The Passion

[Legion]

Bleh you're generalizing again... since when did I say nothing in this world can be arrived at with hard facts... Its you who assumes our limited science and abilities can investigate anything.

Im done we'll try again in 6 months or so

I am not generalizing anything. I am merely requesting you provide answer to my questions concerning your alledged evidence. You simply refuse to comply.

 

[V3]

No, they aren't "incomplete." They are wrong. Notice the repeated misappropriation of father son relations. This isn't a case of some one leaving information out. This is a case of bs being forged to suit the purpose of a propaganda movement.

The term begat, in the original Greek, gennao cannot be narrowly construed to mean only biological conception. It has many abstract meanings, including produce and bring forth.

I already told you Matthew pick and choose, to fit his 14, 14, 14 generations.

There isn't a shread of evidence in the bible that indicates Mary is of the line of David or for that matter who her parents are. There is however an indication she is a levite. Mary's relative, Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, who as anyone who has read the bible should know was a Levite (Exodus 4:14).

Aren't we just talking about Luke 3 ? But what's the use, even if it is in the Bible, its just a bunch of propaganda to you.

There are apochryphal writings that said Mary's mother St Ann is of the house of Levi and Mary's father St Joachim is of the house of Judah. Again just propaganda to you.

Bullshit. You are attempting to use Christian dogma to defend your argument in a circular fashion. Of course Christian NT will reflect their acceptance of his Davidic lineage as they can not deny it. Ergo, they invented this nonsense.

I am just using the Bible at the moment, my argument will always be circular.

What else can I use ? Babylonian Talmuld ?

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was near to the kingship.'

What a weak argument.

It maybe weak now, but who knows.

 

[Guden Oden]

Lets see, God could appear in the sky, and start raining down new testaments or something ridiculous.. Such that I wasn't the only one seeing him.

Why not have It simply stop man's cruelty towards his fellow man (and woman, for that matter), that would be miraculous enough and would do us as a species far more good than having stupid bibles rained down on us.

Problem is, gods don't do personal appearances anymore like they did in ancient times because they NEVER APPEARED IN THE FIRST PLACE, all we ever had backing up their existence were myths. The bible itself is all the evidence we need of that. The old testiment is full of typical myths and moral stories intended to explain why things are the way they are to people who lack every ounce of understanding about stuff like the sciences and biology and such.

The story of the flood is one such example that completely falls on its own unreasonableness, you couldn't fit two of the world's land animals and the food they need for a voyage of more than 2 months into a vehicle of the dimensions mentioned in the bible AND even if you could, there's no way a single family could have constructed said vehicle and gathered all the animals in the time allotted (or even in their lifetime). And even if one just accepts all that as the result of divine intervention (including the question of where all the billions of times more water than what exists in our oceans required to completely flood our planet came from and where it went), what of the horrifying acts of incest that would have to take place to repopulate our planet (and the curious LACK of genetic similarities that would be the results of such incest). Finally... How did we all SEE before the flood?

If one accepts the flood itself as truth, one would have to accept the presence of rainbows in our skies as evidence more global floods will not occur. But rainbows are a meteorological and optical phenomenon they did not understand in ancient times; rainbows are there because of light refracting in water droplets. If there was no rainbows before the flood, there could not have been refraction, and hence, the eye would not be able to focus. Indeed, the entire sky would have changed color the instant this new-fangled rainbow thing appeared for the first time, something I believe the witnesses would have reacted to in a far stronger manner.

One could deconstruct the tower of babel in a similar manner too, or indeed, most of the other mythical stories in the bible, but I've typed enough for one post now.

 

[Legion]

The term begat, in the original Greek, gennao cannot be narrowly construed to mean only biological conception. It has many abstract meanings, including produce and bring forth.

I already told you Matthew pick and choose, to fit his 14, 14, 14 generations.

Like i said, he bs'ed a lineage. Its is a complete fabrication that in no way validates the Jesus' lineage to david. Likewise Luke's lineage is simply corrupt.

Aren't we just talking about Luke 3 ? But what's the use, even if it is in the Bible, its just a bunch of propaganda to you.

There are apochryphal writings that said Mary's mother St Ann is of the house of Levi and Mary's father St Joachim is of the house of Judah. Again just propaganda to you.

Oh course its just propaganda. The church itself decided for generations to exclude these books from the bible for a whole host of reasons. Notice that none of the cannon ever mentions Mary's lineage, nor is it truly significant other then the fact that intermarrying between tribes is a corruption of Jewish law.

Your so called apochryphal writings likewise do not provide Mary's father's lineage and is not varified anywhere else in the bible.

I am just using the Bible at the moment, my argument will always be circular.

What else can I use ? Babylonian Talmuld ?

How about external sources that verify your claims?

 

[Hubert]

All this talk is pointless.

You can't understand these thing's on a mental level.
The mind is just a tool.
I don't say you can't learn anything from someone having real knowledge, if that person takes the risk to appear ridiculous to you.

Actually, I believe that's why John's Revelation is probably the most interesting.

 

[ninelven]

edited

 

[Legion]

Since when does being omniscient have anything to do with foreknowledge?

