PDA

View Full Version : Jesus


Fire Haley
12-03-2009, 06:56 PM
Jesus didn't receive his baptism till he was 30.

You can sin all you want till then.



Merry Christmas all you young people.

http://www.emerald.ch/uploads/RTEmagicC_rockin_santa.gif.gif

Godfather
12-03-2009, 07:15 PM
Jesus didn't receive his baptism till he was 30.

You can sin all you want till then.



Merry Christmas all you young people.

http://www.emerald.ch/uploads/RTEmagicC_rockin_santa.gif.gif

Yeah, but His birthday is Christmas. That had to suck when He was growing up.

43Hitman
12-03-2009, 07:22 PM
Jesus is King.


That is all.

AllD
12-03-2009, 07:26 PM
He probably got gypped and only half the gifts since they combined his birthday and Christmas. I wonder if they used two different types of gift wrap?

43Hitman
12-03-2009, 07:41 PM
Can we please stop mocking Jesus now. Thanks.

HometownGal
12-03-2009, 07:46 PM
Can we please stop mocking Jesus now. Thanks.

I agree, especially with the celebration of His birth only a few weeks away.

Christian Snyder
12-03-2009, 07:59 PM
Jesus is King.


That is all.
Ditto.:thumbsup:

Fire Haley
12-03-2009, 08:30 PM
I agree, especially with the celebration of His birth only a few weeks away.


And I say you are all worshipping the Devil. Only I remain pure.


Christmas actually started as a pagan festival.

Nobody knows what day or month Christ was born. People claim that Christmas has now been turned into a Christian festival but the problem is that it is mainly not Christian.

In fact, many of the things involved with Christmas are pagan or Satanic.

Christmas' pagan origins

Few people realize that the origins of a form of Christmas was pagan & celebrated in Europe long before anyone there had heard of Jesus Christ.

In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.


Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel,” the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.


The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.


In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.

http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm

tony hipchest
12-03-2009, 08:47 PM
...saves.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/john_316_031.jpg

('80's nfl fans will remember rainbow man)

c'mon guys... get with the program. we only mock muslims and their faith around here. :doh:

MACH1
12-03-2009, 08:53 PM
c'mon guys... get with the program. we only mock muslims and their faith around here. :doh:


What? There's an Official make fun of Muslims thread around here or are you talking about the Official make fun of Obaaama thread?

:chuckle:

BlastFurnace
12-03-2009, 10:31 PM
Can we please stop mocking Jesus now. Thanks.

:applaudit:

I completely agree. Thank you Hitman! For some of us on the board...Jesus had made all the difference in the world to us.

BlastFurnace
12-03-2009, 10:36 PM
Jesus didn't receive his baptism till he was 30.

You can sin all you want till then.



Merry Christmas all you young people.

http://www.emerald.ch/uploads/RTEmagicC_rockin_santa.gif.gif

Actually, Jesus wasn't baptized until he was 30, but he knew who's Son he was and his purpose on earth long before then.

Some sin's lead to death....so I guess it''s a risky venture if you choose to sin all you want.

The Patriot
12-04-2009, 02:25 AM
c'mon guys... get with the program. we only mock muslims and their faith around here. :doh:

And it's all because of the policies of Barack Hussein Obama.

SteelerEmpire
12-04-2009, 06:43 AM
As a jew, I must say that the followers of Christ have taken a markedly different path with the "religion aspects" of Christianity than what Jesus intended. A substantial part of the most popular aspects of the religion is due to not Jesus, but of Roman emperor's... of all people. But these aspects were forced onto his followers because Jews were not very popular to Rome, especially in those days. Looking from my perspective I always see that very clearly when the subject of Christ comes up. But I do know that these characteristics have been a part of Christianity for so long, that's its not even an issue with today's Christians.
But I guess its whatever works....

vasteeler
12-04-2009, 08:14 AM
well for me, anyway christmas has always been about santa and not jesus
but then again easter has always been about the bunny
not to offend anyone just the way I see things:drink:

HometownGal
12-04-2009, 08:16 AM
c'mon guys... get with the program. we only mock muslims and their faith around here. :doh:

As far as the Bible traces back, Jesus never murdered anyone.

stlrtruck
12-04-2009, 08:32 AM
With all the current themes of Christmas and it's originations, I can only say that I am blessed that Jesus Christ sees a man's heart.

And while the early church did incorporate the birth of Christ (which historians believe to be sometime during June/July - if my memory serves me correctly) to the Winter Solstice, Christmas is what each individual wants to make it. As with other beliefs, in this country people have the freedom to choose.

Some choose to believe and accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and celebrate his birthday.
Others choose to celebrate Santa Clause, which some attribute to St. Nicholas (a true saint),
Some just celebrate Christmas for the fact of either giving or receiving (or both) gifts.

I do believe the Jesus is the reason for the season (regardless of how He got placed there by the church) and that anyone who truly believes in Jesus and what he did for them, will act out Christmas on a daily basis and not have to wait for a Holiday to do such!!

MAY EVERYONE BE BLESSED THIS CHRISTMAS SEASON AND ALL THE NEW YEAR!

Christian Snyder
12-04-2009, 10:17 AM
:applaudit:

I completely agree. Thank you Hitman! For some of us on the board...Jesus had made all the difference in the world to us. :thumbsup:



Actually, Jesus wasn't baptized until he was 30, but he knew who's Son he was and his purpose on earth long before then.

Some sin's lead to death....so I guess it''s a risky venture if you choose to sin all you want. Correct.. :thumbsup:

Steelboy84
12-04-2009, 10:21 AM
And I say you are all worshipping the Devil. Only I remain pure.


Christmas actually started as a pagan festival.

Nobody knows what day or month Christ was born. People claim that Christmas has now been turned into a Christian festival but the problem is that it is mainly not Christian.

In fact, many of the things involved with Christmas are pagan or Satanic.

Christmas' pagan origins

Few people realize that the origins of a form of Christmas was pagan & celebrated in Europe long before anyone there had heard of Jesus Christ.

In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.


Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel,” the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.


The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.


In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.

http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm


Yea, Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. But I still love getting and giving gifts nonetheless.

I doubt anyone really knows the actual birth of Jesus (that's if one believes it or not).

BlastFurnace
12-04-2009, 10:24 AM
With all the current themes of Christmas and it's originations, I can only say that I am blessed that Jesus Christ sees a man's heart.

And while the early church did incorporate the birth of Christ (which historians believe to be sometime during June/July - if my memory serves me correctly) to the Winter Solstice, Christmas is what each individual wants to make it. As with other beliefs, in this country people have the freedom to choose.

Some choose to believe and accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and celebrate his birthday.
Others choose to celebrate Santa Clause, which some attribute to St. Nicholas (a true saint),
Some just celebrate Christmas for the fact of either giving or receiving (or both) gifts.

I do believe the Jesus is the reason for the season (regardless of how He got placed there by the church) and that anyone who truly believes in Jesus and what he did for them, will act out Christmas on a daily basis and not have to wait for a Holiday to do such!!

MAY EVERYONE BE BLESSED THIS CHRISTMAS SEASON AND ALL THE NEW YEAR!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 10:54 AM
Well, the OP is interesting. Where WAS Jesus between 12-30? I think there is only like one line in the hole bible about it.

The Council of Nicea knew...but they didn't like how it read, so they burned that part of the bible.

Christian Snyder
12-04-2009, 11:02 AM
Well, the OP is interesting. Where WAS Jesus between 12-30? I think there is only like one line in the hole bible about it.

The Council of Nicea knew...but they didn't like how it read, so they burned that part of the bible.
He was a carpenter in Joseph's shop.

Dino 6 Rings
12-04-2009, 11:47 AM
I like Christmas because it brings hope to the heart.

Jesus isn't about any religion as they all now stand, its about a concept of being Good, especially when you are at your most hurt, most down, most in need of help and being bad would be the easy path. His teachings were about kindness, and love of God as much as love of one another.

Religions are what they are, but the Concepts that Jesus taught, are some of the best in all of history. I'll celebrate his birthday, and give joy to the ones I love, receive joy from the ones I love and give what I can to help those that need it most. (which on another subject, we do volunteer work in my home all year round so save me any 'do it all year' nonsense)

Plus...You can Mock Jesus if you want, He still Loves You. Only he can judge what's in your heart, not people on a message board, or in church or anywhere else.

Others in history...you might not be so reseptive to being mocked.

