Thanks owl, but that really doesn’t mean much since Cat in the Hat is not trying to present the same sort of information as a book on Quantum Physics. Your syllogism (as most) doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
The Bible is a book (ever hear of the “Good Book”). It is a collection of “books” as is Stephen King’s Night Shift but they’re both called books.
Moreover, the Bible is used as the resource and fuel for a religion and regarded by its followers to be the word of God. It is supposed to be divinely inspired by one God and not a number of them as your Cat In the Hat/Quantum Physics books would allude to. (Although Seuss could make QP more enjoyable…)
It seems to me, though, that means that you’re making your god up. If a bank robber stops at a red light after robbing the bank, you can’t point that out and say, “See? He’s a law-abiding person!” The only thing you can say is that in that instance he abides by the law.
If the bible- the “Word of God”- points out some excesses, even ones you don’t like, then I’d think you’d have to take those instances into account in your description of God.
I can only assume that you’re talking about the parts that “refer to homosexuality”, Esprix. You’ll have to get the person first to concede that they accept the new testament as the word of God and then the only truth is in the NT as opposed to the OT. Then you’ll have to deal with other quotes:
Romans 1:26-27 is the third New Testament
passage often cited:
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men . . .” (Revised Standard version)
It’s just easier to say religion is a sham, what other reasons make ya homophobic?
Even though I love writing out my “ginormous” explinations on the bible, alas, I dont have time to write out a lot. But I’m gonna try to tackle stpauler 's question to me if I could.
I really cant come up with any good analogys, but I still think the whole thing is pretty comon sence. You must have missed what I wrote before. In order to understand the bible, you really have to understand the history. If the “fire and brimstone” of John’s writing were true, then either he or Jesus would be liars, and the bible says that neither one can be true. (I’ve given the verse many times. “If anyone says anything unto you than which we have preached…etc…”). That should immediately send up red flags. So then you study the history of what Jesus said and what John said. John talked about the end of the ages being after a bunch of doom and gloom (forseeable in other words) and Jesus talked about it coming out of nowhere (to the point that within the next minute of me typing this, the world would end. Course, if you are reading this, we all know it wassnt REALLY in that minute was it? ). So, we see 2 things that dont mesh, and its too complex to be something frivolous (like order of historical events)…therefore, there has to be a reason. Jesus had no reason to lie or to use a symbolic language…the people were already as confused as it was. Remeber, they thought He was going to reign on earth for 1000 years.
Well what about John then? He had no reason to lie, but he did have a reason to use symbolic language. If he diddnt, he would have been killed on Patmos, no question. And now I say it again, I know I’m beating a dead horse: Once you understand the history, it makes perfect sence. John gave forsight of the death of the 7 headed dragon aka Rome would eventually fall. If you are really curious as to what I mean, I sudgest you get a good history book from the library and read about the Christian persecution and the Romans. It meshes perfectly.
If we can all keep an objective mind (not subjective!), you’ll find that the bible has no contridictions. I know some of you are probobly thinking that that is a rediculous thing for me to say. You’re probobly thinking that the only way to find harmony in the scriptures is with a subjective outlook, not objective. If you want to find out that God commands us to worship yellow chickens, you’ll be able to find it. Heck, you’d be able to find that in Hamlet if you wanted to. but if you read the bible with no expectations of finding what you want to find, you’ll be pleasantly suprised that there is a fully harmony that is really incredible. Dont take it from me. I know there are a lot of people who wont even try and write it all off as a sham. I’m just saying that an open mind will find the truth.
Here’s a list of biblical quotations (albeit taken out of context by an Atheist org in a pure effort to show contradictions) http://www.atheists.org/church/contradictions.html
One example from above page:
I guess if someone wants to suffer the glaring contradictions, that’s their decision, but to deny the fact that they exist (even given “Historical context” as justification), is a disappointing sight of denial of reality (but isn’t that religion, anyway?:eek: )
stpauler , I really hate to say this, but please dont make rash judgements until you see what i’ve already wrote.
Do Americans follow Brittain’s rules? No of course not. That was an older law that our ancestors used to follow, but our founding fathers created a new laws that we follow, thus voiding us of the origional brittish laws. Some of the rules might be the same, but others are different. Same thing goes with the Old and the New Laws, only it was God who made up the system of what we should follow, not humans.
What I said about having an open mind, I meant every word of it. I dont know about you, but I know for a fact that it would be a lot easier to completely disregard the bible. Anymore its a lot harder to be a bible-basher than a bible follower. But I know what I believe, and I faith in every word of it. If you find contridictions in the bible, its either because A. You diddnt study it enough to find an explination or B. Cause you wanted to find one. Take that athiest site for example. They diddnt want to find harmony in the scriptures, so they purposly saught out a contridiction and in the process showed their foolishness by using a very easally defuted example. Now if they went in and studied it not expecting anything, they would find the harmony.
