Mormons (or church of latter-day saints)

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

In brief - Herod never carried out a slaugher of the innocents. No census as described occurred during his Reign. Theres the problem of Jesus method of execution in Roman and Jewish tradition.

The slaughter as you described it would have been a few children killed as Bethlehem was quite small at that time.
And for Herod to have committed such a crime would not have been out of the orinary.

Yes there was a census. It occured during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC and when Quirinius was of Syria and Galicai from 11 BC. I know you going to get jumpy and say , but wait, Quirinius didnt start ruling until 6 AD. It has been discovered that there was another Quirinius who began ruling in 11 BC.

What is the problem between Roman execution and Jewish tradition that you are speaking of?

BrianCalgary

Skadi wrote: »

Just to put you straight, Mormon religion places as much emphasis on the OT and NT as the book of mormon. They also have other scriptures called the "Doctrine and Covenants" and "The pearl of great price".

Maybe the version of the bible they take is different from the one you read, for they follow the King James version but believe that not all parts were correctly translated. Where they disagree with translation they give a reason which is often a pretty logical explanation.

Do you take the word of the pope as the word of god? Mormon believe that their living prophet speaks for God, so of course they take his words and counsel as truth and guidance as well.

I am very well aware of all the books that Mormons use. I live in the heartland of Mormonism in Canada.

They use the KJV and claim it is not translated properly, no big deal, I agreew with them. More modern translations as translated form teh original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are very accurate.

The explanation may be sound logical but they aren't.

Why would you ask if I take the word of the Pope as the word of God? I don't. Never have and never will. I take the Word of God as being teh Word of God (The Bible).

You make this statement:
Mormon believe that their living prophet speaks for God, so of course they take his words and counsel as truth and guidance as well.

The Bible tells us to test all against the Word of God to determine whether or not someone is a false prophet. The Mormon prophets havd contradicted teh Biblr and therefore have failed this test. The Mormon Church is led by false prophets.

BrianCalgary

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My grandmother converted to Momonism when she was in her late 40's, after a lifetime as an agnostic.

South park actually portrays them in a fair and accurate light; they're uncannily friendly (a bit too friendly :pac:), always happy, they don't have vices like drinking coffee or tea, or anything "hot".

Apart from their *new* beliefs, they aren't any zanier than other christian sects. What does it matter if Jesus died in west Asia or South America, right?

I find them to be very tolerable.

Now, the fundamentalist church...they're a bunch of pedophiles.

They do drink tea and coffee and drink coke.

What does it matter if he where Jesus died? it is a matter of truth.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible doesn't actually say that much about the nature of God. Passages such as "I am the alpha and omega" can be interpreted in various different ways.
.

Wicknight sometimes you show such ignorance. I can't tell you how misguided this satement is. The entire Bible reveals the nature of God.

Please stop it. You are getting rather tiresome. :mad:

The Bible is clear on the nature of God beingthree persons. We have been over this a number of times since I have been on the boards. Or you have conveniently ignored all the evidence that shows this particular theology. What other stuff do you ignore to suit your own view?

Mormons claim otherwise. They are not interpreting the same passages, they are interpreting some passages in order to suit their point of view. Something I would say makes you a kin.

ChocolateSauce

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? You have the statistics to justify that assertion? A comparison of the Fundamentalist churches with Liberal churches, the Roman Catholic and with the Mormon?

We are well aware of the RC figures, and I hear of the occasional fundamentalist, but I have never heard it to be widespread among them.

Here's a bit on paedophilia and Mormonism - seems they share more than just infallibility and a sacred priesthood with Roman Catholicism:
http://nowscape.com/atheism/mo_pedophile.htm

The fundamentalist Church of Latter-day saints, aka the Fundamentalist branch of Mormons, practice polygamy, and are infamous for regularly marrying off girls under 18, sometimes as young as 13 or 14, to much, much older men, frequently uncles or cousins.

Brian wrote:

They do drink tea and coffee and drink coke.

What does it matter if he where Jesus died? it is a matter of truth.

Strict Mormons do not drink anything "hot". This can be widely interpreted to mean anything which burns (like alcohol), and since coffee and tea are usually served hot, they extend this definition to include any stimulant found in hot drinks, like caffeine, which is found in coke. This is all according to my Mormon family members (all 3 of then).

As for where Jesus died and does it matter, that is a theological argument which I don't really care to address in detail. I'll just state that I don't think Jesus, if he existed, should matter.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Nope, read up on teh Davinci code there is nothing to show the any organisation exists today that derived from teh Knights Templar in order to preserve the Holy Grail. The Priory of Sion was something taht was made up in teh late 50's.

I think, unsurprisingly, you are missing the point somewhat, though you also sort of make my point.

You said this:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The NT does mention places and names and all have been shown to be accurate.

I then said so does the Da Vinci Code, and it does, it mentions Paris & London, to name but two. It also mentions several people that we know, historically existed. The point being, just because you get a few historical names and places right does not mean the book is "The Truth (TM)"

And besides, is there some some debate as to just how historically accurate the NT is? Obviously the people raising these doubts are unlikely to have "hearts filled with the holy spirit (TM)" but it is still not 100% in favour of it being accurate.

MrP

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

I think, unsurprisingly, you are missing the point somewhat, though you also sort of make my point.

I then said so does the Da Vinci Code, and it does, it mentions Paris & London, to name but two. It also mentions several people that we know, historically existed. The point being, just because you get a few historical names and places right does not mean the book is "The Truth (TM)"

And besides, is there some some debate as to just how historically accurate the NT is? Obviously the people raising these doubts are unlikely to have "hearts filled with the holy spirit (TM)" but it is still not 100% in favour of it being accurate.