SteelCityMom
12-04-2009, 12:19 PM
As far as the Bible traces back, Jesus never murdered anyone.

Not sure what that has to do with the Muslim religion, as Jesus is part of Islamic text, as a prophet. Muslims do not believe in a trinity type figure as Christians do, only in the prophets. And if you want to be real technical, both religions God has a history of killing people and people on Earth have killed in their Gods name numerous times throughout history.

Dino 6 Rings
12-04-2009, 12:29 PM
Personally, I like Odin...wish I could be a Viking Warrior and go to Valhalla

Christian Snyder
12-04-2009, 02:14 PM
Personally, I like Odin...wish I could be a Viking Warrior and go to Valhalla
You mean Valhella?

Fire Haley
12-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Well, the OP is interesting. Where WAS Jesus between 12-30? I think there is only like one line in the hole bible about it.





The Gospels do not say where Jesus was between the age of 12 and 30. But ancient Buddhist manuscripts say Jesus left Palestine and traveled to India, Nepal, Ladakh and Tibet during the "lost years."

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KnmbcnG5L._SS500_.jpg


That must have been a long walk.

Christian Snyder
12-04-2009, 02:24 PM
Jesus ran off to the circus - in India. Riding elephants must have bee a lot of fun.


The Gospels do not say where Jesus was between the age of 12 and 30. But ancient Buddhist manuscripts say Jesus left Palestine and traveled to India, Nepal, Ladakh and Tibet during the "lost years."

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KnmbcnG5L._SS500_.jpg
Who the heck cares what stupid Buddhist manuscripts say?!

7SteelGal43
12-04-2009, 02:49 PM
And I say you are all worshipping the Devil. Only I remain pure.


Christmas actually started as a pagan festival.





Regardless of the origins of Christmas, I celebrate it as a time of reflecting on, giving thanks to, and praising the Saviour, Jesus Christ.

stlrtruck
12-04-2009, 03:20 PM
Plus...You can Mock Jesus if you want, He still Loves You. Only he can judge what's in your heart, not people on a message board, or in church or anywhere else.

Others in history...you might not be so reseptive to being mocked.

Well put!

HometownGal
12-04-2009, 03:44 PM
Not sure what that has to do with the Muslim religion, as Jesus is part of Islamic text, as a prophet. Muslims do not believe in a trinity type figure as Christians do, only in the prophets. And if you want to be real technical, both religions God has a history of killing people and people on Earth have killed in their Gods name numerous times throughout history.

I guess it all depends on what people, individually, believe. :noidea:

I was replying to a post that was clearly directed at me, as I've said on this board many times that I do not like or trust Muslims. Sorry if that makes me a Muslim racist, but I'm not going to lie about how I feel about them.

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 04:10 PM
Didn't the Mormons say that Jesus came to America right after he died?

I think they made up some documents, too, that validate this...

The Dead Sea Scolls are interesting, too...they invalidate much of what the current, heavily redacted Catholic bible claims about Jesus. In fact, I believe there was no mention of Jesus at all...

SteelCityMom
12-04-2009, 04:22 PM
I guess it all depends on what people, individually, believe. :noidea:

I was replying to a post that was clearly directed at me, as I've said on this board many times that I do not like or trust Muslims. Sorry if that makes me a Muslim racist, but I'm not going to lie about how I feel about them.

Oh, I know you've said that...and that's fine, at least your honest about it. I don't like the radicals of the religion (or any religion to be honest), but the fundamentals and the history of the religion are very interesting. It ties in a lot with Christianity and Judaism. Not really a religious person myself, but I do find the cultures and stories of different religions interesting.

SteelCityMom
12-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Didn't the Mormons say that Jesus came to America right after he died?

I think they made up some documents, too, that validate this...

The Dead Sea Scolls are interesting, too...they invalidate much of what the current, heavily redacted Catholic bible claims about Jesus. In fact, I believe there was no mention of Jesus at all...

Yes they do, and the document they made up was the Book of Mormon lol.

They also believe God created multiple universes with people on them and that multiple Gods exist, but each has its own universe.

BlastFurnace
12-04-2009, 05:18 PM
I guess it all depends on what people, individually, believe. :noidea:

I was replying to a post that was clearly directed at me, as I've said on this board many times that I do not like or trust Muslims. Sorry if that makes me a Muslim racist, but I'm not going to lie about how I feel about them.

It's in their own books of their own hatred toward Christians. I don't know any, but I certainly don't trust them based upon what their own books say is lawful to do to Christians.

BlastFurnace
12-04-2009, 05:21 PM
Regardless of the origins of Christmas, I celebrate it as a time of reflecting on, giving thanks to, and praising the Saviour, Jesus Christ.

:applaudit::applaudit:

That's right!

BlastFurnace
12-04-2009, 05:26 PM
I know that I make it a point that whenever anyone says Happy Holidays to me during the Christmas season, I always say Merry Christmas back to them. I am so sick and tired of our PC police...who are just a minority group of people in our country...telling people what is PC and what is not.

I realize that December 25th was not Jesus's actual birthday, but if there is a day set aside to celebrate his birth, then I am all for it and I will celebrate it....regardless of what the American Communist Liberties Union tries to shove down our throat.

SteelerEmpire
12-04-2009, 05:35 PM
What exactly do Scientologists believe? Here is the answer. I just HAD to interject these people's ideas.... are you sitting down ?? Here we go...

Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xemu. Xemu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.

Now Xemu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were over-populated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.

Xemu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).

These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xemu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.

The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).

After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.

As for Xemu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xemu is still alive today.

That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these clusters of souls called "body thetans". And if we are to be a free soul then we have to remove all these "body thetans" and pay lots of money to do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago.
----------------------------------------------
The CRAZY part is that this religion is NO JOKE.... these people are "dead serious"...

Who are some famous Scientologists ??? If I put the names of those people on here... you probably would not have the same respect for them... so I will let you guys figure that out.... :banging::rofl:

SteelCityMom
12-04-2009, 06:04 PM
It's in their own books of their own hatred toward Christians. I don't know any, but I certainly don't trust them based upon what their own books say is lawful to do to Christians.

I'd like to know what book this is from. It's not from the Qur'an, that's for sure.

Muslims are not commanded to kill Christians.

The Prophet of Islam ( Prophet Muhammad) taught that Christians and Jews were 'people of the Book (Bible)' and did not tell his followers to forcefully convert them to Islam. Christians and Jews throughout history have lived peacefully in Muslim countries, all they had to do was pay a tax. This tax allowed them to live in a Muslim country, and by paying this tax they did not have to fight in the army if the country was in war.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, terrorism has broken out from Muslim communities. Many Muslims tell us that killing is against the teachings of Islam and that terrorism can not be supported. But this terrorism is less about religion and more about the perceived humiliation of their secular leaders by those whom a small minority believe to wish to harm the Muslim world.

The Qur'an ( the Muslim holy book) does not support the killing of innocents. Many people including some Muslim extremists have taken verses out of context from the Qur'an and used them to justify their actions (as have Christians in the past with the Bible). If you clearly read the text, you can see that Qur'an actually states that killing is one of the worst sins to commit, and it can only be done for self defense.

Christian Snyder
12-04-2009, 06:44 PM
I know that I make it a point that whenever anyone says Happy Holidays to me during the Christmas season, I always say Merry Christmas back to them. I am so sick and tired of our PC police...who are just a minority group of people in our country...telling people what is PC and what is not.

I realize that December 25th was not Jesus's actual birthday, but if there is a day set aside to celebrate his birth, then I am all for it and I will celebrate it....regardless of what the American Communist Liberties Union tries to shove down our throat.
I hear they call Christmas Winter Festival now also.:headbutt:

Christian Snyder
12-04-2009, 06:53 PM
What exactly do Scientologists believe? Here is the answer. I just HAD to interject these people's ideas.... are you sitting down ?? Here we go...

Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xemu. Xemu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.

Now Xemu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were over-populated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.

Xemu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).

These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xemu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.

The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).

After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.

As for Xemu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xemu is still alive today.

That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these clusters of souls called "body thetans". And if we are to be a free soul then we have to remove all these "body thetans" and pay lots of money to do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago.
----------------------------------------------
The CRAZY part is that this religion is NO JOKE.... these people are "dead serious"...

