Thread: Couple of q's about jesus

Originally posted by evangel+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(evangel)</div>

Spoon: The miracles and powers (healing, etc.) were given to the Apostles alone (those who were in direct contact with Christ (which is why I can't understand how someone might call themself an apostle today). [/b]

[biiiiiiig disclaimer] I'm not not not not NOT asking you believers to go drink some poison to prove me wrong. please don't do that. [/disclaimer]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mark 16:16&#045;18


He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. *

\"He that believeth\", nothing is mentioned about \"He that believeth and also be an apostle of mine\". In mark 16 jesus is clearly stating (to the apostles) that they should go out and preach his word, and that the things mentioned above will follow as signs of believers.

Originally posted by Matt 5:22+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matt 5:22)</div>

.... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/b]

but he said:

Originally posted by Matt 23:17 and 19+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matt 23:17 and 19)</div>

[Ye] fools and blind[/b]

and:

Originally posted by Luke 11:40
[Ye] fools

he also claims:
<!--QuoteBegin-John 3:13@
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

but....:
<!--QuoteBegin-2Kings 2:11
... behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

There we go, I'd do more but I've had a headache for 6 days now so I just wanna go to sleep. Jesus isn't that perfect, he breaks the 10 commandments, tells false prophecies, is decietful, runs away, mistakes epilepsy(or just a siezure) for a demon/spirit (then tells a "deaf and dumb" spirit to get out of the body of the siezing... tell me how the spirit heard that eh), curses a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit out of season. Etc.

-spoon

The bible was written by...well a lot of sheperds I think, right? Luke and Adam and all that [yeah I never listen in RE lessons. boring, boring lessons. all the lovey-dovey stuff makes me want to scream "WAR" sometimes. really.]

So I suppose that, since it was written by so many people, there must be mistakes somewhere. I mean, nobody's perfect.

curses a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit out of season.[/b]

Heh. that's, well, odd, to say the least. Why would jesus be like that? I mean, cursing a fig tree because it dosen't have fruit even though it's not supposed to right now.

...

Did he curse it like, swear at it, or...curse it all witchy like?

then tells a \"deaf and dumb\" spirit to get out of the body of the siezing... tell me how the spirit heard that eh[/b]

Thanks for pointing that out...Heh, I have to remember that one for my RE teacher.

he breaks the 10 commandments, tells false prophecies, is decietful, runs away,[/b]

Wow! He does? Examples please...my teachers always seem to of portayed jesus as making no mistakes (i think), but this topic has shown me otherwise.

Damn that was a good sleep, almost got rid of my headache too! Well... lets get to it.

For the fig tree, here's the verse in Matt:

Originally posted by Matt 21:19
And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Which nicely describes what is meant by curse. The \"all witchy like\" option . And heres the corresponding verses in Mark (I bolded the important part):

Originally posted by Mark 11:13&#045;14+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mark 11:13&#045;14)</div>

And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not [yet].

And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard [it].[/b]

Just for reference on the deaf and dumb thing:

Originally posted by Mark 9:25@
When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, [Thou] dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

And for clairfication on what the bible considers as deaf and dumb:

<!--QuoteBegin-Psalm 38:13
But I, as a deaf [man], heard not; and [I was] as a dumb man [that] openeth not his mouth.

Well, he never breaks all the 10 commandments - but he breaks a few. Time for much quotage (I'll group em in pairs this time, commandment vs breaking)

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

vs

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[/b]

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

vs

John 2:23-28 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?


And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
[/b]

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

vs

Luke 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
[/b]

There you go, a few to start with. Plenty more if you care to look for them. If you really want I'll look for more.

[edit: well I read that you also wanted some references to him being decietful, running away, telling false prophecies. I'll get on it. too much reading the bible for one day ]

-spoon

.... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[/quote]

I have no idea what the Bible quotes you have identified support. In other words, that's great that you are reading the Bible, but if you take single verses out of their context, I have no way of telling what you are trying to argue by using them because more than likely you are interpretting them differently than me.

Jesus isn't that perfect, he breaks the 10 commandments, tells false prophecies, is decietful, runs away, mistakes epilepsy (or just a siezure) for a demon/spirit (then tells a \"deaf and dumb\" spirit to get out of the body of the siezing... tell me how the spirit heard that eh), curses a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit out of season. Etc.

If you look at the CONTEXT you'll see that Jesus never broke ANY of the Jewish laws, he only appeared to do so (and purposefully so in order to teach a greater lesson which some people, including the Jewish leaders seem to miss) because the Jewish leaders had made the "keeping of the laws" a legalistic endeavor instead of following them through faith and trust in God.
The fig tree is used as an example/lesson... again CONTEXT. study up on the parables and the significance of the figs and of trees that do not bear fruit when they should. there are cross-references throughout the Old and the New Testament.
Nowhere does it talk about epilepsy.. One would only INTERPRET it that way if they looked at it from a non-believing viewpoint - and it still fails to account for the healing that took place whether it was spiritual or psychological/physiological.
"deaf and dumb" are words that describe a physical reality. Spirits, by their nature are not subject to the corporeal/earthly/physical reality.

