted or otherwise) on the legitimacy of some of the teachings of the Catholic church of the 16th century A.D. It is, in other words, a reformation movement sharing the majority of distinctive, defining Christian beliefs (divinity of Christ, Trinitarian nature of God, justification by faith, continuity of Israel’s faith and the church’s, inspiration of every part of the Scriptures, etc.).

Any religion is also a cult by definition. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim… different deities and different worship requirements, but all are cults as well as religions.
[/quote]

I’m not sure what you are going for here, JP. Do you think you are being clever or something? It’s not like you are tripping me up; I flat out told you that I am using the term “cult” in a technical sense, i.e., how it is used in the field of sociology. It’s common knowledge that the word “cult” has other uses too, but the sociological sense of that word specifically distinguishes between “religions” and “cults.” Your comeback seems like the old “a-b***h-is-a-female-dog” retort. Yes, your comment is true, but absolutely irrelevant in a world where words have more than one meaning/usage.

By denying the continuity of identity between the the God of Israel in the Old Testament and “the Father” of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the authority and inspiration of all the Scriptures, you prove that you stand outside of Christianity.

Actually, by following Paul more closely than you follow Christ, you place yourself outside of the definition of Christianity. No matter what you label it, if you believe the teachings of anyone who contradicts Christ or falls into the description of the people He warned us about, you are not Christian.

Haha again, you really need to stop using the word “definition” like that. You betray your ignorance of both the meaning of the term AND modern linguistic theory every single time you use it. And more importantly, you have continually failed to demonstrate that Paul contradicts Christ. I have answered your objections again and again, yet you continue to throw out “your” misreadings of Paul (I hesitate to attribute them to you, knowing exactly how many you have stolen from other sources) as if they were self-evident facts.

Secondly, I don’t think you know what the phrase “by definition” means. That phrase is used to refer to tautologies - “all bachelors are unmarried men” is an example of a statement that is true by definition. For your second assertion to be correct, “Protestant” would have to mean “heretic.” The word Protestant itself does not, however, mean heretic; it means “one who protests.” Now some Catholics may believe that Protestants are heretics, but that doesn’t mean that Protestants are, tautologically speaking, heretics. And last I checked, since Vatican II Catholics have called Protestants “separated brethren”

According to the definition of the word ‘heretic’, defined in Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies”, is basically anyone who disagrees with the ‘oral tradition’ of the Catholic church.

We are all heretics to someone else (usually to the Catholic church) by the current definition, which is the cause of all the disgusting finger pointing, judgmentalism and cursing amongst the different denominations.

Your point is irrelevant. You called me a hypocrite because you said Protestant “by definition” means heretic. That was a ridiculous statement, as the definition of Protestant is not “heretic.” As I said before, the phrase “by definition” is reserved for tautologies. When a word has several meanings, however, or has changed its meaning through time, it cannot function tautologically. “Heretic,” while originally used to refer to any person who disagreed with the Roman Catholic faith, now has a broader range of meanings, being used to refer to anyone who departs from the norm of a particular religious system. You can say that, from a Catholic perspective, i.e., by THEIR CHOSEN definition of the word heretic, a Protestant would qualify as such. But the word Protestant does not, by ITS very definition, mean “heretic.”

[quote][quote]
3) You claim to be able to interpret the texts better than those who have published accepted versions of the Scriptures. And here you accuse me. Hypocrite.

Hmm, that’s not true. What I’ve most OFTEN taken issue with is your inability to understand the meaning of the English words chosen to translate the Greek. When I have disagreed with particular translations, it is because they are OUTDATED translations, ones which no longer garner any respect in critical circles. Your repeated use of the KJV in the past is an EXCELLENT example of what I am talking about. Despite the fact that the KJV is now widely recognized as a very poor translation, you still chose to use it.[/quote]
Actually, at your behest, I have taken to using the HCSB and bouncing its translation against other versions using the online parallel bible website.
[/quote]

Hence why I used the modifying phrase “in the past” and the past tense form of the verse “choose.” Do you read the stuff I write? I am asking that seriously.

And the notion that current scholars have a better idea of how to translate texts written 2000 years ago than early scholars did is laughable. Your intellectualism toward yourself leads to anti-intellectualism toward others, just as it always has.