Who are some famous Scientologists ??? If I put the names of those people on here... you probably would not have the same respect for them... so I will let you guys figure that out.... :banging::rofl:
I'm friggin' speechless... This is by FAR the most idiotic and stupid belief I've ever heard of.:headbutt:

tony hipchest
12-04-2009, 06:57 PM
The Dead Sea Scolls are interesting, too...they invalidate much of what the current, heavily redacted Catholic bible claims about Jesus. In fact, I believe there was no mention of Jesus at all...thats because they were pretty much written before he was born by a secular group (the essenes) who may have never even heard of him (but they definitely knew of the coming of the messiah).

now preacher can break this down much better, but the dead sea scrolls are largely a collection of old testament books. earliest evidence of written new testament text is from about 300 AD.

there were different factions of judaism just like religions today. it is speculated that Jesus teachings, philosophy, and life style probably most closely matched the essenes.

you might even say they were a bit radical and unconventional like John the baptist was.

xfl2001fan
12-04-2009, 06:58 PM
Something to Ponder...if Christ was a Jew...and Christians are supposed to strive to be "Christ-like" why aren't Christians Jews?

hindes204
12-04-2009, 07:14 PM
What exactly do Scientologists believe? Here is the answer. I just HAD to interject these people's ideas.... are you sitting down ?? Here we go...:

ssshhhhhhh!!!!.....youre suppossed to pay a ridiculous amount of money before you find all this stuff out :rofl:

Tom Cruise is a nutcase!

hindes204
12-04-2009, 07:17 PM
I'm friggin' speechless... This is by FAR the most idiotic and stupid belief I've ever heard of.:headbutt:

I agree...but you would be amazed at how many people actually beleive this ridiculous stuff. A lot of people you watch on tv and in the movies believe this, its a big religion in hollywood.........asinine

tony hipchest
12-04-2009, 07:27 PM
Something to Ponder...if Christ was a Jew...and Christians are supposed to strive to be "Christ-like" why aren't Christians Jews?indeed Christ was Jewish, but he pretty much went against the pharisees and sadducees in his teaching.

judaism of his time had become more of a business and an elitist group, as opposed to a religion (hence him flipping over the money changers tables at the temple and calling them a "den of thieves").

Jesus reached out to the destitute and the poor, and preached that even the diseased and gentiles had a place in Heaven.

it pretty much earned him a date with the cross.

SteelCityMom
12-04-2009, 07:30 PM
I agree...but you would be amazed at how many people actually beleive this ridiculous stuff. A lot of people you watch on tv and in the movies believe this, its a big religion in hollywood.........asinine

They tell it the best on South Park...one of the best episodes ever. Come out of the closet Tom!

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1529878/southpark_vs_scientology/

Vincent
12-04-2009, 07:37 PM
The Dead Sea Scolls are interesting, too...they invalidate much of what the current, heavily redacted Catholic bible claims about Jesus. In fact, I believe there was no mention of Jesus at all...

Perhaps you missed Isaiah 53.

Below is an interlinear text of Isaiah chapter 53 comparing the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Caves (100 B.C.E.) and the Masoretic text (1000 C.E.). The top line is the Hebrew script from the scroll with the Hebrew Masoretic text below it.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/files/31_isaiah53.jpg

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_isaiah53.html

The English...

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Something to Ponder...if Christ was a Jew...and Christians are supposed to strive to be "Christ-like" why aren't Christians Jews?

We are adopted Jews.

revefsreleets
12-04-2009, 08:46 PM
Perhaps you missed Isaiah 53.

Below is an interlinear text of Isaiah chapter 53 comparing the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Caves (100 B.C.E.) and the Masoretic text (1000 C.E.). The top line is the Hebrew script from the scroll with the Hebrew Masoretic text below it.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/files/31_isaiah53.jpg

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_isaiah53.html

The English...

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.



We are adopted Jews.
EVERY religion has a figure like this...there are several predating Christianity by hundreds of years...

Godfather
12-04-2009, 09:33 PM
Didn't the Mormons say that Jesus came to America right after he died?

I think they made up some documents, too, that validate this...

The Dead Sea Scolls are interesting, too...they invalidate much of what the current, heavily redacted Catholic bible claims about Jesus. In fact, I believe there was no mention of Jesus at all...

The Protestant Bible, not the Catholic Bible, is the heavily redacted one. Martin Luther removed several books from the Old Testament as well as some of the New Testament (the NT was restored by later Protestants).

UltimateBengal
12-04-2009, 09:45 PM
The Protestant Bible, not the Catholic Bible, is the heavily redacted one. Martin Luther removed several books from the Old Testament as well as some of the New Testament (the NT was restored by later Protestants).

To this day, the Catholic church refuses to discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls(Gospel of Thomas), because they are terrified that it could hurt "the institution of the church" if people were to place validity in it's words. I feel that many of the statements attributed to Jesus in those scrolls definitely seem like wisdom he would have spoken, and if you look at the state of churches today, it offers truth that they don't want you to hear!

Preacher
12-05-2009, 02:49 AM
To this day, the Catholic church refuses to discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls(Gospel of Thomas), because they are terrified that it could hurt "the institution of the church" if people were to place validity in it's words. I feel that many of the statements attributed to Jesus in those scrolls definitely seem like wisdom he would have spoken, and if you look at the state of churches today, it offers truth that they don't want you to hear!

Um....

The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is part of the Nag Hammadi discoveries just before the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950's. It is preceded by another find in 1897 and again in 1903 called the Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments and held sixteen sayings of Jesus.

If you have read the "Gospel of Thomas" you will find that very little of it are saying about Jesus. A whole lot of it is sayings about Jesus and based in what looks like full-blown 3rd century gnosticism, which puts its dating long after that of the canonical gospels. To be sure, similar sayings in teh Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments which replicate the actual sayings of Jesus in the "Gospel of Thomas" are good materials for scholars to wrestle.* But it is quite a leap to say that it could "hurt the institution of the church."

The Dead Sea Scrolls are found in what is known as the Essene community (and actually there were a few communities). Their scrolls are known "Peshars" of the Old Testament.

Or were you talking about the Gospel of Thomas which has been changed in name to the "Gospel of Thomas-the Infancy Gospels.?"

Let me be very clear. Scholarly circles, especially that in the conservative evangelical world, but truth throughout the academy in the science of theology, are very well aware of all the 2nd Temple period writings and the Pseudepigraphical writings thereafter. None of them scare the church. What DOES scare the christian church is that people believe Dan Brown level drivel that is blatant distortions of history.

If you are truly interested in textual criticism and non-canonical writings including their impact on the canon, let me know and I will get you some scholarly books to read on the subject that treats the history fairly... and I will find them on both sides of the issues.


*A.B. du Toit, The New Testament Milieu (Halfway House: Orion, 1998).

xfl2001fan
12-05-2009, 03:58 PM
indeed Christ was Jewish, but he pretty much went against the pharisees and sadducees in his teaching.

judaism of his time had become more of a business and an elitist group, as opposed to a religion (hence him flipping over the money changers tables at the temple and calling them a "den of thieves").

Jesus reached out to the destitute and the poor, and preached that even the diseased and gentiles had a place in Heaven.

it pretty much earned him a date with the cross.

Christ was a Jew who wanted to see the Jewish faith go back to what God intended it to be...not the polluted crap that the Pharisees and Sadducees made it out to be in their quest for power. Should Christians not, instead, be trying to move back to a Jewish faith as God initially intended...

Scroll forward 1400 years, the Catholic church corrupted the "Christian" religion in it''s quest for power.

Scroll forward 600 more years...and now it's the Muslims who are at the forefront of the stupidity.

Give us another 500 years...and it'll be the Buddhists who screw up...or the Taoists, or possibly Scientoligists. Who knows. Meanwhile, mankind will still be just as dumb and just as wrong because the beliefs that they are buying into may have initially been "God Inspired" have been written by flawed men with their own "God Inspired" vision...and the translation of a translation of a translation won't quite be what the initial message was supposed to be.

BlastFurnace
12-05-2009, 04:44 PM
Christ was a Jew who wanted to see the Jewish faith go back to what God intended it to be...not the polluted crap that the Pharisees and Sadducees made it out to be in their quest for power. Should Christians not, instead, be trying to move back to a Jewish faith as God initially intended...

.

It was never God's intent that Christians should move back to the Jewish faith. Read Ephesians 2, the Book of Hebrews, and Galatians 3 where Paul indicates that the Jewish Law was in place to lead us to Christ. Ephesians 2 and the book of Hebrews specifically indicate that the old law was put away at the death of Christ.

