EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[Raasyvibe]

GENESIS


^ I'm sure he's somewhere... looking back on this forum, and this thread...

...swearing at rickolasnice...

O really? So it is OK to stone people to death for working on the sabbath day and it is ok to sell your daughter off as a slave?

Come on, we've been through this a hundred million times... the ol' priests interfering and creating the silly rules? The ol' misconceptions of God in the OT that required Jesus to correct them.... all that!? there's just no learning with you.

Careful raas.. that page'll really put your mental gymnast skills to the test

See. Try to explain philosophy and put thoughts into answers and you just dismiss it all as "mental gymnastics". No winning with you.



What would you say causes this opposition towards religion? Why do you really reject God? What creates that bias?

 

[pinkpapaver]

mental gymnastics are good for you! Just like Guinness.

'ere the sun long done salutation to the dawn.

i woke up at the crack of dawn today. I said hay dawn get off my face.

 

[rickolasnice]

Come on, we've been through this a hundred million times... the ol' priests interfering and creating the silly rules? The ol' misconceptions of God in the OT that required Jesus to correct them.... all that!? there's just no learning with you.

What you're forgetting is that the author of the bible is GOD. it is after all "His word". If God intended for us to listen to the words of Thomas's gospel, he would have included it. Clearly however he didn't.

Eh?

See. Try to explain philosophy and put thoughts into answers and you just dismiss it all as "mental gymnastics". No winning with you.

Well.. it is. When provided with information contrary to your beliefs you make up some theories as to what the information really means.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."

What would you say causes this opposition towards religion? Why do you really reject God? What creates that bias?

The harm it does to the world. I can't really reject God as I don't believe in a God and never have. Plus it's made no advances

 

[Raasyvibe]

Come on, we've been through this a hundred million times... the ol' priests interfering and creating the silly rules? The ol' misconceptions of God in the OT that required Jesus to correct them.... all that!? there's just no learning with you.

What you're forgetting is that the author of the bible is GOD. it is after all "His word". If God intended for us to listen to the words of Thomas's gospel, he would have included it. Clearly however he didn't.

Eh?

We've been thru this before. Jesus cleared up all the ill-shiznit of the OT.

Seems the OT is the word of God, fucked around a little by man.

Jesus comes in, gives us the real deal.. and then the word of God continues in the NT, free from the misconceptions.

Well.. it is. When provided with information contrary to your beliefs you make up some theories as to what the information really means.

Bullshizzle. You've yet to come out with any critique towards the religion that can't be answered logically. it's just that you dismiss those answers as "Mental gymnastics" because u don't want to see the sense in them.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."

That goes 2 ways y'know. Opposers of God always miss the point and twist scripture round to make Christiannity sound untrue to what it is.

mental gymnastics are good for you! Just like Guinness.

'ere the sun long done salutation to the dawn.

i woke up at the crack of dawn today. I said hay dawn get off my face.

lol... what..!?

 

[backroll]

i done a degree in theology believe ye or not...the truth is out there!

 

[rickolasnice]

Ok raas.. here's a few you still haven't answered: (Not that you've really answered any of them in any way other than making excuses)

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

There are literally loads, loads more (There's around 4 different accounts on 3 different points about what happened at the tomb).. but i won't bury you in them just yet.

Why is the OT considered to be part of the christian bible, then? What evidence do you have that the OT was written by misguided people (remember.. some of those people were entrusted messengers by god himself) yet the NT is fact from god, even though they were written (at different times) long after jesus was dead by people who never knew him.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ Evidence?

Texts of the past have been compared, with later copies having additional ceremonial shite added by priests. The thinking that man tampered with the OT, is not conjectural, it something proven

[EDIT: Currently digging out sources here]

Ok raas.. here's a few you still haven't answered: (Not that you've really answered any of them in any way other than making excuses)

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

There are literally loads, loads more (There's around 4 different accounts on 3 different points about what happened at the tomb).. but i won't bury you in them just yet.

Good choice in keeping it to a couple of points. Much easier that way else issues get distracted/missed out.

These are the best questions you're coming out with now. I've already admitted i've not looked into this kinda thing. These kind of questions take a lot of research to answer properly. I wanna answer it properly rather than come out with any old shite, so just letting you know I haven't forgotten but bear with me while I find the time to give it a proper reading into.

 

[rickolasnice]

OK but what of man literally writing as they wanted?

Gospel of Matthew - written for the Jews (focuses on links to Old Testament prophecy), traditionally attributed to the apostle Matthew around 70-85 AD.
Gospel of Mark - written for the Romans (focuses on God's power), by Mark the Evangelist. Debates are widespread, dating Mark between 50 AD and 75 AD.
Gospel of Luke & Acts of the Apostles - written for the Greeks (focuses on evidence of Jesus' claims), by the apostle Luke. Dates of authorship are highly debated, ranging from 40 AD to 100 AD.
Gospel of John - written for early Christians (focuses on how to have a relationship with God), by an unknown author around 90-100 AD

Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday April 3, 33 A.D..