K guys, sorry I'm in a rush again. The multimedia teacher wouldn't let me on teh compy, and I'm WAY pressed for time because of my AP teachers. IT'S THE SECOND DAY OF SCHOOL AND I HAVE 6 FREAKIN PAGES OF HOMEWORK!!! Anyway, to whoever asked for proof that the Book of Mo doesn't invalidate the OT, here it is: (This is another Article of Faith, the 8th, to be exact, printed in the BoM and written by Joseph Smith): "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
Yep, just so's ya know. Well, I've got to go, be back on later tonight I hope.

Originally posted by evangel

In order to understand what an apostle is, one should study the way the word is used throughout the Bible. There are clarifications and cross-references in the book of Acts and in Corinthians and Hebrews... and other locations. Check it out, yo.

From strongs concordance: link (ignore the ------, the forum wont let me use spaces for formatting purposes)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in

----a) of the thing believed

---------1) to credit, have confidence

----B) in a moral or religious reference

--------1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul

--------2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith

--------3) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith

2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity

----a) to be intrusted with a thing
[/b]

In all of the verses where the original word \"pisteuo\" was translated to something similar to believe (as in Mark 16:16) is is used (by jesus) for:

-A centurion believing(Matt 8:13)
-A blind man believing(Matt 9:28 )
-A child (Matt 18:6)
-The disciples (Matt 21:22)
-Priests of the temple believing in authority from heaven (Matt 21:25)
-\"Believed him [John] not\" - the same priests AND harlots believing john (Matt 21:32)

I'd go on but you can read it for yourself. Quite frequently the word believing/believeth is used in the NT, but in most of the cases it is used (by jesus) for someone NOT the apostles. You might also note that in the previous verse to Mark 16:16, jesus says to \"preach the gospel to every creature' (emphasis mine). And the signs I mentioned would follow \"them that believe\" (which I infer as, them [as being a member of the group every creature] that believe).

Just another version of that verse for yah, this time from netbible. \"6:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe...\". You should read the Preface and Principles of Translation on that site. I trust them to be the most accurate and true to the original version around.

Proof of what? Do you want me to spoon-feed you? Just kidding.
The proof that validates is all over the place. Secular historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and others all use the Bible as an accurate historical text (they just pick out the miracles and the spiritual terminology since it don't jive with their way of looking at things). [/b]

Heh, at least you didn't make a \"there is no spoon\" joke. That never gets old

Remember, just because the OT/NT got some events/geography right (and they got plenty wrong too) doesn't mean its historicity can be trusted. The bible isn't listed under \"ancient history\" anywhere - its a relious text.

By the way, the Bible is actually used and considered by most historians as one of the most accurate an scientifically verifiable texts in existence. [/b]

Actually thats not quite true. Since the ancient egyptians kept history as well (and we can infer a lot from archaeology in the area), we can see from them that the events chronicled in Exodus are mainly false. Here is the best summary I could find on the problems with exodus.

Basically (from lack of any archaeological evidence):

-There was no slave uprising in egypt
-There was no plagues/firstborn killings
-There was no killing of the pharoah's army in the red sea
-There was no wandering in the desert for 40 years

There's a period in egyptian history that does have a few paralells to the exodus story - that of the Hyksos' rise to power/expulsion from egypt. I'm no archaeologist so if you want to can search for summaries of that on the net.

As far as the flood goes, there is still controversy. Most scientists agree there was a world-wide flood at one point, the controiversy is the time in which it happened. What is errant about wandering in the desert for 40 years? I'm talking about strange, yes, far-out teachings whose only verification or even likelihood is found only in the annals of the church itself.

[/b]

There's no scientific debate on the validity of a biblical flood. Theories of a local flood being interpreted by local inhabitants to cover the \"whole world\" are accepted however. The flood myths in many ancient cultures supports this. There's just no evidence for an event to the magnitude of the biblical flood. And despite extensive searching, archaeologists haven't been able to find any evidence supporting a large band of israelites wandering in the sinai desert for 40 years.

If you look at the CONTEXT you'll see that Jesus never broke ANY of the Jewish laws, he only appeared to do so (and purposefully so in order to teach a greater lesson which some people, including the Jewish leaders seem to miss) because the Jewish leaders had made the \"keeping of the laws\" a legalistic endeavor instead of following them through faith and trust in God.
[/b]

According to Matt 5:19 in the sermon on the mount jesus says:

\"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. \"

Jesus also advocated the keeping of laws. Even the \"least commandments\". So I would have to assume the major commandments he'd want kept as well?

It just looks to me like he's telling people to keep the law, while breaking it himself numerous times.

\"deaf and dumb\" are words that describe a physical reality. Spirits, by their nature are not subject to the corporeal/earthly/physical reality.
[/b]

And you were talking about \"...strange, yes, far-out teachings whose only verification or even likelihood is found only in the annals of the church itself.\"? The mormon church seems a little stranger compared to christianity, but the christian faith is strange too.

Nowhere does it talk about epilepsy.. One would only INTERPRET it that way if they looked at it from a non-believing viewpoint - and it still fails to account for the healing that took place whether it was spiritual or psychological/physiological.