Christians are now referred to as the Royal Priesthood, God's Chosen People, and his Children. Nowhere in the New Testament does indicate for us to follow Jewish Laws and customs as a way of pleasing God. This is a consistent them throughout the New Testament...see Acts 15 as an example. Some of the commandments, such as 9 of the 10 Commandments are repeated within the New Testament, but that does not mean we need to become Jewish or Jews in order to follow them.

Preacher
12-05-2009, 06:44 PM
Didn't the Mormons say that Jesus came to America right after he died?

I think they made up some documents, too, that validate this...

The Dead Sea Scolls are interesting, too...they invalidate much of what the current, heavily redacted Catholic bible claims about Jesus. In fact, I believe there was no mention of Jesus at all...

Rev., I am surprised that someone who studies as much as you do would make claims like this.

1. The dead sea scrolls are from communities that split from the popular Israel long before Jesus Christ was on the scene. Hence, there would be neither reason nor desire to discuss "Jesus".

2. For the most part, such discussion would be an anachronism, as the material from the Dead Sea Scrolls except for the latest material pre-dates the ministry of Jesus. The latest scrolls (and there are only a few) were complete by 70 AD. (just 35 or so years after the crucifixion). This date is established by the knowledge that Qumran was destroyed in 70 AD. However, a overwhelming majority of the scrolls predate the ministry of Christ. Paleography of script development allows us to see the dating of the individual scrolls. The scripts are as follows,
Proto-Jewish Scripts (developed from early Aramaic): from the mid-third century B.C. to 175 B.C.
Early Hasmonean: c. 175–125 B.C.
Hasmonean: c. 125–100 B.C.
Late Hasmonean: c. 100–30 B.C.
Early Herodian: c. 30–25 B.C.
Herodian: c. 25 B.C.–A.D. 50
Late Herodian: c. A.D. 50–70
Post Herodian: c. A.D. 70


As to the actual scrolls,
CAVE ONE: From the first century BC are=
1QGen (= 1Q1) 1QExod (= 1Q2) 1QpaleoLev (+Num) (= 1Q3) 1Qpaleo (Lev+)Num (= 1Q3) 1Qpaleo (Lev+)Num (= 1Q3) 1Qpaleo (Lev+)Num (= 1Q3) 1QDeuta (= 1Q4) 1QDeutb (= 1Q5) 1QJudg (= 1Q6) etc. They are all books from the Hebrew Canon.... because they were a breakoff from the JEWISH COMMUNITY.
it seems only 1QDana (= 1Q71) is from AD 70 amd 1QDanb (= 1Q71) is from the Herodian period


CAVE TWO: Mainly Herodian period (40BC to 44AD)
2QGen (= 2Q1) 2QExoda (= 2Q2) 2QExodb (= 2Q3) 2QExodc (= 2Q4) 2QpaleoLev (= 2Q5) 2QNuma (= 2Q6) 2QNuma (= 2Q6) 2QNumb (= 2Q7) 2QNumc (= 2Q8) etc. (ruth, Job Psalms and jermiah are represented here... )

CAVE 3- Too few words preserved to characterize on two of the three texts the thirds is Lamentations and is Herodian...

CAVE 4-its the Gold mine for archeologists. But the vast majority of its dates are Hasmonean- first century BC. Some Herodian. I stopped counting at 75 scrolls predating the ministry of Christ. These are all biblical texts of the OT. The texts that did correspond to or post-date christ are also OT texts

There are seven more caves that all follow about eh same pattern.

As two the non-OT texts, The concern the Rules of the community and other texts as such.

In conclusion....

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of Old Testament translations and interpretations by Jewish communities that thought the ruling Jewish priests had become corrupt. They splintered and went to live in teh hills. Most of their writings are before or just at the time of the ministry of Jesus. Comparitively few are after, and those are mainly OT texts.

SO there is simply NO association with the New Testament, nor the catholic bible, except in the OT. And there, the Catholic bible was VERY dependent on the LXX, which is another scholarly accepted translation.

In the end, Revs, there is simply no foundation, let alone truth, to your assertion that the Dead Sea Scrolls have ANY affect on the Catholic church, let alone the faith of Christianity. What it DOES do, is give people like me a HECK of a lot more work to do when we are trying to do OT studies, because there is another source of material we now have to account for.


(Sources: Harold P. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993). Martinez, Florentino Garcia and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition 2 vol. set. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

Preacher
12-05-2009, 07:04 PM
The Protestant Bible, not the Catholic Bible, is the heavily redacted one. Martin Luther removed several books from the Old Testament as well as some of the New Testament (the NT was restored by later Protestants).

Actually, the history there is off quite a bit.

The question is whether the church accepts the Alexandrian canon or the palestiian canon.

The Roman Catholic church did not accept the Apocrypha as fully canonical until 1545-63 at the Council of Trent, which was a anti-Reformation council. Thus, the books were accepted just as much as a slap in the face to Luther and the reformation as to the actual canonical status.

There is a strong history of non-acceptance of these books.

Testimony of antiquity against accepting Apocrypha There is an almost unbroken testimony of antiquity against accepting the Apocrypha into the canon:
1. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C.–A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold classification of books, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
2. Josephus (A.D. 30–100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as twenty-two. Neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
3. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.
4. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
5. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.
6. Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.
7. Jerome (340–420), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. Jerome said that the church reads them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.”33 He disputed across the Mediterranean with Augustine on this point. At first Jerome refused even to translate the apocryphal books into Latin, but later he made a hurried translation of a few of them. After his death and “over his dead body” the apocryphal books were brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version (see chap. 29).
8. Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.
9. Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
10. Not until A.D. 1546, in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545–63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic church.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 272–273.

All info here was taken from teh book quoted.

Preacher
12-05-2009, 07:08 PM
Something to Ponder...if Christ was a Jew...and Christians are supposed to strive to be "Christ-like" why aren't Christians Jews?

Being Christ-like doesn't mean being Jewish. Second Temple Judiasm was a perversion of Yahwehism from the Old Testament. The Chronicler (1 and 2 Chronicles) condemns the beginning of "Judaism" (Esra, Nehemiah) in his writings. The goal isn't to be "religious" like Jesus. It is to be like Jesus in relationship to the Father, living out the narratives of Jesus life in our own.

Polamalu Princess
12-05-2009, 09:17 PM
Let's just say that I am glad that Jesus died for my sins and I am blessed by this fact.

xfl2001fan
12-05-2009, 09:32 PM
Being Christ-like doesn't mean being Jewish. Second Temple Judiasm was a perversion of Yahwehism from the Old Testament. The Chronicler (1 and 2 Chronicles) condemns the beginning of "Judaism" (Esra, Nehemiah) in his writings. The goal isn't to be "religious" like Jesus. It is to be like Jesus in relationship to the Father, living out the narratives of Jesus life in our own.

1st and 2nd Chronicles were written by someone other than Jesus though...which is where some confusion comes in to this conversation. Jesus was a Jew...was he not? I understand that he wasn't happy with how the Jewish faith was being led (and rightfully so)...but where did Jesus actually say to stop being Jewish? To stop following Judaism? :noidea:

(Yeah, this is a bit of :stirthepot:...but that's just how I am when it comes to organized religion).

tony hipchest
12-05-2009, 09:50 PM
whoa! i think there is some massive confusion here...

Jesus never wrote any books of the bible.

as soon as when he died on the cross and forgave mankind of their sins and opened the gates of heaven to ALL people was when one didnt have to be a Jew no more.

but if youre looking for a specific point or quote- "i am the Alpha and Omega". Rev.22

xfl2001fan
12-05-2009, 09:55 PM
I understand that Jesus never officially wrote any of the books in the Bible. 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written after his death. By men. Flawed men. Are we to trust the words of flawed men? Why haven't any books been added to the Bible since Revelations? Have we suddenly stopped being God Inspired? Is there no more lessons to learn?

Godfather
12-05-2009, 09:57 PM
To this day, the Catholic church refuses to discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls(Gospel of Thomas), because they are terrified that it could hurt "the institution of the church" if people were to place validity in it's words. I feel that many of the statements attributed to Jesus in those scrolls definitely seem like wisdom he would have spoken, and if you look at the state of churches today, it offers truth that they don't want you to hear!

The scrolls were on display in Mobile a few years ago and the Catholic Church openly advertised this to its members. Not a good thing to do if you want to keep them under wraps.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-05-2009, 10:10 PM
Can we please stop mocking Jesus now. Thanks.

why? is it okay to mock othersbut not jesus. Is that the way he would have it?

