Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 25, 2022, 4:08 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
God's Child(ren)?
#41
RE: God's Child(ren)?
Quote:In the last 30 years, archaeology has trashed the OT.

Not really.
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.

You dont hate God, you hate the church game.

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine

Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Reply
#42
RE: God's Child(ren)?
(November 4, 2010 at 11:13 pm)solja247 Wrote:
Quote:In the last 30 years, archaeology has trashed the OT.

Not really.

Uh...that's MY book...and yeah...it has been trashed.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#43
RE: God's Child(ren)?
Quote:Uh...that's MY book...and yeah...it has been trashed.

Nope. Try again.
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.

You dont hate God, you hate the church game.

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine

Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Reply
#44
RE: God's Child(ren)?
(October 28, 2010 at 4:17 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:
Quote:Wow, using one book of fairy tales to counter another, how productive.

Well your comments seem to be getting more & more productive as time goes by. Must be your superior intelect.

ROFLOL Sorry, but that was quite funny.

(October 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm)Jonah Wrote: If Jesus was supposed to be born of a virgin, why does he even [i]have[\i] a genealogy? Joseph wasn't his biological father, so why would he have a bloodline?

Still his mother's side. But as others have explained, the early Christians were desperate to show a genealogical link between their messiah and David, otherwise they would have not got many converts and the OT says he would be of the line of David. Still, the whole virgin birth story was probably invented by Mary to cover up the fact that she was shagging the milkman while Joseph was at work. Joseph: "You're pregnant!" Mary (thinking quickly): "Yes, it was God who did it!" In those days the penalty for a women getting pregnant to a man other than her husband was I understand a little more harsh than a slap on the wrist.

(October 28, 2010 at 3:01 pm)theophilus Wrote: The angels were apparently considered sons of God but they were created while Jesus alsways existed.

Oh dear, again with this crap. We had this not long ago. Where in the OT does it show that Jesus already existed. Don't give me that crap from Genesis which does not say anything about Jesus, and don't quote the NT because that is just blatant reconning by the early Christians.


(November 5, 2010 at 12:17 am)solja247 Wrote:
Quote:Uh...that's MY book...and yeah...it has been trashed.
Nope. Try again.
Oh, this is productive.

----------------------------------------

Now for my take on the whole business.

The early OT, especially the Genesis and Exodus, was based on earlier religions. Sorry Christians, but your religion was based on Judiasm and the early Hebrew religion was based off older religions, where Yahweh was but a minor god in a large pantheon comprising something like 50 demi-gods (the sons of Ur). Later the evolving Jewish religion associated Yahweh with Ur and effectively replaced him.

In the older religions we had large pantheons similar to most of the older religions and as usual these gods and demi-gods had children of their own, in many religions by mating with mortals. Hence we have a possibility for the "sons of god(s)" story in the early books and the stories of angels. Angels (or servants of the gods) are also common features in most mythologies.

As the OT books were written they introduced the concept of a messiah who would be the son of god (Yahweh by now, having evolved from the earlier demi-god and Elohim). After the death of Jesus (either as an actual person or a collection of stories about some preacher or preachers that became the story of Jesus) some of the early groups of Christianity wanted not only to make the Jesus figure the messiah, but also the son of Yahweh. So, they promoted him to being the son of God and accepting the books where this view was promoted and dismissing those that presented him as a mortal messiah as being heretical. There were groups of Christians who did not take this view, but I would presume the group who were saying "our messiah is the son of God" got better reviews and ratings than those who were saying "our messiah is a mortal". Hence this laid the foundations for the modern version of Christianity.

What we cannot say for sure is how the early Christians interpreted the whole "sons of God" issue, especially as there are translation issues and cultural issues. For those of you who know more than one language you will know that in translating from one language to another quite often things seem strange and when you add in cultural idioms and set phrases things become even more twisted. What the early oral tellers of the tale that became Genisis meant by "sons of god" could have meant something quite different from what the translators wrote when they set it down, and then later what the newer versions became when it ended up in English as "sons of God".
A finite number of monkeys with a finite number of typewriters and a finite amount of time could eventually reproduce 4chan.
Reply
#45
RE: God's Child(ren)?
Quote:Still his mother's side. But as others have explained, the early Christians were desperate to show a genealogical link between their messiah and David, otherwise they would have not got many converts and the OT says he would be of the line of David. Still, the whole virgin birth story was probably invented by Mary to cover up the fact that she was shagging the milkman while Joseph was at work. Joseph: "You're pregnant!" Mary (thinking quickly): "Yes, it was God who did it!" In those days the penalty for a women getting pregnant to a man other than her husband was I understand a little more harsh than a slap on the wrist.