[/b]

Mark 9:18 And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

Sounds more like epilepsy/seizures than spirits to me.

Just a last note on me reading things out of context.. I try to only read them in the context that they were originally written. I don't put any belief or non-belief on a bible passage that I read (except, I'll admit, in the case of miracles like the flood). The bible says jesus did all these things that are supposed to be contrary to his nature. I don't have to interpret it at all to come up with this stuff.

I could turn it back on you and say you'd only INTERPRET it the way you do because you have a pre-concieved notion that jesus is the messiah and correct in everything. So if it says he did something bad, you'd think its either a: wrong, or b: to be interpreted differently.

The most basic Christian theology contradicts it's main tenant, sin, which is the foundation of belief in Christ and the subsequent trinity and the whole religion. Under the Christian theology God created EVERYTHING including the circumstances and experience that cause sin. He even created Lucifer and all of the circumstances which caused him to say "Non Servium". Because he is omnipotent he would have known this all would happen, especially since he transcends the universe and therefore time.

So God, through his creation caused sin, pinning the blame on his creation and then sending his son of to die for us to forgive that sin which he didn't have to create in the first place, all the while knowing exactly what would happen? This is why I left Christianity and the Catholic Church, it's like saying 1 + 1 = 41, it just doesn't add up, especially given the fact that God is supposed to be all loving, and now that I've divorced myself from that religion, I'm never coming back, not even if I see Jesus descending on the throne of judgement, because I now realize that seeing iisn't believing, nor is believing seeing, but seeing is seeing.

I'd go on but you can read it for yourself. Quite frequently the word believing/believeth is used in the NT, but in most of the cases it is used (by jesus) ...[/b]

I thought we were trying to verify what an apostle was... not what a \"believer\" is. The best way to understand this is, I believe to look at the way the word \"apostle\" is used. The \"signs\" that Jesus mentioned in Mark 16 were fulfilled in Acts, but many of them still occur today, although less because of a great lack of faith (even when they DO happen, they are often explained away scientifically because people are fearful and skeptical of supernatural events). What he stated does not necessarily apply to all or even most believers. In fact some interpret (based on cross-referencing to othe NT books such as Acts) his statement to be applied specifically to events in the first century when the Holy Spirit was poured out (again, see Acts.) on the believers at that tie period.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/apostle.htm

Remember, just because the OT/NT got some events/geography right (and they got plenty wrong too) [/b]

What did they get wrong?

Basically (from lack of any archaeological evidence):
-There was no slave uprising in egypt
-There was no plagues/firstborn killings
-There was no killing of the pharoah's army in the red sea
-There was no wandering in the desert for 40 years[/b]

One can't infer or argue that something did not occur based on a \"lack of archaeological evidence\" One can only apply this to a likelihood or probability of occurrence - things which change as we make more discoveries (both archaeological AND TEXTUAL). If that reasoning would have been used a century ago, ALL of the Bible (and other historical texts as well) would be considered \"false.\" Unless there is specific evidence that negates these occurrences, most historians assume that they did happen since the writers had no benefit or gain from falsifying such things.

I'm no archaeologist so if you want to can search for summaries of that on the net.[/b]

Cool. Will do thanx.

According to Matt 5:19 in the sermon on the mount jesus says:
\"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. \"

Jesus also advocated the keeping of laws. Even the \"least commandments\". So I would have to assume the major commandments he'd want kept as well? [/b]

Good call. If you look a few verses earlier though v. 17 he says that he came specifically to \"fulfill the law.\" To me, since he is God, he was also the author of those commandments.

One way I look at it: There are some little kids who are trying to live by their Dads' rules but continually breaking them and not understanding that the rules are for there own benefit - they don't realize the meaning behind the rules, thus they continually rebel and break them, while simultaneously trying to keep them . -- This is the OT example of the Israelites and Yahweh. Then we have Jesus, a direct representative of \"Dad\" who comes to try and explain that the rules are not there to constrain the chilluns, but to point them to their freedom (in Himself).
If Jesus APPEARS to break the laws, it is only because his actions are misinterpretted. (The Pharisees and Saducees made the same argument, but their misinterpretation of the law and the prohets is pointed out every time Jesus confronts them). Also, if you assume the OT laws are valid (which you have to do in order to say that Jesus \"broke\" them), then one would also have to assume the validity of the OT prophets - All of which spoke of the perfection of the law and pointed to Jesus' coming in fulfillment (perfect keeping) of all the Jewish laws.

the christian faith is strange too.[/b]

I'll agree it is strange because we do not normally see such things occurring (I assure you they do still happen, even though modern societies and powers that be stifle and re-categorize them). The more you study it, the less strange it becomes however, whereas it seems to me the opposite is true of LDS teaching.