Just to make sure I understand wear you’re coming from, you’re saying that the OT is no longer valid by anything in the NT that contradicts it. To have an open mind would be to accept the first statement as true. Is that a correct summation?
The OT is no longer valid period is what the bible says. According to Christ, we are under the NT laws now. I dont have the scripture and verse on hand (I could look it up later if you really want), but in Hebrews, it goes so far as to say that the old law was “nailed to the cross”…in other words, it passed away when Jesus died, thus ushering in the new set of laws that we are under today. So, if somebody tells you not to murder somebody and uses the 10 commandments to back it up, they would be false. If however they cited the New Testament’s sermon on the mount, they would be correct. Same thing goes for the government analogy. If a person murdered somebody and the judges tried to use British law on him/her, it would be pointless. Thats an entirely different set of laws that we are no longer under. So God wanted some things changed, and some things to stay the same. Either way, the guidebook is the NT. I hope that helps.
Even if I don’t refer to other, contradictory passages in the NT, there is nowhere in these verses that says what you think it says. Jesus didn’t say he would be fulfilling all the OT prophecies, and he didn’t say the Laws would be out of effect even when the prohecies have been fulfilled.
Well Urban Ranger , considering that the NT says in at least 5 locations that the OT became obsolete with the death of Christ, not to mention numerous prophecies of the from God in the OT that the Old Law was to be written away, I highly doubt that you can completely disregard it.
I think the word “till” is pretty self-explanitory.
note the “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers” part. God was refering to a completely new and different covenant he was planning on making…one that was made in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20)
I also like to use Christ as a great example. Remeber, even He was under the Old Law until he died. So technicly everything He said was both a prophecy and a commandment.
The following is kind of lengthy, but it is really interesting. Note, I diddnt write this myself, but a good family friend came across it and gave it to me when I was his student last summer. It tells the life of Christ, but not one bit of it has anything from the NT. Its the life of Christ strictly in prophecy from the OT. Here it is:
Christ came from the seen of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), specifically the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), and was a descendant of the royal family of David (Jer. 23:5). He was born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), in the town of Bethlehem. (Mic. 5:2) He was named Immanuel (Isa. 7:14) and great men bowed before Him.(Psa. 72:10-15). Children were slaughtered in a search to kill Him. (Jer. 31:15) He was sent as a deliverer to God’s people (Isa. 61:1-3), and specifically worked among the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. (Galilee)(Isa. 9:1-3). He was poor in this world’s goods (Isa. 53:2), and meek in spirit (Isa. 42:1-2). He was compassionate (Isa. 40:11) and without guile. (Isa 53:9) He possessed a great zeal for the house of God (Psa. 69:9). He taught by parables (Psa. 78.2), and worked miracles. (Isa. 35:5-6) He entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. (Zech 9:9). There was a forerunner prepared the way for his coming. (Mal. 3:1; 4:5).
Christ was rejected by His brethren (Psa. 68:9), and hated by the Jews. (Psa. 69:4). The rulers of His day also stumbled over Him (Isa. 8:14). He was betrayed by a friend (Psa. 41:9), and forsaken by His disciples. (Zech. 13:7). He was sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12) which were eventually used to buy a Peter’s field in which to bury strangers. (Zech. 11:13) In spite of the intensity of His sufferings (Psa. 22:14-15), He remained silent. (Isa. 53:7) He was scourged and spit upon. (Psa. 35:15) The rulers of the world conspired against him to put Him to death (Psa. 35:15) by a method that involved the piercing of His hands and feet. (Psa. 22:16) They gave Him gall and vinegar to drink. (Isa. 53:12). He was even forsaken by His Father. (Psa. 22:1). Those who killed Him gambled for His clothing. (Psa. 22:18) He bore away our sins (Isa. 53:4-6) His death satisfied the justice of the Father. (Isa. 53:11) He paid the price for our transgressions, and received the punishment we deserved. (Isa. 53:5) In His death He made intercession for murders. (Isa. 53:12). They pierced His body (Zech. 12:10), but did not break any of His bones. (Ex. 12:46). They buried him among the rich (Isa. 53.9), but He did not stay in the grave long enough for His body to decay. (Psa. 16:8-10) He rose from the depths on the third day. (Jonah 1:17).
He then ascended into the heavens (Dan. 7:13) where He became king and priest after the order of Melchizadek. (Psa. 110:4; Zech. 6:12-13). His kingdom reaches the entire world, (Dan 2:44) and had it’s beginnings in Jerusalem. (Isa. 2:1-4) It even includes the Gentiles. (Isa. 11:10) His kingdom is symbolized by righteousness (Isa. 9:6)
Like I said, I just found that interesting. I feel that it gives a lot more credibility to what Christ had to say.