SteelerEmpire
12-05-2009, 10:31 PM
Well. Since there are so many interpretations of 'Yahweh' ( the original name of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God ) but we are here still trying to determine "which religion is right ". I say if the one TRUE God wanted to establish which of these ideas it the "correct " one, he would NOT need any of us to go out and 'market' it for him. God has the power to establish his dominion without the need for man's (preachers, ministers and rabbis help) assistance.
When a guy/girl comes up to me and says Jesus is the way, Allah is the way or whatever... I say that "whoever " caused me to come into existence, without my permission, and can end my life without me knowing "for sure" whats next...WITHOUT me having "any " say in it.... MUST have the power to let me know that their calling the shots.... not someone passing out a brochure, blowing up a building or just so happen to be "the chosen people" ( I am a Jew also).
I can go on and on... but just my thoughts....

tony hipchest
12-05-2009, 10:36 PM
I understand that Jesus never officially wrote any of the books in the Bible. 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written after his death. By men. Flawed men. Are we to trust the words of flawed men? Why haven't any books been added to the Bible since Revelations? Have we suddenly stopped being God Inspired? Is there no more lessons to learn?all of the books of the new testament were written after his death. infact, many arent even books, but simple letters of appeal and guidance from by paul.

saul never even met Jesus during his 33 earthly years, and wouldve persecuted him if he did.

and i still dont understand your questions. are you asking why the Jews havent added any books to the old testament?

the story has been told, the book has been written.

Have we suddenly stopped being God Inspired? Is there no more lessons to learn? there are hundreds of writings and testimonials through the years. im sure preacher or mother teresa would tell you that. then i guess theres dante, and william blake. i guess we could add them to the bible, but why mess with perfection?

it is a done deal.

Preacher
12-05-2009, 10:46 PM
1st and 2nd Chronicles were written by someone other than Jesus though...which is where some confusion comes in to this conversation. Jesus was a Jew...was he not? I understand that he wasn't happy with how the Jewish faith was being led (and rightfully so)...but where did Jesus actually say to stop being Jewish? To stop following Judaism? :noidea:

(Yeah, this is a bit of :stirthepot:...but that's just how I am when it comes to organized religion).
First and second Chronicles were written anywhere from 2 to 4 hundred years BEFORE Jesus.

What you are confusing, are Jews as a political entity, Judaism as a religion, and those who call themselves Children of Abraham and are considered biologically, Jews.

Jesus considered himself (and I believe it is true) part of the political entity and part of the children of Abraham. He was trained in the Jewish religion, probably as a pharisee. However, his teachings and what Christians call the new covenant that He instituted clearly delineates him from 2nd Temple Judaism. He said to stop being "Jewish" in the sense of the common Jewish religion in the sermon on the mount, when he said, YOu have heard it said, but I say unto you. . . He was raising the standard beyond the rabbis. Specifically the schools of Shammai and Hillel. He was reestablishing the covenant of Abraham and David, thus, Jesus wasn't dependent upon "Judaism" but true 1st covenant Hebrew belief in YHWH.


I understand that Jesus never officially wrote any of the books in the Bible. 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written after his death. By men. Flawed men. Are we to trust the words of flawed men? Why haven't any books been added to the Bible since Revelations? Have we suddenly stopped being God Inspired? Is there no more lessons to learn?

As I said before, 1 and 2 Chronicles were written anywhere from 2-4 hundred years BEFORE Christ. And it is believed amongst Christians, that God wrote the scriptures through men. That he, "Theopneustos" or God-Breathed (God-Spirited is also the idea here) the scriptures. In other words, He wrote them through men in the same way the prophets of the Old Testament prophesied about coming destructions to Israel.

Preacher
12-05-2009, 10:52 PM
I understand that Jesus never officially wrote any of the books in the Bible. 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written after his death. By men. Flawed men. Are we to trust the words of flawed men? Why haven't any books been added to the Bible since Revelations? Have we suddenly stopped being God Inspired? Is there no more lessons to learn?

Tony has given a good answer. But let me see if I can add to it.

The bible isn't about "what can I learn to get through this life". It's not a "3-steps to happiness" type book.

It is the revelation of God's salvation-history which has been finished and completed in Jesus Christ. The writings of the New Testament are about the application of the completed revelation in our lives, corporately (in the churches), individually (book of Romans, for instance) and to the nation of Israel (book of Hebrews).

Revelation is written to the Christian people to give hope that what is supposed to be lived out in the church amidst persecution, suffering, and death with be someday come to completion in the entire world. That the Christian can look forward to an eternity with God.

43Hitman
12-06-2009, 08:24 AM
why? is it okay to mock othersbut not jesus. Is that the way he would have it?

I think it's pretty obvious that you shouldn't mock anyone. I am human and do sin so therefore I have mocked people. I am not really sure where you're going with this though. I do my best to never mock God or Jesus or use His name in vain. Those are some of my convictions, and they may not be the same as others. I will however stand up for what I believe in and I will call people out when they openly mock God in front of me or my family.

revefsreleets
12-06-2009, 10:42 AM
The Protestant Bible, not the Catholic Bible, is the heavily redacted one. Martin Luther removed several books from the Old Testament as well as some of the New Testament (the NT was restored by later Protestants).

First and 2nd councils of Nicea took the bible apart and put it back together again, and burned what they didn't like....

Oh, and Preach, you're employing "Tony tactics" here, acting like you're disapointed in how inferior my logic simply because you don't care for my argument.

First off, it is generally accepted that the Essenes were the authors, but even that basic premise is still hotly debated.

Secondly, the texts are contemporary with Jesus' time on Earth, yet.....no mention?

Also, did the OT not predict Jesus? So there WAS mention of him in the OT, but NOT in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, if the Dead Sea Scrolls are some kind of companion piece to the bible, it's still interesting that there is no mention of Jesus, either in a prescient or contemporary sense.


I'm simply stating that this is more of the same...the Church is usually behind any obfuscation or historical revision when it comes to anything slightly different that the accepted thinking as outlined and dictated by the Church authorities. One can draw whatever conclusions they'd like from reading about the scrolls, but the Church will always be there to "set the record straight" as to what they "actually" mean...which is pretty much what you just did to me.

Preacher
12-06-2009, 12:15 PM
First and 2nd councils of Nicea took the bible apart and put it back together again, and burned what they didn't like....

Oh, and Preach, you're employing "Tony tactics" here, acting like you're disapointed in how inferior my logic simply because you don't care for my argument.

First off, it is generally accepted that the Essenes were the authors, but even that basic premise is still hotly debated.

Secondly, the texts are contemporary with Jesus' time on Earth, yet.....no mention?

Also, did the OT not predict Jesus? So there WAS mention of him in the OT, but NOT in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, if the Dead Sea Scrolls are some kind of companion piece to the bible, it's still interesting that there is no mention of Jesus, either in a prescient or contemporary sense.


I'm simply stating that this is more of the same...the Church is usually behind any obfuscation or historical revision when it comes to anything slightly different that the accepted thinking as outlined and dictated by the Church authorities. One can draw whatever conclusions they'd like from reading about the scrolls, but the Church will always be there to "set the record straight" as to what they "actually" mean...which is pretty much what you just did to me.

No Rev. Most of the texts are NOT contemporary with Jesus, they are before BEFORE the ministry of Jesus. Secondly, the Qumran community was a eschatological community. They believed their OWN teacher of righteousness would come. Matter of fact, they were looking for three distinct types of a messiah, a king, a priest and a teacher, each taking a distinct role to lead the Qumran community in the true faith against the abuses of the priesthood in Jerusalem.

Hence, there SHOULD be no reason for the Dead Sea Scrolls to mention Jesus because 1. Most predate his ministry and 2. Jesus was not an Essene. 3. The Dead Sea Scrolls are simply copies of the OT, interpreations of the OT according to the Qumranic community's eschatological bent, or laws about how to live in the Qumranic community.

Rev. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not Newspapers. They were OT documents and Peshars of the documents, along with rules and teachings of the community.

What you are arguing is the equivalent of someone 2000 years from now finding the constitution of United States and saying, "Well, it doesn't mention Russia, so I guess it didn't exist.

Also, please. The church, ESPECIALLY the Evangelical Conservative church in America, is the REASON these things have seen the light of day.