I find that LDS teaching DOES make more sense the more you study it. It IS logical. It's been proven that American Indians have immense amounts of genetic code in common with people from the Middle East. So is it not logical to assume that at one point in time people from the Middle East sailed for America? That's what the whole thing about the Nephites and Lamanites is about. And it's not as simple as just Nephite and Lamanite wars straight through all of American history. There were splits in the tribes, several, and eventually all, of the new nations eventually lost their beliefs or were picked off. Anyway, another little tid-bit: The Mayans testify of a white God visiting their nation (Jesus Christ), and that he is to come again at the end of the world. And in the Book of Mormon, Christ visits the American nations (remember the whole 'Sheep of another fold' thingie? Of course, I bet you haven't done much studying about the LDS religion, so I can't blame you for not understanding much about it. Admittedly, I don't understand much about religions such as Islam and Hinduism. I do know a lot about the Catholic religion because I have read the Bible, and attended church a few times with some friends who are Catholic. The same goes for the Baptists, but I don't know TONS about either, so I won't attack anybody about their religion. Well, I've got to get to work on my homework in here, (I'm in my Multimedia class) I'm kinda slacking off. Later...

Originally posted by AcidBasick
I might try Buddism though

It's spelled Buddhism.

But anyway I'm a Lay Buddhist. I converted from christianity to buddhism. It's really quite simple and easy to live by.

It's been proven that American Indians have immense amounts of genetic code in common with people from the Middle East. So is it not logical to assume that at one point in time people from the Middle East sailed for America?

I've never heard or seen that. I HAVE heard though in history and other classes that Native Americans do have genetic similarities (as well as cultural and linguistic likenesses) to ancient Russian and Asian nomads. It is generally thought that this is where the Native Americans came from (via the Bering Straits and Canada). There is no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that they came from the Middle East, especially since there are huge land and water masses between the Middle East and North America (which means they would have had to travel through areas hostile to them - where there were peoples of other origins living such as Southern Europe, Northern Africa, India, etc.)

There were splits in the tribes, several, and eventually all, of the new nations eventually lost their beliefs or were picked off.

Sounds great, but is there any evidence (archaeological or otherwise of tribes called \"Nephites\" or Lamanites) except in LDS writings? I've heard of the Iriquois, Seneca, Shawnee and several other tribes, yet the greatest point of interest is that there is no indication that their culture (art, way of life, language, etc.) is even remotely like the Israelites or other ancient peoples from the Middle East.

The Mayans testify of a white God visiting their nation (Jesus Christ), and that he is to come again at the end of the world.

As you probably know, the Mayan religious practices included human sacrifices to a pantheon of gods and goddesses... sorry no indication of \"sin\" \"redemption\" or anything else that Jesus taught in the NT. It's interesting to see that \"a white god\" came to them, however Jesus was Jewish, not \"white\" - unless \"white\" is referring to the light that surrounded him when he appeared or something like that. Otherwise that sounds pretty general to me. If they had written that this white god had holes in his hands and feet, or some other description suggesting it might be him, then I would definitely be interested in such a story.

... Christ visits the American nations (remember the whole 'Sheep of another fold' thingie?

I do remember that \"another fold thingie\" and know it to be a specific reference to the Gentiles... not any \"lost tribes.\" (remember he was speaking to his disciples who were all Jewish and who believed the Jewish religion to be the only true way to God). Up to that point, they (the Jews) believed they were the chosen \"fold\" of God. Thus the \"sheep of another fold\" is generally interpretted as those believers who were (and are since it is in reference to the future) outside of the Judaic race and religion.
[quote]John 10
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Well, I've got to get to work on my homework in here, (I'm in my Multimedia class) I'm kinda slacking off. Later...

Dude. Don't slack! 8) Just kidding. What grade are you in?
Keep in the Word too because that is Good soul food...

I've got to go do some research now. Not sure about the location of the tribes when they sailed for America...Anyway, I don't remember too much about it, but I was reading somewhere that Mayans believed that some white (Er, to clear this up I'll just say lighter-skinned, since he would be a tad bit lighter in color than American-Indians) 'God' came to visit them, preaching to stop sacrifices and such. As I recall they listened to him at first, but eventually left his teachings again...Meh, oh well. I'll try to find stuff on that too. Man, I have no clue how I'm going to do all this research with the homework that I've got...Well, I'll figure out something. Anyway, as to the Nephite/Lamanite thing. First of all, you've got to understand a few things: First of all, the pronunciation has been butchered, since Englishmen pronounce Nephi as 'kneef-eye', and Laman as 'lame-man'. Some researchers have shown that Nephi and Laman (Where the tribe's names were derived from) were once (And in some places still are) common middle-eastern names (Kinda proof that Jospeph Smith DOES have a correct translation, but I guess some people could still call it 'luck' or 'coincidence' and I don't feel like arguing it), but Nephi is pronounced 'Neh-fee'. Don't remember the pronunciation for Laman though. Think it's roughly the same, though. Anyway, next: '-ite' is an English suffix denoting that a person belongs to a certain tribe/city/group/nation/whatever. So, the actual tribal names could be different, but it roughly translates to 'Followers of Nephi' or 'Followers of Laman'. Get it? Also, consider this: There were several thousand years between the time that the Nephite and Lamanite wars ended and when America was discovered. I'll go look up the approximated time period of the Book of Mormon tonight and get back to you on that, but rest assured that there was a LONG time for tribes to be formed and destroyed before any were discovered or accurately recorded. Just stuff to think about 'till I get back later.

-And I'm a Junior in High School, how about you?