So what about the Second Comming? Well, thats to take us all away. (Matt 25:31-46),(Acts 1:9-11). In those passages, we read clearly that Jesus is only going to come one more time, and then we will all meet up with people who have already died, people who were alive when we were (and assuming He comes much later on in time, which we really have no way of telling), people who will die after us, and people who will be living when He comes. I can only guess the astronomical number of people who’ve ever and will exist. But then we will be seperated, the few on the straight and narrow and (very saddly) the many lost in sin. Then what? well nothing. According the bible, thats it. Eternity. Those who followed God’s commandments will be saved and in Glory for all eternity, and those who missed the mark will not.
Um, Guy, did you read the verses you gave me? I could have sworn that verse 32 says that God will keep the Torah, not toss it!
**
Obviously not, according to verse 32. A new covenant (unlike the first) does not necessarily mean that the first will be tossed out.
**
I don’t have time to rebut everything you’ve written here, but I’ll address the salient points:
**
So were many people. In any event, according to Jewish law, if Jesus was not Joseph’s son, then he’s not eligible to be the messiah. Jewish geneaology only follows that of the father. If a man adopts someone who is not his son, the son does not acquire the status of his adoptive father. Thus, a kohen who adopts a child does not confer the status of kohen on his son. An adopted son does not inherit from his adoptive father (although the father may certainly make a gift) and an adopted son of the royal family is not eligible to become king.
**
Even if true, irrelevant. Isaiah 7:14 talks about events that were to occur during the lives of the people then present. In short, Achaz, king of Judah, was worried because two kingdoms were ganging up on him. Isaiah tells him not to worry because a young woman (Hebrew almah – not virgin besulah) has concieved (past tense in the Hebrew) and will have a child and that before the child is very old, Achaz will be out of danger. Now then, how was this sign to comfort Achaz if the child would not be born for another 700 years? In short, there is no requirement for the messiah to be born of a virgin.
**
Again irrelevant. The messiah could even be born in New York. The family is called the Bethlehemite family because they were originally from Bethlehem.
**
He was? Who called him Immanuel? Where in the Gospels do you see anyone calling him Immanuel?
In any event, again, this prophecy of Isaiah has nothing to do with the messiah, so it doesn’t make a difference.
**
Great men have bowed before many people.
**
Sorry, Jeremiah 31:15 has nothing to do with slaugtered infants, the messiah or a search for him. It is a verse of comfort for Rachel for her missing children.
**
Circular reasoning. You only say that because you say that Jesus was the messiah. If Jesus was not the messiah then this doesn’t apply to him. The same could be said for anyone else whom you care to posit as the messiah.
In any event, he did not deliver them from the Romans. Indeed, he died at their hands.
**
Ah, but you have to show that Isaiah 9 refers to the messiah. It’s not so clear that it does.
**
Ah, the famous Suffering Servant. Sorry, wrong again. The Suffering Servant is a metaphor for the Jewish people as a whole, not Jesus. After all was Jesus a man of pains? Was he often ill (verse 3)? He opened his mouth and was not silent by the crucifixion (unlike in verse 7). God wanted to oppress Jesus? (verse 10) Did Jesus live a long life and see offspring (verse 11)? It’s fairly obvious that the Suffering Servant is not Jesus.
**
These are qualities that are shared by many people and do not point exclusively to Jesus.
**
The verse at hand talks about God, not the messiah. It’s nice if you claim that Jesus is God…
**
A donkey being the primary mode of transportation then, that is hardly remarkable. Indeed, it would be remarkable if someone today came into Jerusalem riding a donkey.
**
Yes, and his name is Elijah. But John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah and he said no.
In any event, it’s late and my wife is waiting for me to finish, so I can’t address the rest of your points. But, suffice it to say, they are just as easily dismissed.
Zev Steinhardt
I’m done. You can say whatever you want, but I told the truth. You can continue to make up as much as you want, but I’m not going to read it. Its pointless to continue when a person refuses to hear. and I bid this thread adeu.
It’s my understanding of Jewish law that someone who wishes to convert to Judaism must be discouraged at least three times, in part because to become a member of the tribes of Israel carries the moral weight of taking up the burden of the Law, and that is not an easy burden to bear. It’s my understanding that there is a moral obligation (I am not sure how much is in the Law; I am only an egg when it comes to Jewish minutiae) to be sure that a person wishing to convert knows the weight of the Law and truly wishes to take it upon themself.
The Law was given to Israel; I am not of Israel. (I am not one of the People of the Book either, but setting that aside for the moment.) I have not engaged in the study of the Law that is required by the people to whom those rules were given before taking up the burden. Taking up that burden in ignorance and without awareness of my responsibilities strikes me as sacrilege, even though it’s not my Book.
According to the Book, the laws in the Book that goys like me should pay attention to are the Noahide commandments. If I wanted to take up the Law, I would not convert to Christianity, because becoming Christian would not make me not-a-goy.
). So, we see 2 things that dont mesh, and its too complex to be something frivolous (like order of historical events)…therefore, there has to be a reason. Jesus had no reason to lie or to use a symbolic language…the people were already as confused as it was. Remeber, they thought He was going to reign on earth for 1000 years.