Since when is the state of knowing all limited to knowledge of the present?

One doesn’t; that is the point.

The point is thousands of gods have been created by man. Blind faith in any of them is simply that; blind.

The Bible tells us what other people experienced and believed because of those experiences.

This can not be confirmed. There is no manner by which you can defend the argument the Bible was written with regards to actual occurances of supernatural origin.

I can only offer my reason why I believe in most of the text: that the bible contains many sophisticated philosophical truths revealed at a time when man would likely have been unable to understand all of these concepts on his own in the given situation.

This is likewise impossible to prove. How can you possibly judge what a person at any given time could understand? Obviously Jesus' followers followed him because they supported his ideologies. Ergo they must have been wanting the same thing as Jesus (assuming the stories are true). This perspective is hopelessly myopic though. Its clear the savior form of Jesus was not limited to him as a collective of savior cults were on the rise in Rome at the time.

It is my understanding that hell isn’t eternal, but that eventually God permanently kills those beings.

This doesn't strike you as obtuse? What is the necessity for a pit of horrible pain and suffering?

How does knowing/seeing all that is equal knowledge of the future?

Again, how is knowing all limited to what occurs in the past and or present?

As far as I am aware, the concept of predetermination is a Calvinistic creation.

Point being? Christian religiocity is a creation of the early church.

Are you trying to suggest the vary notion of predestination did not exist prior to Calvinistic teachings? Do you think he invented his reasonings?

This is true and perfectly legitimate.

How on earth can you make such a leap from reason to madness? How can you love some one and threaten them with pain and torment if they do not love you in return?

The reason why is because of what God represents – the good.

Why? Because he says so? He is at the heart of the most distructive acts within the bible. I do not see him as a force of good at all. I see him as a force of rage, childlike jealousy, and arrogance.

If one is not devoted to the good, then one is not doing something constructive with their existence, and thus one’s life contains no relevance.

All in the eyes of the God perhaps. Its hard to render something irrelevant you once claimed to love.

I would also point out the
unproductive nature of evil by which one becomes a detriment, but I am not certain it would matter.

Yet God has destroyed the world in a great flood and is "good".

Well, ideally we should all love each other. If a person stopped loving what is good, then their fate should not be a surprise.

You aren't answering the question though. What is good is subjective.

I found this quote quite amusing as Jesus said those that enter the kingdom of God will be like children (or something to that effect ).

I don't find it humorous at all. You'd have to have a childlike incapacity to reason to continue to blindly serve a nonexistant deity such as God.

This is faulty logic. If God showed himself to a person, the person would simply know of him. Believing in God would not be required as is evidenced by the case of Lucifer and the angels that fell.

This is not faulty logic at all. Believing in something is really the acknowledgement of its existance.

Lucifer certainly believes in God. He simply chooses neither to worship nor serve him.

Jesus performed a few miracles and indeed was said to rise from the dead, yet people still killed him and do not believe in him.

Please provide any historical sources that provide evidence of these occurances outside of the use of biblical sources.

I would say requiring evidence is anti-Christian. It is a self defeating enterprise.

If believing in something you without evidence is your forte then you can expect to be labeled irrational and illogical.

Does ones belief in good and evil apply here. There are many things humanity believes in which are just unverifiable concepts and ideas. In fact, I would imagine we all believe in at least one thing of this nature.

I don't see Good or Evil anywhere in the quote you replied to.

Whether we believe in something or not bares little significance or relevance to its existance. I can believe in a purple elephant i think lives in my back yard. Doing so does not make the elephant real.

I was not aware of any such dogma. Would someone be kind enough to provide me with a written source. Furthermore, I fail to see what human religious institutions have to do with the truths of God. I think it has been fairly established that we are far from perfect.

The matter of God changing is readily identifiable in the NT. No longer is God an involved warmongerer but a distant, loving, yet personal God.

On several occasions I have prayed for various things, and gotten immediate results. I have know idea if this was the work of God, a greater being than I, or purely coincidence, but the personal experience was certainly initially surprising to me. The only other personal evidence I can offer is that now I can look in a mirror and realize what I see is not me.

I am confused. You reply as though what you stated above were evidence and then later refute it stating you have no way of decerning whether it is evidence or not.

Verify that it is not. Both are hypocritical statements.

No, not at all. He made a positive claim which can not be reinforced by the unsupported counter-notion. neither are inherently true ergo one can not be used to support or refute the other.

There is no sufficient proof for those who do not want to believe.

This smacks of circular reasoning. In order to have "evidence" you must first believe?

How could these deities possess these qualities if they didn’t exist. Furthermore, God represents everything not one specific idea.

How could Darth Vader possess such rage and hatred for the Jedi if he like wise does not exist?

Clearly Darth Vader does not exist. He is a character within a story.

If one could, then it would be his knowledge not his belief. No one can force a person to believe that the good is worthwhile, and that evil/destruction is useless; this is a decision an individual must make for the self, and probably criterion for judgment

You jump to making conclusions that God is good without any means by which to prove this.