[i like long posts dont i]

Originally posted by netbible.bible.org


16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;10 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them;11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.]]

.... makes me think that he DID just mean believers. And putting a conditional timeframe on it doesn't make sense - it doesn't mention it in the verse afterall. The word translated as believe is even used in that passage while he is talking about baptising. So can anyone besides the apostles be baptised and saved? Also, why would the holy sprit help believers at that point (following your reasoning above) - but then take away such fancy powers such as healing the sick?

Good call. If you look a few verses earlier though v. 17 he says that he came specifically to \"fulfill the law.\" To me, since he is God, he was also the author of those commandments.
[/b]

The verse in question:
5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

1 questions. What the hell does \"fulfilling a law\" mean? Is it
a: abolishing with a fancy name, or b: confirming with a fancy name? If there's other options please tell me, I hate false dichotomies as much as everyone else. But thats all I can see - Either he kept the law, or he told people to break it.

One way I look at it: There are some little kids who are trying to live by their Dads' rules but continually breaking them and not understanding that the rules are for there own benefit - they don't realize the meaning behind the rules, thus they continually rebel and break them, while simultaneously trying to keep them . -- This is the OT example of the Israelites and Yahweh. Then we have Jesus, a direct representative of \"Dad\" who comes to try and explain that the rules are not there to constrain the chilluns, but to point them to their freedom (in Himself).
[/b]

Ohh, so fulfilling means.. \"change the reward for doing them\"? Still, the laws are standing, and jesus appears to be breaking them.

If Jesus APPEARS to break the laws, it is only because his actions are misinterpretted. (The Pharisees and Saducees made the same argument, but their misinterpretation of the law and the prohets is pointed out every time Jesus confronts them).
[/b]

I've got to go out now, but I'll just say this (since it doesn't look like we'll be agreeing any time soon ): Yes jesus is appearing to break the laws, and yes it could be because his actions are being misinterpreted. But possibly it's because the authors of the NT were making stuff up, or even just faithfully retelling what jesus actually did, but he wasnt perfect.

Also, if you assume the OT laws are valid (which you have to do in order to say that Jesus \"broke\" them), then one would also have to assume the validity of the OT prophets - All of which spoke of the perfection of the law and pointed to Jesus' coming in fulfillment (perfect keeping) of all the Jewish laws.
[/b]

I was a believer for this one remember? No offense, but the NT fulfilling the OT prophecies? Not much of a suprise. It was written after the OT was afterall, and with the OT on hand. It's doesn't have to be divine will fulfilling prophecies, its just good writing.

-spoon (will finish this later, with more answering of questions) (including what the bible got wrong besides exodus since you asked)

Hey peoples, we're having a bit of a debate about the internet here at my house, so I might not be able to reply as often. I'll still be able to in Multimedia, but my mom's paranoid that we'll get virus'd and lose all of our files if we stay connected to the internet...doesn't matter if I tell her that we've got an up-to-date virus-scan program as well as anti-spyware...oh well, some people just don't listen. Anyway, PLEASE KEEP THIS TOPIC ALIVE, WHETHER I'M HERE OR NOT! It's great for people of any religion to debate now, and I've personally found that it's increased my faith in my own religion, because I have to explain the WHY behind my belief. Hope it's done the same for all of you and your respective religions! Hope to be back soon...

Ok, in all of those cases we CAN say that the events in the bible did not occur. The egyptian histories make NO mention of a slave uprising/buggering off. [/b]

I guess you didn't understand my point here (I'll cut and paste it for you):

One can't infer or argue that something did not occur based on a \"lack of archaeological evidence\" One can only apply this to a likelihood or probability of occurrence - things which change as we make more discoveries (both archaeological AND TEXTUAL). If that reasoning would have been used a century ago, ALL of the Bible (and other historical texts as well) would be considered \"false.\" Unless there is specific evidence that negates these occurrences, most historians assume that they did happen since the writers had no benefit or gain from falsifying such things.[/b]

If there were occurrences recorded in Egyptian history that OBVIOUSLY NEGATED Hebrew accounts of slave uprisings, the exodus or others (i.e. the Red Sea), I might be inclined to agree with you. However, because there is still debate on whether or not the story of Exodus occurred among scientific circles, a \"lack of evidence\" still proves NOTHING. It only points to a likelihood or probability. The research that I've done (not a a whole lot) points out that Egyptian heiroglyohs and history are largely \"nationalistic\" meaning they wrote a lot of extravagant accounts of a great civilization and its accomplishments and rarely mention anything negative (such as slave uprisings or famines, etc.). The Egyptian scribes and historians were great publicity agents for Egyptian pharoes.

The sinai desert has been extensively surveyed, they have found lots of evidence of other peoples being in there at some time or another. But nothing to support a 40 year wandering by the isralites. [/b]

I have no problem believing that... Unless things are buried all at once (as in tombs, or large cities sacked, burned and buried, etc.), it would be extremely difficult to find any kinds of remains of anything, much less 5000 year old remains of a people who never built anything and were continually nomadic.

But now we can look at the scientific evidence and say that \"Exodus is false, especially so in the timeframe given\".[/b]

I still don't see what \"evidence\" you're referring to. It sounds like you're saying that we have proven things false based on a lack of evidence FOR which is fallacious.