I have made the offer to another and I will make it to you. If you want, I will give you a reading list of scholarly books both critical of the Dead Sea scrolls and their handling, and ok with it. I can point you to books which list all the scrolls so you can read them for yourself, with the Hebrew/Aramaic to left of the English translation. But seriously. What your alluding to is ludicrous. This is my area of disseration (intertestimental period-beginnings of second temple Judaism). Trust me, there is no "conspiracy" to keep the "truth" down. This is just a bunch of funky interpretations from the OT and laws about the community.

What I am saying is, scholarship on all sides of the issue in dealing with the Dead Sea Scrolls have no problems with the Scrolls and see no discontinuity with Christianity. It is only conspiracy theorists who really see and push discontinuity issues.

As to the Nicea councils and the bible. You couldn't be further off the mark. The gospels were referred to as "the four" about 150 AD. The Pauline Corpus (minus the pastorals) were seen as one in the 200's. The Muratorian canon is a great resource. Revelation and Jude were struggling here and there to be accepted.

As to the burning. Rev, you offend me. Rome was burning CHRISTIANS.... and the documents CHRISTIANS HAD. The reason why there are so few (about 5000 fragments) is because pre-christian Rome had DESTROYED the rest. It was CHRISTIANS who were trying to save them. Please. Put down the conspiracy theory books and pick up scholarly history books concerning textual transmission. Again, even secular sources would be of help. But what you saying here is seriously on the level of Dan Brown.

And yes, I am disappointed. Because we have had discussions before where you have been a whole lot more forthcoming in discussing these issues, a lot more scholarly about it.


Again, if you are interested, I'll put together a bibliography of scholarly writings for you concerning these issues. But I can tell you now, you'll be disappointed. Because nothing of what you are claiming here holds up under peer review, either in the Christian or the secular aspect of the overall academy.

OH... and as to setting the record straight, EXCUSE ME? I believe I document my sources, and offered opposing viewpoints in scholarly material for you to read.

Look, you can look for any reason you want to continue to deny what you have been taught to be true. Someday you will answer to God for that. But LEAVE ME OUT of your conspiracy theories. I have NEVER been ANYTHING but open and honest with you, and am OFFENDED that you would suggest anything but. My disseration will go out for the open scholarly world to read, Christian and secular alike. So there is NO WAY I can hide behind "the church" for stuff like this. If I were to do that, the foundation of ANY material I publish, job I seek, etc. would be destroyed. That little shot was pure ignorance. I have my suspicions as to why, but still like and respect you enough to not put it in public print.

tony hipchest
12-06-2009, 12:50 PM
Oh, and Preach, you're employing "Tony tactics" here, acting like you're disapointed in how inferior my logic simply because you don't care for my argument.

most people dont care for completely bunk arguments.

you might wanna know what the dead sea scrolls actually are, before pretending to be a well educated expert and pulling arguments out of your ass.

ignoring the factual, historical, archeological evidence that preacher and vincent have already offered shows a complete breakdown in reading comprehension and total lack of understanding.

dead sea scrolls = copies of the old testament texts.

you obviously have no idea what their historical relevance is or why they are considered so valuable.

its as if you think they were running millions of copies of the bible off the printing press 2000 years ago and putting them in every village hotel.

think of a honus wagner baseball card or 1st appearance of spider man or superman in a comic book.

its not like ancient manuscripts of the bible were stored in a plastic sleeve for preservation.

if another ancestor to lucy is found = huge find
if another king tut is found = huge find
if a more ancient copy of the rosetta stone is found = huge find
if cave drawings more ancient than at altimira are found = huge find

(this is where revs pulls an LITP tactic and pretends he has no clue of the point being made, or the capabilities to understand the simplest of analogies. ) :hunch:

revefsreleets
12-06-2009, 01:04 PM
I'm not disputing that the DSS exist.

What I'm suggesting is that the message contained in them relative to Christianity today is a little dubious. It's not often that we find unaltered documents that ancient, and these particular documents haven't been filtered through thousands of years of the church "handling" them.

Look, let me break this down for you. If I want to learn about Bigfoot, and make up my own mind as to his existence or non-existence, I'm going to either read a book written by someone who completely believes in him, and someone who completely refutes his existence, and balance the two, or read a book written by a skeptic with no agenda.

I will NOT simply read the book written by the Bigfoot believer, because I can read 100 of those books, by 100 different Bigfoot believers, and the only guarantee I'll have at the end of my reading is that I will have heard absolutely zero conclusions that Bigfoot DOES NOT exist.

That's the grain of salt with which i take in all these discussions. You have been trained, by the church, with a pre-exitsing foregone conclusion in mind, to intellectually argue with skeptics. But NO amount of contrary data, short of Jesus himself stepping down from the clouds and countering what you've been taught, will EVER dissuade you of, well, the faith-based dogma you've been taught....

That's why these kind of arguments are fruitless, and I rarely pursue them anymore.

I question the Church. I question their motives in almost everything they touch. I'm SKEPTICAL. When I was a kid, and not nearly as much was known about the DSS's, I was actually told that SATAN WROTE THEM! Since so little was known at the time, and the unknown or that which COULD run contrary to existing biblical knowledge was to be feared, that was the stance the church took.

So you can see why I might consider the Church's role over the years concerning the DSS a tad nefarious...

Preacher
12-06-2009, 01:57 PM
I'm not disputing that the DSS exist.

What I'm suggesting is that the message contained in them relative to Christianity today is a little dubious. It's not often that we find unaltered documents that ancient, and these particular documents haven't been filtered through thousands of years of the church "handling" them.

Look, let me break this down for you. If I want to learn about Bigfoot, and make up my own mind as to his existence or non-existence, I'm going to either read a book written by someone who completely believes in him, and someone who completely refutes his existence, and balance the two, or read a book written by a skeptic with no agenda.

I will NOT simply read the book written by the Bigfoot believer, because I can read 100 of those books, by 100 different Bigfoot believers, and the only guarantee I'll have at the end of my reading is that I will have heard absolutely zero conclusions that Bigfoot DOES NOT exist.

That's the grain of salt with which i take in all these discussions. You have been trained, by the church, with a pre-exitsing foregone conclusion in mind, to intellectually argue with skeptics. But NO amount of contrary data, short of Jesus himself stepping down from the clouds and countering what you've been taught, will EVER dissuade you of, well, the faith-based dogma you've been taught....

That's why these kind of arguments are fruitless, and I rarely pursue them anymore.

I question the Church. I question their motives in almost everything they touch. I'm SKEPTICAL. When I was a kid, and not nearly as much was known about the DSS's, I was actually told that SATAN WROTE THEM! Since so little was known at the time, and the unknown or that which COULD run contrary to existing biblical knowledge was to be feared, that was the stance the church took.

So you can see why I might consider the Church's role over the years concerning the DSS a tad nefarious...

And that is where you are wrong. I am being trained by academics to engage with academics. At the level I am learning at, when dealing with issues such as the DDS, we must leave faith OUT of the discussion.

Furthermore, the things you are claiming about the DSS simply do not exist.

And lastly, what I have offered is sources from SECULAR ACADEMICS. Why is that threatening?

revefsreleets
12-06-2009, 02:05 PM
What exactly AM I claiming?

That the origin (i.e. who actually wrote them) is in question?
That some of them were written contemporary to Jesus?

I'm wrong about those two assertions?

Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that I was told, when younger, by a Methodist minister, that the scrolls were of Satanic origin? There was a great deal of mystery surrounding the scrolls when I was young.

Concerning your education, may I inquire as to what schools you matriculated from?

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-06-2009, 03:01 PM
This thread is a perfect example of how those who don't understand the Love of Christ, often start confusing HIS attributes with that of religious organizations.

I make no excuse for mankind's twisted version of religion, but I can say that when I take myself and my sinful, selfish barriers out of the equation, there is a loving, perfect God who exists outside of the box we all want to put Him in.

Take me and my pride...times it by 6 billion others with the same sinful nature...and its easy to understand why "religion" and Jesus Christ should not be confused with each other.

I dont want to "prove" God to anyone. I do, however, hope and pray that everyone truly understand Gods salvation message. What they wish to do with that understanding is up to them. I dont think I "win" if someone believes in the same manner as me, I'm rather insignificant in the whole process.

revefsreleets
12-06-2009, 03:14 PM
This thread is a perfect example of how those who don't understand the Love of Christ, often start confusing HIS attributes with that of religious organizations.