Please explain why that is laughable, given the fact that (1) scholars only discovered in the last 100 years that biblical Greek was a widespread dialect known as Koine rather than a “Holy Spirit-inspired” language, (2) found the Dead Sea Scrolls and other treasure troves of ancient Jewish texts that shed light on the culture of Jesus’ time, (3) and began to operate outside of purely confessional interests, i.e., arguing for the point of view of particular denominations. If you actually knew anything about the history of interpretation, you would compare Augustine’s analysis of Scripture to modern methods and shake your head in embarrassment for the old man. Frankly, he did the best he could with the tools he possessed, but he lacked the necessary equipment, skills, knowledge, and self-consciousness to be a truly faithful interpreter of Scripture. The sad fact is that, though I am distinguishing between someone who wrote 1600 years ago and someone writing today, it was almost as bad 200 years ago. In other words, in skills, knowledge of relevant backgrounds, and self-analysis, scholars today are in a much better position to understand Scripture

Of course, since you don’t know anything about the history of interpretation, you have no knowledge of how things have changed over the last several centuries. To your ignorant mind, Thomas Aquinas was every bit as skilled and well-equipped an exegete as D.A. Carson is. Your ignorance of the things about which you speak with such confidence would be laughable, JP, if it weren’t for the fact that you have set yourself as a defender of the “truth.”

That being said, even if I did disagree with the rendering of a word or phrase in a particular legitimate translation, I would not do so arbitrarily. THAT is the difference between us, JP. I am a trained exegete, trained by individuals who have worked on MULTIPLE translations. I know Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. I have a deep knowledge of Greco-Roman and Second Temple Jewish history and culture developed over several years of intense study. When I argue over the meaning of a word or phrase, I do it as someone who actually KNOWS that language. When you do it, on the other hand, it is completely arbitrary - you have no knowledge of the biblical languages or Greco-Roman and Jewish history and culture.

Not just a little bit self-absorbed are we? Maybe just a little naive about how the devil works his deceptions?

Since you (1) don’t belong to a church, and (2) know nothing about Scripture, I don’t think you are in ANY position to tell me about the devil’s deceptions. Frankly, I think you are reveling under his deceiving hand right now.

I could only be called a hypocrite if I was as inept of an exegete as yourself. If I knew nothing about the ancient world, like you, and I critiqued scholarly work, I would be a hypocrite. However, I am a scholar trained by scholars, so if I were to critique a particular scholar’s work, I would have a much more solid basis than you for doing so.

You tell others not to interpret for themselves, yet you interpret for yourself. You tell others that they do not know better than the scholars of the past, yet you claim to know better than the scholars of the past.

Oh JP, again you miss the point. The faithful interpretation of ancient texts is a skill, not an innate capacity. It is an art that one must become proficient in, and doing so requires diligent study in a variety of different fields. You have consistently shown, and have never once denied, that you have not done real work in any of those fields - you don’t know the biblical languages; you don’t know much, if anything, about the ancient Near Eastern or first century Greco-Roman and Jewish milieus; you don’t even know much, if anything, about the history of biblical interpretation. You are entirely reliant on translations, and as someone who eats with bible translators and knows the painstaking process that is the creation of a translation, the myriad interpretive judgments that must be made, I can tell you that no translator would EVER agree that a truly thorough knowledge of Scripture could come through a translation. It just won’t happen. The reality is that, without the skills noted above, your reliance on a translation is going to be more of a hindrance than a blessing.

I, on the other hand, while have acquired a relatively high degree of proficiency in these skills, ultimately defer to those who have been in the field longer than I have. I don’t interpret without engaging in dialogue with solid, well researched commentaries, monographs, etc., by reputable scholars. In other words, I DON’T presume to know everything; I listen and am willing to defer to others more knowledgeable than myself. My study enables me to analyze various interpretations, to weigh evidence, and to come to the most faithful interpretations of Scripture of which I am capable.

You, on the other hand, refuse to do the grunt work, the hard stuff, that is necessary for faithful interpretation. Consequently, you are not in a position to even analyze interpretations objectively, or to even know what kinds of evidence are even out there!

Personally, I think part of the problem is that you mistakenly assume that the Scriptures were written for you. That couldn’t be further from the truth. If the Scriptures had been written for you, JP, they wouldn’t need translating - they’d have been written in English. Because they are inspired, the Scriptures have ongoing relevance for everyone, but they were not written so that you in your current cultural context would understand them. It takes diligent study to hear Scripture faithfully.