And \"the writers had no benefit or gain from falsifying such things\" is really wrong. In a time where claim to land was much disputed, Exodus gave its writers a solid claim to thier land. Thats what its all about afterall. [/b]

I can dig that (as a theory for possible motive which conforms to the premise that the book of exodus is indeed without a doubt \"false.\")

I will research more on the apostles and the gifts/signs Jesus spoke of in Mark.

1 questions. What the hell does \"fulfilling a law\" mean?[/b]

It means perfectly keeping all of the laws (including the 10 commandments...)

Ohh, so fulfilling means.. \"change the reward for doing them\"? Still, the laws are standing, and jesus appears to be breaking them. [/b]

The reward for "doing them" was never a motive, except for the legalistic religious leaders who were totally missing the point of the laws in the first place. The law (as Paul wrote in Romans and in other epistles) is there to point out that there is only one way to a proper (restored) relationship with God (through Christ) The Hebrews of the Old Testament looked forward to Him, the NT Apostles experienced Him, and we look back at him (in his physical ministry).

I still think you are misinterpretting Jesus' actions concerning the keep ing of the law. The Gospel writers all clearly considered him to be sinless (perfect) which is the whole point of his sacrifice. If he wasn't perfect, then his sacrifice on the cross was useless (as was his life and his ministry).

Originally posted by the bible
- Lev 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

- 1 Corin14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

- Lev 21:16-20 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

The bible has many laws such as these which condone slavery, injustices towards women, intolerance, human sacrifice and racism. Was jesus \"fulfilling\" these laws also?

I still think you are misinterpretting Jesus' actions concerning the keeping of the law. The Gospel writers all clearly considered him to be sinless (perfect) which is the whole point of his sacrifice. If he wasn't perfect, then his sacrifice on the cross was useless (as was his life and his ministry).[/b]

Exactly! Just because the gospel writers all considered him to be sinless doesn’t mean that he was. It also doesn’t mean that if there is apparent sins (committed by jesus) in the gospel that they need to be interpreted as not sins - theres a second option (that of disbelief/questioning). I’ll post again soonish with more depth on what I consider to be sins that jesus committed (or even just behaviour that is un-messianic)

The bible is full of contradictions and plot holes. It's probably best not to worry about it.


Just a thought - Why are we being punished and stuff? We didn't eat no stinkin' fruit. Those two nudists did way back when the pie known as existance was still coolin' on the windowsill. God must hold one hell of a grudge.

If you say something like: "Woo! The sins are carried down to us! .... Woo!"

My reply would probably be: "Well, then is there a holy laxative or blessed antacid to cure our evil problem?"

Seriously.

The Bible is one heck of story, and presents a great set of values that everyone should try to live their life by. But nothing more.

Hey, Lomebririon! You are aware that most religious people will defend against that statement(s) you just made?

But I've read the Bible here and there, and at literal and face value, it sure causes confusions. But both Christians and non-Christians manipulate the "context" to fulfill the verses according to their intention of describing it. You can totally interpret the Bible to make it look fallible, but to make it look invincible if you do things differently.

So yeah....best not to worry much about it. I've wasted a lot of time arguing about the Bible. Because I believe that we are looking for something else (love, perhaps) disguised in the compulsion to be right.

Didn't catch the logic there in the whole "sometimes a lack of proof is proof." To me it's just bad logic at best.

The whole story of the hyksos is about Egypt getting taken over by a minority group. While not a slave uprising it IS an uprising. [/b]

Actually, the accounts I've read seem to indicate it was more of a mass overtaking which I can see being noted by Egyptian priests and historians. It could have been that the Egyptian view of the slave race (Hebrews) and the relative size of the exodus uprising made it not worth writing about. Or it may be that such records have not yet been found. Either way this at best only makes the exodus account \"less likely\" -not false.

And if you discount one ancient’s writings as propaganda, why not apply the same reasoning to the bible? [/b]

Because the Bible accounts for the negative as well as the positive aspects of Jewish history and doesn't read like a PR campaign as many historical texts seem to do...

Just that many people going to the toilet for that many years would have left some. [/b]

In a desert? I don't think so. It is difficult to find one-month old remains, much less 100-year old or 5000-year old remains. The desert climate does not provide for preservation unless, like I said - a city or mass grave site was created/buried entirely at once. They lived in tents and moved around nomadically, which means they most likely would not have left anything of value (at least not on purpose). And since they were nomadic, one would not expect much in terms of cultural origin (papyrus, stone, clay, metal, etc.)-which is what most anthropologists and archaeologists use to date and place civilizations/cultures.

So does that mean that all of the laws of the OT must be kept? (by jesus himself, as well as all consequent followers)[/b]

Nope. That means that his sacrifice is perfect and opens the door to allow God's mercy to fall on those who believe. The 10 commandments are perfect, but since we are NOT we cannot keep them no matter how much we try.