I make no excuse for mankind's twisted version of religion, but I can say that when I take myself and my sinful, selfish barriers out of the equation, there is a loving, perfect God who exists outside of the box we all want to put Him in.

Take me and my pride...times it by 6 billion others with the same sinful nature...and its easy to understand why "religion" and Jesus Christ should not be confused with each other.

I dont want to "prove" God to anyone. I do, however, hope and pray that everyone truly understand Gods salvation message. What they wish to do with that understanding is up to them. I dont think I "win" if someone believes in the same manner as me, I'm rather insignificant in the whole process.

My issue is 100% with Religion. Organized, man-made Religion. Just want to clarify.

Preacher
12-06-2009, 07:11 PM
What exactly AM I claiming?

That the origin (i.e. who actually wrote them) is in question?
That some of them were written contemporary to Jesus?

I'm wrong about those two assertions?

Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that I was told, when younger, by a Methodist minister, that the scrolls were of Satanic origin? There was a great deal of mystery surrounding the scrolls when I was young.

Concerning your education, may I inquire as to what schools you matriculated from?

Not quite. You are claiming that by implication, they SHOULD HAVE spoken of Jesus, even though they are a split from Judaism that was waiting for the coming of their own leader.

You are claiming that they INVALIDATE much of what the catholic church says about Jesus.

Those are your own quotes. The fact is, they do no such thing. They have nothing TO DO with Jesus,because the few that actually WERE written after the ministry of Jesus, was STILL concerning the OT, since the Essenes could care less about Itinerate Judaic prophets, as the Essenes (and other Qumranic communities) were all splits away from the leaders of Jerusalem.

And truth be told, I could careless what your Methodist minister told you. I was told by a baptist pastor that drums were of the devil too.

Rev. Its time for you to be dead honest. You could care less about truth or what is historically accurate. You are fighting against shadows of your past that you harbor resentment or anger against. If you can hold on to Evolution just hard enough, and throw just enough dirt on anything Christianity teaches, then you can ignore whatever it is that is eating you up.

That's fine. Its your own choice, but when you start to impugn me as being intellectually dishonest, it stops being your own choice.

Yes, I went to Christian Schools. BUT... (as if you didn't know this...which is why I believe you are trying hard to ignore a truth that is eating away at you) a Ph.D. program is a RESEARCH PROGRAM. The RESEARCH that is done must stand before ALL OF THE ACADEMY--secular and religious alike. So the basic TRUTHS about the Dead Sea Scrolls are that, basic truths which AREN'T IN DISAGREEMENT AMONGST SCHOLARSHIP. Question about who wrote them still exist. But the fields which they impact and don't impace are QUITE CLEAR.

Oh yeah, and HALF my education in my Ph.D. will be taken at UNIVERSITIES... Such as Cal Berkley or UCLA. Maybe even Pit if I can swing it (be there for a semester for football!).

That's right. SECULAR UNIVERSITIES for half my Ph.D. major in Old Testament.

Why? Because my program SPECIFICALLY is designed to overcome bias.

My Professor of record? He's a trustee of ASOR, "American Institution of Oriental Research" which includes THESE schools:
University of California, Berkeley, Prof. Benjamin Porter
University of California, Los Angeles (see Cotsen Institute above)
University of California, San Diego, Judaic Studies Program, Prof. Thomas E. Levy
University of Chicago, Prof. David Schloen
University of Cincinnati, Prof. Gayle McGarrahan
University of Kansas, Prof. Robert Hemenway
University of La Verne, Prof. Jonathan Reed
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Prof. Stephen Von Wyrick
University of Michigan, Prof. Elaine Gazda
University of Missouri, Columbia, Prof. Marcus L. Rautman
University of Nebraska, Omaha, Prof. Rami Arav
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Prof. Jodi Magness
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Prof. James Tabor
University of Notre Dame, Prof. Hugh Page
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Prof. C. Brian Rose
University of the Holy Land, Prof. Stephen Pfann
University of Toronto, Prof. Timothy Harrison
University of Victoria, Prof. John Oleson
Valparaiso University, Prof. Mark Bartusch
as well as

Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Prof. Joe D. Seger
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Prof. William Schniedewind
Dartmouth College, Prof. Susan Ackerman
Harvard University, Semitic Museum, Dr. Joseph Greene
Johns Hopkins University, Prof. Theodore J. Lewis
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Prof. Prudence O. Harper
Missouri State University, Prof. J. E. Llewellyn

There are many Christian universities and seminaries, and some Jewish ones two.

The Christian univer. and seminaries ranger from ultra liberal (deny the diety and some even the existence of Jesus) to very conservative.

It is in THAT atmosphere that MY professor of record has to write and present findings. Do you REALLY think he biases his stuff to Christianity from that? Seriously? He would be eaten alive. He is TRAINING me for THAT type pf atmosphere. Do you really think I WOULD BE biasing MY stuff then? I WOULD BE eaten alive AND FAILED FROM THE PROGRAM.

Again, this isn't like biological science where everyone ASSUMES evolution is truth and works from there. The very foundations are CONTINUALLY challlenged in this atmosphere. It is some of the most HONEST Peer review out there, as it cuts across secular, religious, and denominational lines.

But YOU think YOU know more than secular, liberal religious, and conservative religious scholars? That they are ALL In line to hide the truth? Please.

I offer to you once again... a bibliography of books concerning the Dead Sea Scroll and Textual Transmission. Take it if you truly want to learn. Leave it if you want to remain hidden from what ever it is in your past you are wrestling with. But I am done playing nice to your silly dispersions that are twisting not just belief, but true academic and peer reviewed work--and doing a HECK of a better job with it than the peer review I have seen come out of a lot of the scientific community lately (Global Warming being front and center).

EDIT: Forgive me if I seem just a bit put out. I just came back from Seminar weekend.. and had to do a presentation (theology seminar) from a paper I wrote. So Peer review and Academy are on my mind right now.

tony hipchest
12-06-2009, 08:49 PM
EDIT: Forgive me if I seem just a bit put out. I just came back from Seminar weekend.. and had to do a presentation (theology seminar) from a paper I wrote. So Peer review and Academy are on my mind right now.

no need to apologize. you cant help it if revs knows more about the subject than you.


If you knew 1/100th as much as you THOUGHT you knew, you'd still be 100X smarter than you ACTUALLY are...

:yawn: :rolleyes:

Preacher
12-07-2009, 05:56 AM
I
I will NOT simply read the book written by the Bigfoot believer, because I can read 100 of those books, by 100 different Bigfoot believers, and the only guarantee I'll have at the end of my reading is that I will have heard absolutely zero conclusions that Bigfoot DOES NOT exist.

That's the grain of salt with which i take in all these discussions. You have been trained, by the church, with a pre-exitsing foregone conclusion in mind, to intellectually argue with skeptics. But NO amount of contrary data, short of Jesus himself stepping down from the clouds and countering what you've been taught, will EVER dissuade you of, well, the faith-based dogma you've been taught....
.

So, you won't read about how God may exist from those who believe God exists because those who believe God exists are biased that God exists right?

Let's see if that same logic works here.

I won't read about how evolution is fact from those who believe evolution is fact because those who believe evolution is fact are biased that it is fact... right?

But that must be different. Cause they don't allow critiques of evolution to publish in their journals or belong to scholarly societies that hold opposing opinions. Oh wait, we are talking about biblical scholarship.. forget it. They DO belong to those kind of societies.

Such as,

Society of Blblical Literature (SBL) http://www.sbl-site.org/aboutus.aspx

International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/#ioscs

Not to mention ASOR as listed above and others.

Now, please. Show me Peer Review journals and societies in the sciences where a person that doesn't believe ITS basic belief of evolution is allowed to publish and question? It doesn't exist.

So who, EXACTLY is spewing faith-based dogma? Those who belong to societies that interact with mulitple groups, or those that only listen to others who agree 95 percent with them?

And people wonder why I have such a problem with evolution. Do you really think Elseveir would allow a non-evolution-based discussion in any of their journals? ANything challenging it? How about FIBS or JOBC?

Naa. didn't think so. But Christian scholars are the ones who are pushing dogma right? No peer review. No discussion outside our walls. Only apologetics for them "Church Trained" people.

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 09:28 AM
We have gotten off-task here.

I was wrong about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Catholic Church. I got my arguments tangled up.

I'm actually not all that interested in them other than for the fact that they are interesting archeological and historical finds. I was using this as a springboard into another conversation altogether.