 

[Legion]

Since when does being omniscient have anything to do with foreknowledge?

Since when is the state of knowing all limited to knowledge of the present?

One doesn’t; that is the point.

The point is thousands of gods have been created by man. Blind faith in any of them is simply that; blind.

The Bible tells us what other people experienced and believed because of those experiences.

This can not be confirmed. There is no manner by which you can defend the argument the Bible was written with regards to actual occurances of supernatural origin.

I can only offer my reason why I believe in most of the text: that the bible contains many sophisticated philosophical truths revealed at a time when man would likely have been unable to understand all of these concepts on his own in the given situation.

This is likewise impossible to prove. How can you possibly judge what a person at any given time could understand? Obviously Jesus' followers followed him because they supported his ideologies. Ergo they must have been wanting the same thing as Jesus (assuming the stories are true). This perspective is hopelessly myopic though. Its clear the savior form of Jesus was not limited to him as a collective of savior cults were on the rise in Rome at the time.

It is my understanding that hell isn’t eternal, but that eventually God permanently kills those beings.

This doesn't strike you as obtuse? What is the necessity for a pit of horrible pain and suffering?

How does knowing/seeing all that is equal knowledge of the future?

Again, how is knowing all limited to what occurs in the past and or present?

As far as I am aware, the concept of predetermination is a Calvinistic creation.

Point being? Christian religiocity is a creation of the early church.

Are you trying to suggest the vary notion of predestination did not exist prior to Calvinistic teachings? Do you think he invented his reasonings?

This is true and perfectly legitimate.

How on earth can you make such a leap from reason to madness? How can you love some one and threaten them with pain and torment if they do not love you in return?

The reason why is because of what God represents – the good.

Why? Because he says so? He is at the heart of the most distructive acts within the bible. I do not see him as a force of good at all. I see him as a force of rage, childlike jealousy, and arrogance.

If one is not devoted to the good, then one is not doing something constructive with their existence, and thus one’s life contains no relevance.

All in the eyes of the God perhaps. Its hard to render something irrelevant you once claimed to love.

I would also point out the
unproductive nature of evil by which one becomes a detriment, but I am not certain it would matter.

Yet God has destroyed the world in a great flood and is "good".

Well, ideally we should all love each other. If a person stopped loving what is good, then their fate should not be a surprise.

You aren't answering the question though. What is good is subjective.

I found this quote quite amusing as Jesus said those that enter the kingdom of God will be like children (or something to that effect ).

I don't find it humorous at all. You'd have to have a childlike incapacity to reason to continue to blindly serve a nonexistant deity such as God.

This is faulty logic. If God showed himself to a person, the person would simply know of him. Believing in God would not be required as is evidenced by the case of Lucifer and the angels that fell.

This is not faulty logic at all. Believing in something is really the acknowledgement of its existance.

Lucifer certainly believes in God. He simply chooses neither to worship nor serve him.

Jesus performed a few miracles and indeed was said to rise from the dead, yet people still killed him and do not believe in him.

Please provide any historical sources that provide evidence of these occurances outside of the use of biblical sources.

I would say requiring evidence is anti-Christian. It is a self defeating enterprise.

If believing in something without evidence is your forte then you can expect to be labeled irrational and illogical.

Does ones belief in good and evil apply here. There are many things humanity believes in which are just unverifiable concepts and ideas. In fact, I would imagine we all believe in at least one thing of this nature.

I don't see Good or Evil anywhere in the quote you replied to.

Whether we believe in something or not bares little significance or relevance to its existance. I can believe in a purple elephant i think lives in my back yard. Doing so does not make the elephant real.

I was not aware of any such dogma. Would someone be kind enough to provide me with a written source. Furthermore, I fail to see what human religious institutions have to do with the truths of God. I think it has been fairly established that we are far from perfect.

The matter of God changing is readily identifiable in the NT. No longer is God an involved warmongerer but a distant, loving, yet personal God.

On several occasions I have prayed for various things, and gotten immediate results. I have know idea if this was the work of God, a greater being than I, or purely coincidence, but the personal experience was certainly initially surprising to me. The only other personal evidence I can offer is that now I can look in a mirror and realize what I see is not me.

I am confused. You reply as though what you stated above were evidence and then later refute it stating you have no way of decerning whether it is evidence or not.

Verify that it is not. Both are hypocritical statements.

No, not at all. He made a positive claim which can not be reinforced by the unsupported counter-notion. neither are inherently true ergo one can not be used to support or refute the other.

There is no sufficient proof for those who do not want to believe.

This smacks of circular reasoning. In order to have "evidence" you must first believe?

How could these deities possess these qualities if they didn’t exist. Furthermore, God represents everything not one specific idea.

How could Darth Vader possess such rage and hatred for the Jedi if he like wise does not exist?

Clearly Darth Vader does not exist. He is a character within a story.

If one could, then it would be his knowledge not his belief. No one can force a person to believe that the good is worthwhile, and that evil/destruction is useless; this is a decision an individual must make for the self, and probably criterion for judgment

You jump to making conclusions that God is good without any means by which to prove this.