 

[parttime crackhead]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled "Covert Messiah" at Conway Hall in Holborn (full details can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com).

Although to many scholars his theory seems outlandish, and is sure to upset some believers, Atwill regards his evidence as conclusive and is confident its acceptance is only a matter of time. "I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm," he acknowledges, "but this is important for our culture. Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left."

 

[Marmalade]

I like the theory, I just hope the guy's not Jewish or been ex-communicated by the moonies or something.

[edit]

also ... a big HRMN to this part ....

How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinised books of all time? "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played." Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that "the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is 'We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it.'"

*insert 'did ya, Aye?' pic here.

 

[Sammy G]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Pretty much common knowledge, even amongst the less-zealous of the clergy, for centuries.

Always raises hackles whenever it's mentioned, however...

 

[NightsEpiphany]

Just a swift read over.. ok i get the Roman problem with zealous missionaries blah blah but why did all those contemporary s ( or even near contemporary s ) go to their deaths for this mythical creature? Or are Acts and all the Epistles fabrications too?

Theres evidence of a church from the first century. Wouldnt the truth emerge before they all went dying to lions for a lie?

I dont think our missions are going to be getting into any kind of sweat in a hurry over that trash.

 

[Sammy G]

Just a swift read over.. ok i get the Roman problem with zealous missionaries blah blah but why did all those contemporary s ( or even near contemporary s ) go to their deaths for this mythical creature?

They went to their deaths (the ones who actually did) because of their passionate Judaic anti-Roman beliefs (a lot of them were Essenes, though other sects were involved).

So the Romans just did what they'd already done in numerous assimilated territories and redesigned the religion so it was anti-insurrection and pro-compliance with Roman law, yet still acceptable to the core adherents of said religions.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

Not passionate christian beliefs?.. Ok im going for google.

 

[Sammy G]

Not passionate christian beliefs?.. Ok im going for google.

You can't fully separate certain strands of pre-rabbinic Judaism with what we now call 'Christianity'. That's the point.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

ok well i must inform you i have consulted elvis and abba and now will wiki a bit.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

Professional historians have no debate about the fact that there was a historical Jesus. They may not go along with the spiritual aspects, but they don't debate his existence.

Of the types of records and indications historians use to determine whether an ancient figure actually existed, there are more such indications for a historical Jesus than there is for nearly any other ancient figure. If they threw out that kind of data for Jesus, they'd have to deny the existence of nearly every other figure older than 1000 years--excepting a few emperors.

If there was no Jesus of Nazareth, then there was certainly no Plato, Socratese, Aristotle, Homer, or Cicero--maybe not even a Shakespeare.

Whether they personally believe in Jesus or not, professional historians are not going to throw out their very own tools and put themselves out of business.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Pretty much common knowledge, even amongst the less-zealous of the clergy, for centuries

I know. Still denied to the death though.

Your other sentence that I haven't quoted gives away my reasons for posting it ]

Edit - Also that I wish we could drop the fucking supernatural nonsense. I'd possibly be on the side of the religious if they just said "Right, we hold our hands up. See all that shite about parting seas and arcs and all that stuff - we made it up! We're sorry! Still follow us and believe our other non-supernatural stuff please. We'll be nice and tell you to be nice".

also ... a big HRMN to this part ....



*insert 'did ya, Aye?' pic here.

Haha, aye that's a mile out.

*Craig Whyte face*

Professional historians have no debate about the fact that there was a historical Jesus. They may not go along with the spiritual aspects, but they don't debate his existence.

Of the types of records and indications historians use to determine whether an ancient figure actually existed, there are more such indications for a historical Jesus than there is for nearly any other ancient figure. If they threw out that kind of data for Jesus, they'd have to deny the existence of nearly every other figure older than 1000 years--excepting a few emperors.

If there was no Jesus of Nazareth, then there was certainly no Plato, Socratese, Aristotle, Homer, or Cicero--maybe not even a Shakespeare.

Whether they personally believe in Jesus or not, professional historians are not going to throw out their very own tools and put themselves out of business.

A dude called Jesus lived at some time in history? Word? Doubt it was yer man Christ though, shouting son of god etc, prolly just some guy who was handy with a saw.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

A dude called Jesus lived at some time in history? Word?

amen

He never elevated himself. God the Father said He was the son.. the holy spirit told peter he was the son. He refused to make himself equal with God but was crucified for saying He was.. He went down and God was the one to raise Him.

Handy with a saw 2

 

[Marmalade]

Your other sentence that I haven't quoted gives away my reasons for posting it

You're mean ;p

Edit - Also that I wish we could drop the fucking supernatural nonsense. I'd possibly be on the side of the religious if they just said "Right, we hold our hands up. See all that shite about ....

Same. If so it leaves a God theory just as plausible as an atheism one