The Constitution and the Bible

[haney]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
In my opinion, Jesus was probably a very spiritually advanced person, who “got” much of the big picture. Mary probably wasn’t a virgin, peter and her probably came up with the story because thier parents would be pissed with her getting pregnant out of wedlock. So yes I view him as a man, spiritually gifted, much like a Gahndi or Buddah but a man none the less.

I actually think his teachings were spot on and that he did a great deal of good for humankind. Definately one of the top 5 most important people to ever live. I view religions kinda like a nice roadmap but waaaay outdated. Like back then when they were going strong, people didn’t have the capacity or the concepts to understand the things we do today. Now the “exact” teachings are a tad too simple to cover all the bases and while certain religions will try to adapt along with the people, others will simply try to keep the people and their cultures the same.

V[/quote]

Just a little help.

I think you mean Joseph and Mary came up with the story. Peter was a disciple of Jesus not Mary’s husband.

[haney]

[quote]guerriere wrote:
The KJV was instigated by one of the most unpopular kings ever to sit the English throne (mainly because he was Catholic and Scottish) who needed something to bolster his position through the Divine Right Of Kings.

And the author of that pamphlet had no evidence that anyone else could go and look up.

Just one day I’d like to see one of these guys at an actual scholarly conference and duke it out with guys who really study this stuff.[/quote]

What about the other translations? Or are you only picking on one? It is not like there is a huge difference between any of the translations. What is great is they all go back to the origional MSS and translate them.

As for debates. JP holding had a debate with Richard Carrier just recently about one of JP’s Articles, and he got it handed to him. Is that good enough for you? There are tons of debates out there between “guys that really study this stuff” from both sides.

Claiming that the otherside does not perform due diligance does not make it true.

[Vegita]

[quote]haney wrote:
Vegita wrote:
In my opinion, Jesus was probably a very spiritually advanced person, who “got” much of the big picture. Mary probably wasn’t a virgin, peter and her probably came up with the story because thier parents would be pissed with her getting pregnant out of wedlock. So yes I view him as a man, spiritually gifted, much like a Gahndi or Buddah but a man none the less.

I actually think his teachings were spot on and that he did a great deal of good for humankind. Definately one of the top 5 most important people to ever live. I view religions kinda like a nice roadmap but waaaay outdated. Like back then when they were going strong, people didn’t have the capacity or the concepts to understand the things we do today. Now the “exact” teachings are a tad too simple to cover all the bases and while certain religions will try to adapt along with the people, others will simply try to keep the people and their cultures the same.

V

Just a little help.

I think you mean Joseph and Mary came up with the story. Peter was a disciple of Jesus not Mary’s husband.

[/quote]

Ala Homer “DOH!”

V

[ZEB]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
In my opinion, Jesus was probably a very spiritually advanced person, who “got” much of the big picture. Mary probably wasn’t a virgin, peter and her probably came up with the story because thier parents would be pissed with her getting pregnant out of wedlock. So yes I view him as a man, spiritually gifted, much like a Gahndi or Buddah but a man none the less.

I actually think his teachings were spot on and that he did a great deal of good for humankind. Definately one of the top 5 most important people to ever live. I view religions kinda like a nice roadmap but waaaay outdated. Like back then when they were going strong, people didn’t have the capacity or the concepts to understand the things we do today. Now the “exact” teachings are a tad too simple to cover all the bases and while certain religions will try to adapt along with the people, others will simply try to keep the people and their cultures the same.

V[/quote]

I have heard other people give similar descritions regarding Jesus Christ. However, if he was “spiritually advanced” and was “spot on” and “did good for mankind” then how can you not believe him when he tells you that he is the only way to the father? And that he is the only way to get into Heaven.

John 6:29 “The work of God is this; to believe in the one he has sent (Jesus)”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from Heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me (God).”

John 6:40 “For my Father’s (God) will is that everyone who looks to the Son (Jesus) and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

It seems that spiritually advanced people who do so much good for mankind would not lie…Yet, he must be either a liar or a madman in your opinion as well as all of the other wonderful things which you mention. This is the difficult part to understand.