Nope. The two geneaologies do not have to be litteral. Mathew is showing that Jews is a Jew, in fact He is related to David and many other kings. Sometimes you have to think about the principle, rather than thinking it has to be 100% true.
Luke is showing that Jesus is also a human, like them. Luke's gosphel is about showing that Jesus is a servant.

Quote:The early OT, especially the Genesis and Exodus, was based on earlier religions. Sorry Christians, but your religion was based on Judiasm and the early Hebrew religion was based off older religions, where Yahweh was but a minor god in a large pantheon comprising something like 50 demi-gods (the sons of Ur). Later the evolving Jewish religion associated Yahweh with Ur and effectively replaced him.

Nope. Jews have some very distinct things about themselves. For example not eating pigs or farming them and the sabbath. There are some similarities and some differences.

Quote:As the OT books were written they introduced the concept of a messiah who would be the son of god (Yahweh by now, having evolved from the earlier demi-god and Elohim). After the death of Jesus (either as an actual person or a collection of stories about some preacher or preachers that became the story of Jesus) some of the early groups of Christianity wanted not only to make the Jesus figure the messiah, but also the son of Yahweh. So, they promoted him to being the son of God and accepting the books where this view was promoted and dismissing those that presented him as a mortal messiah as being heretical. There were groups of Christians who did not take this view, but I would presume the group who were saying "our messiah is the son of God" got better reviews and ratings than those who were saying "our messiah is a mortal". Hence this laid the foundations for the modern version of Christianity.

Do you know what you are talking about?
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.

You dont hate God, you hate the church game.

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine

Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Reply
#46
RE: God's Child(ren)?
(November 5, 2010 at 3:43 am)Loki_999 Wrote: Oh dear, again with this crap. We had this not long ago. Where in the OT does it show that Jesus already existed. Don't give me that crap from Genesis which does not say anything about Jesus, and don't quote the NT because that is just blatant reconning by the early Christians.
If you reject the Bible then there isn't any way to prove that Jesus already existed. But for those of you who are openminded enough to examine the evidence, I suggest that you read the first chapter of John's gospel and Philippians 2:5-8.


His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV

Reply
#47
RE: God's Child(ren)?
I am open minded, but what you proposed doesn't amount to evidence.
Reply
#48
RE: God's Child(ren)?
READ them ..."son of" "son of" "son of" (bar in hebrew). Not a single" bat" (daughter of ) in the whole list. In fact the only bats around here are two Batshit crazy xtians who have hallucinations.

They are different because they were made up by different authors.
Reply
#49
RE: God's Child(ren)?
Before I learned the term "ad hoc hypothesis", I contemptuously referred to such apologetics as "fudge factors".

Famous examples in Christian apologetics:

"Maybe Luke was talking about Mary's linage."

"Maybe Jesus had two identical temple cleansings which is why John and the three synoptics seem to disagree about when it happened."

"Maybe Luke 2:2 should be translated to 'before Cyrennius was governor.' or maybe he had two govenorships of Syria."

"Maybe Judas hung himself and the rope broke and then he split his gut open on the ground."

"Maybe Jesus was the same substance as the Father and yet a different person, which is why he could pray to God and yet forgive sins."

"Maybe when Luke says 'about 30', he meant that Jesus was 37." (my favorite)

If you say "maybe, maybe, maybe" enough times, you can believe anything, especially when you require nothing to justify your ad hocs than what you can pull out of the air.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#50
RE: God's Child(ren)?
(November 5, 2010 at 4:13 am)solja247 Wrote: Nope. The two geneaologies do not have to be litteral. Mathew is showing that Jews is a Jew, in fact He is related to David and many other kings. Sometimes you have to think about the principle, rather than thinking it has to be 100% true.
Luke is showing that Jesus is also a human, like them. Luke's gosphel is about showing that Jesus is a servant.
Ah, we are back to deciding which parts of the bible we should take literally and which we shouldn't? This always ends up in a mess. But hold on, Matthew is showing that Jesus was a Jew, Luke was showing that Jesus was a human and a servant.... erm, where did the immortal son of God creep in then?