The bible has many laws such as these which condone slavery, [/b]

Slavery was actually part of their culture and laws and was \"indentured\" meaning that one became a slave if they broke certain laws or owed an unpayable amount of money or other such reasons. In our time we cannot fathom that type of slavery since our view of it has been marred by more recent horrors of modern slavery. I believe that it condones slavery only within the context of ancient Hebrew culture.

injustices towards women, intolerance, human sacrifice and racism. Was jesus \"fulfilling\" these laws also? [/b]

Sounds like some intense chippage on the shoulder, man... and some misinterpretation to boot... I will say that history accounts for all kinds of things. How you interpret that into meaning and modern practical application is another thing altogether.

Exactly! Just because the gospel writers all considered him to be sinless doesn’t mean that he was. [/b]

And yet you quote those very same writers to try and prove that he wan't sinless? Can't have it both ways...

Regarding Mark 16...
Here's a couple that explain my position pretty well I think. If you do a search under "Mark 16" or "signs that follow" or related you'll see that this passage is pretty controversial. Many do not even consider the passage to be included in the original writings of Mark.
http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/mark/3331.html

http://www.kyowva.com/articles/signs.htm

Originally posted by The egpytion sage Ipuwer
Lo, the desert claims the land Towns are ravaged, Upper Egypt became a wasteland Lo, everyone's hair [has fallen out] Lo, great and small say, 'I wish I were dead' Lo, children of nobles are dashed against walls Infants are put on high ground Food is lacking Wearers of fine linen are beaten with [sticks] Ladies suffer like maidservants Lo, those who were entombed are cast on high grounds Men stir up strife unopposed Groaning is throughout the land, mingled with laments See now the land deprived of kingship What the pyramid hid is empty [The] People are diminished.

For the (well documented) egyptian history to be silent on momentous occasions such as plagues, the wiping out of a generation, the destruction of an entire army, the loss of the majority of a workforce. Hang on... lets stop there. If the slaves all escaped, it would have left an unfillable vaccuum in Egypts workforce. Such a catastrophic escape would certainly have led to reduction in living standards/art/whatnot that (afaik) were not recorded at the time.

[about the hyksos]Actually, the accounts I've read seem to indicate it was more of a mass overtaking which I can see being noted by Egyptian priests and historians. It could have been that the Egyptian view of the slave race (Hebrews) and the relative size of the exodus uprising made it not worth writing about. Or it may be that such records have not yet been found. Either way this at best only makes the exodus account \"less likely\" -not false.[/b]

This is the rule of the hyksos written by ancient historians. The hyksos (a large body of many peoples who migrated to the nile delta from thier home countries because of flood) eventually gained lots of influence, taking over the south part of egypt. There followed lots of looting/pillaging/raping and whatnot. They built a capital, ruled for a while (100 years) then were driven out of egypt and whipped all the way across canaan (I think, or to syria or something). Interestingly enough the bad parts of the story are evident.

The main importance of the hyksos story in relation to exodus is that it provides a historically proven event that paralells the exodus myth. What does this mean? Maybe exodus was adapted from this story? Maybe the israelites from the exodus story were actually part of the hyksos, expelled from egypt at that time, and they made up a better story which became truth in later generations?

[not taking the bible as propoganda comparable to pharaoh's]Because the Bible accounts for the negative as well as the positive aspects of Jewish history and doesn't read like a PR campaign as many historical texts seem to do...
[/b]

Uh, the whole thing reads like a PR campaign for god. What else could you possibly call an evangelical text?

[finding evidence]
In a desert? I don't think so. It is difficult to find one-month old remains, much less 100-year old or 5000-year old remains. The desert climate does not provide for preservation unless, like I said - a city or mass grave site was created/buried entirely at once. They lived in tents and moved around nomadically, which means they most likely would not have left anything of value (at least not on purpose). And since they were nomadic, one would not expect much in terms of cultural origin (papyrus, stone, clay, metal, etc.)-which is what most anthropologists and archaeologists use to date and place civilizations/cultures.
[/b]

They've found evidence for other people being in the sinai at one time or another, just not in the timeframe specified by the bible - or the people specified in the bible. You'd have to admit that the thought of the exodus leaving NO evidence is a bit odd. 40 years is a long time to pick up every piece of broken material and carry it with you. They would have left SOME trace.

spoon: So does that mean that all of the laws of the OT must be kept? (by jesus himself, as well as all consequent followers)

evangel: Nope. That means that his sacrifice is perfect and opens the door to allow God's mercy to fall on those who believe. The 10 commandments are perfect, but since we are NOT we cannot keep them no matter how much we try.

[/b]

Just because the bible claims that jesus came to fulfill laws (I'm still not sure on that, how can you complete a law?) doesn't mean his sacrifice was perfect. Lets think of it like this:

-The NT is an evangelical text written specifically to spread the word of jesus
-To do this, the NT portrays Jesus as the messiah, as perfect, as the son of god

Of course jesus' sacrifice is perfect within the myth. Thats the whole point. BUT, just dismissing evidence of messianic misbehaviour or errancy in the bible because \"the bible (or jesus) is perfect\" just leads in a circle. This is the whole problem with these debates . Questioned from within faith these things look explainable, but questioned from without they look like evidence of untruth.