I am being very serious when I ask; how can you square the two?

[buffalokilla]

[quote]Nu-Naiy wrote:
Okay, the devil is satan. Just getting that clear. God did not make a bet with satan regarding Job. [/quote]

Yes, God did, although “the satan” (note that it’s not capitalized in most Bibles) was a position in a royal court who’s sole job was to try and contradict the king and keep him making the best decisions possible.

The political climate of when this book was written was that of kings and courts, and the satan in Job served as a literary device. I’m afraid I don’t have a reference available, I learned this orally from a friend of mine studying to become a Rabbi.

You are correct about the moral, though.

God/Jesus was the King of Kings, no?

-Dan

[nephorm]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Mary probably wasn’t a virgin, peter and her probably came up with the story because thier parents would be pissed with her getting pregnant out of wedlock.[/quote]

More likely just a translation error. The original verse in Isaiah (7:14) used the Hebrew word “almah,” which has been translated as both “young woman” and “virgin.” If you look for instances of “almah” in the Old Testament, you’ll find almah being used when talking about women in harems, for example. When translated into Greek, it was translated as “parthenos,” which again, can mean either virgin or maiden, but the primary meaning is virgin. The Greek translators of the Old Testament may have simply screwed up.

[rainjack]

Nice try, Veg. Seriously. You created a very decent debate on a topic that - well - for as long as I’ve been around usually degenerates into a pissing contest between the hell-bound godless athiests, and the vocal born-again believers.

[haney]

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Nu-Naiy wrote:
Okay, the devil is satan. Just getting that clear. God did not make a bet with satan regarding Job.

Yes, God did, although “the satan” (note that it’s not capitalized in most Bibles) was a position in a royal court who’s sole job was to try and contradict the king and keep him making the best decisions possible.

The political climate of when this book was written was that of kings and courts, and the satan in Job served as a literary device. I’m afraid I don’t have a reference available, I learned this orally from a friend of mine studying to become a Rabbi.

You are correct about the moral, though.

God/Jesus was the King of Kings, no?

-Dan
[/quote]

Well that is where is goes off a bit.

The Jewish religion does not view satan like the Christian religion views satan.

To them he is a vehicle that God uses to accomplish his will(IIRC).
Christians view him as an oppossed to God.

So I would not try and use the Jewish opinion on who satan was, just like I would not use the Jewish opinion of Jesus to explain to Christians who he was.

just my .02

[Vegita]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Vegita wrote:
In my opinion, Jesus was probably a very spiritually advanced person, who “got” much of the big picture. Mary probably wasn’t a virgin, peter and her probably came up with the story because thier parents would be pissed with her getting pregnant out of wedlock. So yes I view him as a man, spiritually gifted, much like a Gahndi or Buddah but a man none the less.

I actually think his teachings were spot on and that he did a great deal of good for humankind. Definately one of the top 5 most important people to ever live. I view religions kinda like a nice roadmap but waaaay outdated. Like back then when they were going strong, people didn’t have the capacity or the concepts to understand the things we do today. Now the “exact” teachings are a tad too simple to cover all the bases and while certain religions will try to adapt along with the people, others will simply try to keep the people and their cultures the same.

V

I have heard other people give similar descritions regarding Jesus Christ. However, if he was “spiritually advanced” and was “spot on” and “did good for mankind” then how can you not believe him when he tells you that he is the only way to the father? And that he is the only way to get into Heaven.

John 6:29 “The work of God is this; to believe in the one he has sent (Jesus)”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from Heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me (God).”

John 6:40 “For my Father’s (God) will is that everyone who looks to the Son (Jesus) and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

It seems that spiritually advanced people who do so much good for mankind would not lie…Yet, he must be either a liar or a madman in your opinion as well as all of the other wonderful things which you mention. This is the difficult part to understand.

I am being very serious when I ask; how can you square the two?