I don't have time to get into it now...but I will later today...and interestingly a lot of this centers on the Evolution debate, so that is a fitting place to leave this for now...

Dino 6 Rings
12-07-2009, 10:06 AM
Jesus still loves you all.

You know...the philosphy of being a good person all the time, and doing good things all the time, and helping your fellow man and of personal self sacrifice...well that's actually a really good philosphy worth following.

You don't need to believe in re-incarnation, or a "one god" concept, or big bang or as my father likes, we are all just germs in a giant aquarium, to realize, if you actually follow the teachings of Jesus...Be Good. Avoid Being Evil at all costs, feel bad if you do have a slip up, which we will because we are human, but try try try to be as good as you can possibly be, well you'll have a really good happy life. We all face tragedy, we all face adversity, its how you tackle those issues, how you respond, that really determines what type of person you are, and whether or not in the end, you can look back and say to yourself..."yeah...I did my best" or..."Dang...I fcked up alot".

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 02:14 PM
Ok, I have a chance to address this a little more thoroughly now...

First off, Preach, I respect the fact that you have advanced degrees...I know the time and effort and energy that goes into pursuing them.

But when I first started looking into some of our other arguments, I noticed some disturbing things. We were discussing evolution, and you were equipped with some very highbrow arguments.

The Scopes trial started some of this in the 20's. By the 60's, the, um....(have to be careful about how I characterize this) conservative voices of Christianity had formed some pretty solid bases as far as providing alternative "Christian Harvard's" to combat non-believers with an army of "Christian Scientists" (not to be confused with those of the eponymous Religion), who could do battle with secular scientists on their own turf.

That's kind of what we have done when we've sparred, although I'm simply a layman and not properly equipped for this type of debate. You represent the conservative Christian interest, and I represent (rather poorly) the secular humanist interest.

I digress....In other words, there was a concerted effort by conservative Christians to create outlets (colleges) and clearinghouses of knowledge (their own publishing houses) that would further a system that supports science as it relates to commerce (in the interests of Capitalism), and narrow science into terms where the facts conform to biblical narratives.***

Let me illustrate with a real-World example. Liberty College REQUIRES every student to take a course called "Creationist Studies". They also vehemently deny Evolution and REFUSE to teach it! The accepted scientific theory as to the origins of man, and this accredited (!!!!) college refuses to offer a single course on it. In fact, Liberty has teams of Creationist lawyers, scientists and professors who TEACH their students how to defend creationism and refute Evolution. What's more, Liberty teaches "Young Creationism", the literal translation of the bible where God created everything in 7 days and the World is less than 10,000 years old. I simply cannot imagine going to school and being taught to DENY accepted scientific theory, let alone being taught how to refute it. There are no Biology classes where you learn to dispute Creationism.

What's most odd about that is that science, at it's heart, is about "testability", and creationism was, is, and will forevermore be untestable. I also don't understand why micro-evolution is acceptable, but macro is dismissed out of hand? Also, when the geological evidence is studied, it makes it kind of hard to balance the "Liberty view" that only the bible is needed to date the Earth. Is God trying to trick us all with geological evidence that refutes the literal interpretation of his own word?

Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands with a FIRM ready-made conclusion in mind that CREATIONISM was fact, and the empirical data he gathered changed his mind. He began with one premise firmly in mind and the overwhelming evidence that barraged him led him to the OPPOSITE conclusions. Yet, when that is brought up, the stance Creationists take is to refute his scientific method. Yes, he made mistakes. Yes, the theory wasn't perfect. But what theory ever is, especially in it's genesis? Creationists get a little obsessive over that facet of their argument.

Evolution occurs. THAT is now indisputable fact. The only thing that can really be argued is as to how much of a role does Natural Selection play in evolution. Is it the sole force driving evolution? That's up for debate.

Anyway, to bring this back around, we were discussing Jesus. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then a bunch of other stuff. We can keep talking about these things if you like, but please don't pidgeonhole or categorize me based on just a few things I said in one thread where I talked out of turn. I wanted to lay some of this stuff out there because I think it's germane to us continuing further discourse on the subject. No need to get emotional or inflammatory....I also realized I just laid out a whole MESS of stuff in kind of a scatterbrained fashion, but I just kind of let my mind wonder in a stream-of-consciousness sort of way...

I have a couple other things, too, but this is quite enough for now...


***I have some Noah's Ark stuff realted to this train of thought for later

Preacher
12-07-2009, 07:50 PM
Ok, I have a chance to address this a little more thoroughly now...

First off, Preach, I respect the fact that you have advanced degrees...I know the time and effort and energy that goes into pursuing them.

Revs . . . Thank you. THAT is the kind of thoughtful argumentation I am used to hearing from you, and am more than willing to engage with you.

I understand what you are saying about some colleges. However, I didn't go to any of those colleges. I took one class in school called "World View" and frankly, I was shocked that all they did was set up straw-man arguments. I got in a little bit of trouble because I said so to the professor as well.

No, what you hear me debating, comes from thinking through my high-school and college biology, and then applying what I know of deconstructionism (Derrida) along with historical progress of philosphy to the theories. My mark in the academy will be made not in depth, but in the breadth of discussion. I am very strong at see connections and disconnections across a span, weaker at the narrow, deep issues.

What you have seen me arguing when it comes to evolution, is basically what I have learned about Religiongeschicte (the application of Hegel to religious history) and the Marxism (I was a poly sci major in school my first two years). Seeing Hegel being thrown out in both of those schools of thought, I started look for the same pattern elsewhere, and came to evolution. That created a MAJOR question in my mind about why the source philosophy has never been questioned, and how all findings are seen from within the philosophy.

From that point, I got interested in how their peer-reviewed work dealt the issue, and was quite surprised to find that they are very narrow, not allowing questioning of the foundational philosophy behind the science.

I come to this problem truly not from my faith, but from the influence of deconstructionism. Even if I reject faith, I can't accept evolution because the metanarrative is too tainted, proven false in two distinct schools, and never truly assailed from within, as religiongeschicte (and later the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule developed from Ritschl), and Marxism was (in real life).

At its heart, what has me about evolution is the testibility issue. I have never seen cross-species evolution be tested. I have only seen things found and shoe-horned into a evolutionary argument. Micro evolution is accepted because it is testable. It has happened before our eyes.

The problem, in the end, is that Macro evolution cuts across too many grains of science which the scientist has to ignore in order to accept. I remember being in biology class and asking about "if life only comes from life, then where was the beginning of evolution?" The answer was that the first thing simply attained life (which violates the very law I was asking about).

When I argued in here about a "Fallacy of correlation" it came not from a discussion on evolution, but actually a paper I wrote concerning post-conservative theology. Post-liberal and post-conservative theology correlates in their use of metanarrative quite well. In the question and answer session of my presentation, I discussed why they are not connected, and used that term "Fallacy of Correlation." That night, thinking through the paper and the Q and A, it struck me how that perfectly explains what I think has happened in teh evolution debate. Just because they look alike doesn't mean they are alike.

_________

What is the most interesting, is that if you dig into what is happening between ID (intelligent design) and evolution debates, you will find the exact same thing is happening to those who promote ID as those who promote that Global Warming is a fraud. Their papers gets rejected out of hand by peer review journals because they are not accepting the foundational philosophy (not science, philosophy). Then, the scientific establishment turns around and asks, "Why aren't any of you published in peer review?"

It is disconcerting to say the least. The funny think is, intelligent design or evolution, nothing changes in research and application. It is all about a foundational theory of existence.

stlrtruck
12-09-2009, 10:40 AM
I think the group DOWNHERE put it best in their song "How Many Kings":

How many kings, stepped down from their thrones?
How many lords have abandoned their homes?
How many greats have become the least for me?
How many Gods have poured out their hearts
To romance a world that has torn all apart?
How many fathers gave up their sons for me?
Only one did that for me

All for me
All for you
All for me
All for you

http://www.lyrics-celebrities.anekatips.com/how-many-kings-lyrics-downhere

revefsreleets
12-09-2009, 03:35 PM
Preach, there is a LOT of ground to cover there...I can't do it all at once...just don't have time, and I hate to do this piecemeal, because I'll never get anywhere as the debate will spin off due to the short form answers...

Preacher
12-11-2009, 03:20 AM
Preach, there is a LOT of ground to cover there...I can't do it all at once...just don't have time, and I hate to do this piecemeal, because I'll never get anywhere as the debate will spin off due to the short form answers...

That's the normal problem with discussions on open threads.