Slavery was actually part of their culture and laws and was \"indentured\" meaning that one became a slave if they broke certain laws or owed an unpayable amount of money or other such reasons. In our time we cannot fathom that type of slavery since our view of it has been marred by more recent horrors of modern slavery. I believe that it condones slavery only within the context of ancient Hebrew culture.[/b]

Slavery is NOT condoned merely within the context of ancient hebrew culture. The OT's laws on slavery are not made by men, they are made by Yahweh. Instead of pointing out to his people that slavery is wrong, Yahweh just made certain rules. Not even acceptable work standards for slave rules, more what you can do to slaves rules (a lot).

me: injustices towards women, intolerance, human sacrifice and racism. Was jesus \"fulfilling\" these laws also?

evangel: Sounds like some intense chippage on the shoulder, man... and some misinterpretation to boot... I will say that history accounts for all kinds of things. How you interpret that into meaning and modern practical application is another thing altogether.
[/b]

Sure, at the point the bible was written the world was pretty cruel by our standards. But yahweh/jesus are portrayed as morally perfect. Why did they not speak out against the injustices towards blacks, slaves, women and disabled people. Jesus didn't seem to care about correcting the rules that say women can't speak in church. And in fact the NT even adds that women should not be allowed to teach adult men. Interpretation aside, Yahweh and Jesus appear to support this behaviour, or at the very least don't give a shit.

spoon: Exactly! Just because the gospel writers all considered him to be sinless doesn’t mean that he was.

evangel: And yet you quote those very same writers to try and prove that he wan't sinless? Can't have it both ways...
[/b]

.... why not? The bible states (in some parts) that jesus is sinless. It also provides examples of behaviour that seem to me to be sins. Just because they believed him to be sinless doesn't mean they didn't write/recount stories that show him sinning. I don't believe in the bible, but I can still use it as evidence against itself.

From those articles you posted:

From a study of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, one will learn that the promise was only to the apostles. However, in Acts 10 & 11 we find an exception made for Cornelius. This was for a special reason. That reason being to show the prejudiced Jews that God wanted the Gentiles saved also. Then, we also find that the apostle Paul received the baptism. Just when, it is not stated. Possibly during his three-year duration in Arabia (Galatians 1:15-18). But, it is certain that he was an apostle, called out of due time, and that he had the powers of an apostle (I Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; Romans 1:11).
[/b]

... so it's only the apostles. But its also someone else? Despite his claims that "Let us understand, not what some present- day preacher says about Holy Spirit Baptism, but what the Bible says" he is putting his own spin on the bible. If the bible clearly states that only the apostles can do these signs, why the exception?

Hahaha WHOOPS shit. You know we've been arguing about the ending of MARK!? I'm a moron. The ending of mark was not even in the original version. That's kinda funny. I think we should end it now before someone notices and laughs

Anyways, it served as a nice highlight to one of the major strengths of christianity. The bible can be interpreted any way, and if you want to believe you can find reasons for any number of problems/atrocities/mistakes/errancy/immorality. Outside of belief I can't seem to forgive a seemingly perfect entity these mistakes - as I'm apparantly dammed to hell for the simple crime of non-belief (and original sin... and all my other [supposed] sins ). If an eternal entity can commit these things we judge as immoral (and the church judges as immoral for us) and not be damned for it - please point out the justice of damning an mortal entity for these same things. At least we have the (poor) excuse of ignorance.

-spoon

Originally posted by AirRick101
Hey, Lomebririon! You are aware that most religious people will defend against that statement(s) you just made?

Meh. Can't please everybody. If you try to you'll only end up not really pleasing anyone.

I'm not gonna take part in this topic because a lot of the old members have already participated in an arguement about religion and they all seem to go nowhere, because there's always a "but". Some still do, for kicks mostly I assume. Also nobody wants to change their beliefs, probably because it'd take too much effort or something.



By the way guys, i'm Uber~proud of this topic. You're all learning to write proper posts to pwn your fellow debaters.

I believe that jesus existed.
But not that he died for our sins!

And thats easy to see..
If god needs a sacrafice to forgive us then his love isnt perfect!
That also would mean that god isnt almighty, because he cant forgive us unless u accept that jesus died for your sins.
So he is dependant then from our choices if he can or can not forgive us else.
Then we would have power over gods behaviour, wow!

Also, what if the romans had no death penalty?
Would god then himself put jesus at the cross?
Suppose the romans would have only had life time sentence?
Then god wouldnt be able to forgive us ever?

Also remember that the church who created the bible 4 centuries after jesus lived, strongly influenced it.
In the naghamadi scriptures, that are way closer to when jesus lived (prox 70 years after his death) you find only the word sin twice or so.
After the church had his hand in it and formed the bible...sunddenly hundreds of time. The church for sure manipulated the original text.

I think jesus story was about love, that of the church about believe, rules and sin...because u control ppl when u work with fear..

Okay, I'm back, and I'll probably be on again tomorrow. Anyway, to the Egypt/desert junk:
Lack of evidence is exactly that, until you've analyzed all possible locations of that evidence. Has anyone dug up the entire Sinai Desert? Exactly. They've done bits, but that desert is HUGE. Here's a shovel. Start digging. Come back when you're done. *hands out shovels*