(November 5, 2010 at 4:13 am)solja247 Wrote: Nope. Jews have some very distinct things about themselves. For example not eating pigs or farming them and the sabbath. There are some similarities and some differences.
Your point being? All religions evolve and change over time. Without this we would all be worshiping the sun, fire, lightning, etc. Its the same as evolution of species, you follow the chain and you see how one form evolved into another. You can do the same with religious evolution as well, tracing the heritage of gods back and back to the pre-literate ages.

(November 5, 2010 at 4:13 am)solja247 Wrote: Do you know what you are talking about?
Not always. Sometimes my mind wanders. This bit was just idle conjecture on my part, i thought I presented it that way...

(November 9, 2010 at 1:04 pm)theophilus Wrote: If you reject the Bible then there isn't any way to prove that Jesus already existed. But for those of you who are openminded enough to examine the evidence, I suggest that you read the first chapter of John's gospel and Philippians 2:5-8.
Bingo! There is no proof of Jesus outside the Bible. But actually that is not what i said. Just in case you didn't know the bible is split into two parts. The Old and the New. What I actually said was you cannot use the New Testament to prove that Jesus existed at the beginning of time (ie: what should have been said in Genesis), because the books that were accepted into the NT were all written after Jesus died and in the main were accepted based on political and religious expedience, not whether they were accurate or not.

Now show me the OT passages that refer to Jesus in name (or Yeshuah to use a more accurate translation) and we can move somewhere on this. Sure, there are mentions of a messiah in the OT. But Islam also holds the tradition of a messiah and it ain't Jesus. IIRC they say Jesus will stand with the messiah on the day of reckoning so definitely can't be the same person. And Islam have their own holy books with the same core (the Pentateuch, same as Christianity and Judaism), so they can be just as right as you are... righter even, because their final prophet came later than yours, their information is more up-to-date. Perhaps you better convert to Islam quickly before you die, you wouldn't want to end up in hell would you? Its not much of a difference, its the same God after all Yahweh/Allah - same roots if only a different face on it. Its like Zeus/Jupiter or Mercury/Hermes.

Still, we had an even later update on the whole message of God as presented by Joseph Smith Jr. who was apparently guided to some golden plates by an angel which gave the new gospel. Yup, looking at it, you are probably better off becoming a Mormon, at least until God reveals a new updated wisdom. I'm guessing any new update these days will be posted on the internet though and not accepted as easily as in previous generations as worshipers would start posting questions like:
"God, you wrote in your post that we should be kind to animals. Do you mean all animals or just clean ones?"

Anyway, what does Philippians 2:5-8 say in relation to Jesus existing back at the start? It could be interpreted that he existed prior to taking form as a human, but that is not in contention here (for the moment).

First chapter of John, as I read it, is talking about God existing from the beginning, not Jesus. Jesus is referred to as his son, but with no mention of his birthday. Interpret it how you like, you don't have proof (even if we would accept a single suspect source as proof), you just have faith and interpretation.
A finite number of monkeys with a finite number of typewriters and a finite amount of time could eventually reproduce 4chan.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Pope Francis condemns child sex abuse and Church cover-ups zebo-the-fat 23 2441 August 20, 2018 at 5:33 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Archbishop Philip Wilson guilty of concealing child sex abuses zebo-the-fat 3 418 May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Money raising through child work Der/die AtheistIn 12 2613 December 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Victims 'told not to report' Jehovah's Witness child abuse zebo-the-fat 13 1912 November 20, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  Vatican Children's Hospital showcasing something besides excellence in child care vorlon13 14 3026 July 19, 2017 at 1:49 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Yet another child molesting priest zebo-the-fat 18 1666 April 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Another child molesting priest zebo-the-fat 4 940 August 10, 2016 at 1:14 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Find Your Child A Mate Nope 45 6373 March 8, 2015 at 2:37 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  AFA: Impregnated by a rapist? "Why kill a child made in God’s image?" Strider 54 6780 December 22, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Last Post: No_God
  Should you wait to talk to a child about atheism? process613 45 6238 November 28, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)