[quote][quote]
4) Christians throughout history have also found the answers you provide to be lacking, dishonest, and deceitful. People know that there is something wrong here. They know they are being lied to. But like you said, the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it.

I’d LOVE to know who these “Christians” are, considering that, by your denial of the relationship between the God of Israel and Jesus’ “Father,” you don’t seem to know what a Christian is.[/quote]
I know Christians who go to church every single Sunday, but know they are being lied to. If you weren’t so judgmental of anyone who doesn’t bow down to your superior intellect and think the way you tell them to think, you might be able to interact with normal people who have serious questions but don’t want to be berated.

Try talking to people, not at them.
[/quote]

I thought we were talking about “Christians throughout history,” not the people only YOU may or may not know. Those kinds of conversations lead nowhere.

I demonstrated before that your reading of Habakkuk (an interpretation which you stole from someone else) is a bunch of ridiculous, non-contextual nonsense.[/quote]

That translation was taken from the DSS bible.

Terminology Review
Translation - a rendering of a text in one language into another
Interpretation - an explanation of a text’s meaning

It wasn’t the translation that I argued with; it was your interpretation that I disagreed with, i.e., your misinterpretation of Sheol as Saul. I showed that, in the context of Habakkuk, that reading (i.e., interpretation) makes absolutely no sense. It doesn’t fit the context; it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Hebrew prophecy, and it lacks all awareness of the poetic elements of the passage (in particular, the paradigmatic parallelism).

You are the one who should be worried, JP. Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul, one of the humblest and yet most gifted men this world has ever known, a man of whom this world was not worthy, and made Paul one of his apostles, charging him with the mission to the Gentiles.

You need to read Paul’s work again. He equated himself to an angel of the Lord. He claimed that people were baptized to him instead of Christ. He admitted to lying.

As usual, not a single one of these accusations is true. They are so false that even a cursory reading of the texts in question would not yield such mistakes. You continue to show that you lack any interpretive skill whatsoever.

1. Paul did not equate himself to an angel of the Lord. Galatians 4:13-14 - “You know that it was on account of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, and even though my illness was a trial for you, you did not despise or reject me, but you welcomed me like an angel of God, like Jesus Christ himself.” Paul is NOT equating himself either with an angel or with Jesus Christ; he is talking about the way the Galatians welcomed him despite his illness. In the Greco-Roman world, illness was a sign of divine disfavor - if someone was sick, that indicated that the gods were angry at that person, which would generally deter people from interacting with that person. The Galatians, rather than following the common mores of their society, welcomed Paul like a messenger (the proper, and more common, meaning of the Greek word aggelos) of God. Rather than estimating the value of Paul’s message based on his unfortunate circumstances, the Galatians treated him as he deserved, i.e., as God’s messenger.

2. Paul never said that people were baptized into him. 1 Corinthians 1:10-15 - "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers. What I mean is this: one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’; another, ‘I belong to Apollos’; another, "I belong to Cephas;’ another, ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name." In other words, Paul sarcastically asks them if they were baptized into his name, the implication being that they certainly were not. The syntax of the sentence itself suggests this - questions beginning with the particle mae plus a subjunctive denote a question assuming a negative response. The English equivalent would be addition of the phrase, “would you” after a declarative, such as, “you wouldn’t do that, would you?” Paul is NOT saying that anyone was baptized into him; in fact, he says he is glad he baptized so few and knows all their names, so that no one can go around claiming that Paul baptized in his own name.

3. Please prove that Paul lied. Multiple portrayals of his conversion experience do NOT count.

[quote]Without Paul, sir, and his revelation of God’s desire to save the Gentiles WITHOUT making them become Jews, you and I would likely remain dead in our sins. Some day you will see Paul among the apostles, and you will realize how wrong you have been.

The apostle that ordered one of Christ’s people be handed over to Satan? The one who robbed churches? The one who couldn’t understand that lying for the greater glory of God was wrong?

Paul’s point is that the person who was having sex with his father’s wife was NOT one of Christ’s people. Nevertheless, Paul also sees the process of handing him over to Satan (whatever that means - there are multiple theories) as ultimately redemptive, as it may save the individual’s soul.

I’ve dealt with this erroneous claim that Paul robbed churches in another thread. As I showed there, it was hyperbole on Paul’s part meant to shame his wicked target audience.

Again, prove the lying claim.