[/quote]

Actually it’s quite simple, he does not view himself as separate from the whole. When he says everyone who looks to the son someone has put jesus in parenthesis. I do not believe that is what he meant by son in that instance. every man is gods son, and what he is asking people to do is look inside themselves and believe in themselves. Any of the above quotes could be interpereted in that way. People did talk funny back then but I think one would need to be actually sitting there watching jesus speak the words to understand them fully. Hence why I don’t believe the bible to be accurate.

For example, lets take the sentance we were just talking about. If I said that to you in person and when I referenced the son, pointed to you or gestured at you, you and other who were there would gain the full meaning of what I said. But if someone wrote that down word for word even, withought the gestures and other forms of communication like tone of voice body language, eye contact etc… the true meaning is much more difficult to find.

For instance, one of my beliefs is that there is a continuation of spirit after death, however, only one who knows thier spirit my have thier consiousness of this plane accompany that spirit on it’s journeys. One who knows and believes that thier consiousness is real will gain eternal life because they will keep thier identity into the next spiritual plane and after. Those that don’t might not be able to attach thier consiousness to the next trip and thier spirit will build a new identity with thier next experience. This could be along the lines of what jesus was referring to at that point in time. Surely I wouldn’t put it past someone to speak in metaphors and riddles back then as it seems language was more artsy back then while we have evolved into more of a direct language.

some thoghts to your questions.

V

[Vegita]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nice try, Veg. Seriously. You created a very decent debate on a topic that - well - for as long as I’ve been around usually degenerates into a pissing contest between the hell-bound godless athiests, and the vocal born-again believers.

[/quote]

As long as nobody replies to the whack jobs on either side then we should be ok for a few pages. I just have this inability to have the same faith in the bible as many do and I would like to know why many have this faith and give my reasons for not having it. It’s all in the persuit of higher understanding.

V

[ZEB]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Actually it’s quite simple, he does not view himself as separate from the whole. When he says everyone who looks to the son. I do not believe that is what he meant by son in that instance. every man is gods son, and what he is asking people to do is look inside themselves and believe in themselves.[/quote]

I’m the sort of guy who thinks that you should believe in yourself. Sometimes it seems you have to pull yourself up by your own boot straps if you are going to succeed in life.

However, make no mistake about it, that is not at all what Jesus Christ is talking about in the New Testament:

Without going any further I think John 3:16 says it all!

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

[Vegita]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Actually it’s quite simple, he does not view himself as separate from the whole. When he says everyone who looks to the son. I do not believe that is what he meant by son in that instance. every man is gods son, and what he is asking people to do is look inside themselves and believe in themselves.

I’m the sort of guy who thinks that you should believe in yourself. Sometimes it seems you have to pull yourself up by your own boot straps if you are going to succeed in life.

However, make no mistake about it, that is not at all what Jesus Christ is talking about in the New Testament:

Without going any further I think John 3:16 says it all!

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

[/quote]

Again, logically I can’t follow that jesus was gods one and only son. If god is the creator of all and we are all his children, how can he have one son. When jesus refers to god he calls him, THE father not MY father. This would imply that he is the father of all. Again, this gets into some contradictions that I believe are simply misrepresentations of the origional persons words and thoughts. It is impossible to convey with 100 pecent certanty what one says in person with written words.

V

[haney]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Actually it’s quite simple, he does not view himself as separate from the whole. When he says everyone who looks to the son. I do not believe that is what he meant by son in that instance. every man is gods son, and what he is asking people to do is look inside themselves and believe in themselves.

I’m the sort of guy who thinks that you should believe in yourself. Sometimes it seems you have to pull yourself up by your own boot straps if you are going to succeed in life.

However, make no mistake about it, that is not at all what Jesus Christ is talking about in the New Testament:

Without going any further I think John 3:16 says it all!

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Again, logically I can’t follow that jesus was gods one and only son. If god is the creator of all and we are all his children, how can he have one son. When jesus refers to god he calls him, THE father not MY father. This would imply that he is the father of all. Again, this gets into some contradictions that I believe are simply misrepresentations of the origional persons words and thoughts. It is impossible to convey with 100 pecent certanty what one says in person with written words.

V[/quote]

Actually I think that is the answer to your question.

SInce your view does not allow you to believe like a Christian does about Christ you can’t understand why we believe that.

I get your way of looking at it, but the problem is all of the other parts that would have to be reconciled.

Parts that you don’t give credibility. Which would make it impossible for me to ever convey why I believe.

You Jesus as another man. We see him as a miracle worker. If you can’t accept the miracles then we can’t accuratly describe our faith.

on a side note. I think you had said you don’t like the fact that a Christian can say with a straight face you are going to hell.

It is not that we enjoy that thought either, it is just something that we accept.

For instance. I have some friends that are flat out broke. They have no money management skills. I can tell them, and sometimes do tell them that if they don’t change thier ways they will always be that way. I do it with a straight face. I don’t like the fact that they live in poverty, and I even offer my help. It is their choice to continue doing what they are doing. I don’t hate them choosing that, and I wish they would make better decisions.

I am not judging them either. I don’t think they are worse than me because of their decisions. I just wish they would get rid of the problem that they are always stressed out over.

This may not be the best analogy, but I think you get my point. As for those that do judge. You don’t have to stick to religion to find judgemental people. They exist everywhere!

[drag0n252pi]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mr Bear wrote:
There are many stories of scholars who have attempted to do such and have converted to Christianity.

Who and what stories are you referring to?
Give us at least one so we can take away something from this useless reply.
[/quote]

Lee Streobel for one. Read his books the Case for Christ and the Case for a Creator. He was an atheist. He also is a lawyer and investigative reporter.

[drag0n252pi]

[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mr Bear wrote:
There are many stories of scholars who have attempted to do such and have converted to Christianity.

Who and what stories are you referring to?
Give us at least one so we can take away something from this useless reply.

Why was my post useless? It was on topic and urged the other poster to research things more carefully before making such blanket statements.

Yes, Lee Strobel is a great example. Also, C.S. Lewis experienced a similar about face. I just read a story on a scholar who tried to disprove the book of Luke and concluded that Luke was one of the greatest scholars of his time. I will try to find that name for you. Hope this post wasn’t as worthless. [/quote]

Luke was also a physician and historian. Accuracy one would think would be important to him.

[drag0n252pi]

[quote]dmharper wrote:
Well for one Greek mythology has gods based upon men. They murder, committ adultry, are dishonest, greedy, etc. They are nothing more than puffed up immortal men, nothing more. The God of the Bible is beyond man He is the alpha and the omega. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present, etc. There is little comparison between the Greek religions and Christianity.

Have you been near an open Bible lately? In the Hebrew Tanakh (what Christians consider to be the Old Testament, only in a slightly different order) the character of God changes dramatically from beginning to end. God is not “all knowing”, why else would he ask Adam and Eve the questions he does in Genesis. If God is “all powerful”, why does he make a bet with Satan (the adversary, not the christian devil) over Job?

In the first chapter of Genesis, the only character that tells the truth is the snake. God lies, Adam and Eve lie.[/quote]

God did not make a bet with Satan over Job. Satan said to God that he could get Job to curse God. God said to Satan you may do whatever you like to Job except take his life. The out come of all of that was that Job did not deny God and Job was rewared 10 fold over what he had for his faithfulness. WHere is the bet in all this? God knew what the outcome would be before it was even proposed by Satan. Also God was looking for Adam and Eve to confess . He knew what they had done.

[doogie]

[quote]drag0n252pi wrote:
Lee Streobel for one… He also is a lawyer and investigative reporter. [/quote]

Just like Geraldo Rivera!!!

[rangertab75]

The constitution is a codified document, which means that it is more flexible to suit different situations. It was created that way on purpose because the founding fathers knew that times would be a changin’ and additions would need to be made to fit the more modern times. RLTW

rangertab75

[Vegita]

[quote]haney wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Actually it’s quite simple, he does not view himself as separate from the whole. When he says everyone who looks to the son. I do not believe that is what he meant by son in that instance. every man is gods son, and what he is asking people to do is look inside themselves and believe in themselves.

I’m the sort of guy who thinks that you should believe in yourself. Sometimes it seems you have to pull yourself up by your own boot straps if you are going to succeed in life.

However, make no mistake about it, that is not at all what Jesus Christ is talking about in the New Testament:

Without going any further I think John 3:16 says it all!

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Again, logically I can’t follow that jesus was gods one and only son. If god is the creator of all and we are all his children, how can he have one son. When jesus refers to god he calls him, THE father not MY father. This would imply that he is the father of all. Again, this gets into some contradictions that I believe are simply misrepresentations of the origional persons words and thoughts. It is impossible to convey with 100 pecent certanty what one says in person with written words.

V

Actually I think that is the answer to your question.

SInce your view does not allow you to believe like a Christian does about Christ you can’t understand why we believe that.

I get your way of looking at it, but the problem is all of the other parts that would have to be reconciled.

Parts that you don’t give credibility. Which would make it impossible for me to ever convey why I believe.

You Jesus as another man. We see him as a miracle worker. If you can’t accept the miracles then we can’t accuratly describe our faith.

on a side note. I think you had said you don’t like the fact that a Christian can say with a straight face you are going to hell.

It is not that we enjoy that thought either, it is just something that we accept.

For instance. I have some friends that are flat out broke. They have no money management skills. I can tell them, and sometimes do tell them that if they don’t change thier ways they will always be that way. I do it with a straight face. I don’t like the fact that they live in poverty, and I even offer my help. It is their choice to continue doing what they are doing. I don’t hate them choosing that, and I wish they would make better decisions.

I am not judging them either. I don’t think they are worse than me because of their decisions. I just wish they would get rid of the problem that they are always stressed out over.

This may not be the best analogy, but I think you get my point. As for those that do judge. You don’t have to stick to religion to find judgemental people. They exist everywhere!
[/quote]

It’s not that I don’t give them credibility, it’s that they don’t deserve it. The amount of trust I must have in literally hundreds of thousands of men to recreate the thoughts and ideas of a few holy men into a book thousands of years later is my problem.

The very first guy who wrote it down could have sent the wrong or unintended message. using my example, when the scibe who was writing the text down heard jesus say gods son, he might very well have been looking down writing. Or not paying full attention to jesus. Something critical could have been missed such as jesus gesturing to another person or at all the people surrounding him when referring to gods son. Perhaps he used the term “son” instead of sons or children because his view was that we are all connected and thus all part of a whole and therefore he considers all of humankind as gods “son”. I am not saying this is what he meant, but it is a possibility that he meant things in other ways than they are portrayed. Due to the time and language barriers that were crossed to communicate to you and me whet these prophets ideas were, I can’t follow the religion to the T and instead take the parts of it which resonate within me as good and godly and accept those as words of god. I can also however do the same with any other holy book, and do so.

For my own analogy, if Someone were around a million years ago when some of the continents were connected, and they made a detailed map that allowed one to go from one point to a buried treasure. Even if the wrote everything down perfectly, if I followed the map today, I would not be able to find the treasure. Likely I wouldn’t be able to find the starting point to begin with, but certainly the path to the treasure would have to have changed.

V

[buffalokilla]

[quote]haney wrote:
Well that is where is goes off a bit.

The Jewish religion does not view satan like the Christian religion views satan.

To them he is a vehicle that God uses to accomplish his will(IIRC).
Christians view him as an oppossed to God.

So I would not try and use the Jewish opinion on who satan was, just like I would not use the Jewish opinion of Jesus to explain to Christians who he was.

just my .02

[/quote]

…It’s a Jewish book. A Jewish guy wrote it. For Jewish people. The author specifically chose to use a common court position (the satan) as God’s (the King’s) foil in explaining the moral of the story of Job.

This really isn’t a controversial issue - most people have just never had it explained to them.

Ask your local clergyman if he knows much about Biblical history and about the satan position. Most priests and educated church teachers I’ve talked to know about it, but a few don’t. It makes the story of Job a lot easier to understand, as otherwise, God really would have been making a bet with the Devil about Job’s faith.

-Dan