MrP

I understand yoour point, thanks for the clarification.

However, there is plenty within teh Da Vinci Code that is not accurate. Whereas in the NT at least, all the events spoken of that can be determined through archaeology have been discovered to be higly accurate.

Hence, if the author is accurate on those points that have been shown to be accurate it is surmised, not just with teh Bible but any document, that a credibility has been established and the author is indeed being truthful.

To give a point, wicknight has read so much into the article on the nurse being disciplined and has stated so much in error on what the Bible and history says that he has lost all credibility on aything in my books. I just do not believe a word he says anymore.

BrianCalgary

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The fundamentalist Church of Latter-day saints, aka the Fundamentalist branch of Mormons, practice polygamy, and are infamous for regularly marrying off girls under 18, sometimes as young as 13 or 14, to much, much older men, frequently uncles or cousins. .

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Strict Mormons do not drink anything "hot". This can be widely interpreted to mean anything which burns (like alcohol), and since coffee and tea are usually served hot, they extend this definition to include any stimulant found in hot drinks, like caffeine, which is found in coke. This is all according to my Mormon family members (all 3 of then). .

I understand that, yet the number of strict Mormons on such topics is not I would say that high.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As for where Jesus died and does it matter, that is a theological argument which I don't really care to address in detail. I'll just state that I don't think Jesus, if he existed, should matter.

It nmatters hugely and hits my points on Mormonism, they do not know who Jesus is. Where and how hHe died is not theology but history.

Rev Hellfire

BrianCalgary wrote: »

However, there is plenty within teh Da Vinci Code that is not accurate. Whereas in the NT at least, all the events spoken of that can be determined through archaeology have been discovered to be higly accurate.

Hence, if the author is accurate on those points that have been shown to be accurate it is surmised, not just with teh Bible but any document, that a credibility has been established and the author is indeed being truthful.

That's not strictly true, surely the NT is not important as a historical text book, but rather as a document detailing the life and teaching of jesus.
Just as the Da Vinci Code's important elements aren't the historical references it contains but the story of the main players in its narrative, the history it includes is window dressing. Interesting yes, but secondary to the main story.

Likewise with the NT (and Old), you'd expect there to be some historical ties to events at the time of its writing or events it references. But its the main player Jesus that matters.

I'm not aware of any verifiable evidence concerning the acts that Jesus performed.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknight sometimes you show such ignorance. I can't tell you how misguided this satement is. The entire Bible reveals the nature of God.

The entire Bible?? That is just nonsense hyperbole. It is like saying the entire works of Shakespeare reveal his love of humanity. :rolleyes:

What is God made of. Where does he exist. What does the Bible mean when it says God "created" the universe. How does God think. What does time appear like to God.

etc etc etc

None of these questions are answered in the Bible. The Mormons religion has expanded on some of the nature of God through newer interpretation. You guys say that can't work because of the framework you have developed from interpretation, not because of what the Bible actually says.

Both Christians and Mormons are trying to figure out what it means when the Bible refers to God as "one" in some parts and plural or as multiple entities, in other parts.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Bible is clear on the nature of God beingthree persons.

The Bible is as clear as mud though on what that actually means. Three entities are mentioned (the father, the son, the holy spirit), but it was early Christians who were left to figure out what that means, and came up with the doctrine of the Trinity (a word never mentioned in the Bible)

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

However, there is plenty within teh Da Vinci Code that is not accurate. Whereas in the NT at least, all the events spoken of that can be determined through archaeology have been discovered to be higly accurate.

That is nonsense. Hardly any of the events described in the New Testament are verified through archaeology, and quite a few are contradicted by historical records.

If you think the New Testament has been verified as more accurate than the Da Vinci Code, the latest Sex and the City movie (yes New York existed, and it was hard for single women), you are very very much mistaken.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

To give a point, wicknight has read so much into the article on the nurse being disciplined and has stated so much in error on what the Bible and history says that he has lost all credibility on aything in my books. I just do not believe a word he says anymore.

You never believed a word I said Brain, and that is hardly surprising when you come out with nonsense like what you have said above.

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknoght unfortunately you repeatedly show ignorance of hirstorical fact.

Historically there was a group of paople referred to as the habiru who came out of Egeypt crossed the Sinai and settled in the region west of teh Jordan, conquering as they went.

Theres no evidence for a massive Jewish slave population in Egypt in that period (or any other, for that matter). Nor is there any evidence for the fighting between the Caananites and the Israelites as described in the Bible.

The slaughter as you described it would have been a few children killed as Bethlehem was quite small at that time.
And for Herod to have committed such a crime would not have been out of the orinary.

There is no record of it outside one Gospel, as far as I recall. In addition, and in connection with the census, its highly unlikely that there was any requirement to travel to Bethlehem, thus further undermining the idea.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

That is nonsense. Hardly any of the events described in the New Testament are verified through archaeology, and quite a few are contradicted by historical records.

If you think the New Testament has been verified as more accurate than the Da Vinci Code, the latest Sex and the City movie (yes New York existed, and it was hard for single women), you are very very much mistaken.

Wicknight you are so full of nonsense it amazes me. :mad: They think themselves wise yet they are fools.

Almost all of the events and places in the NT have been verified through archaelogical finds.

Name one that hasn't?

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

Theres no evidence for a massive Jewish slave population in Egypt in that period (or any other, for that matter). Nor is there any evidence for the fighting between the Caananites and the Israelites as described in the Bible.

There is no record of it outside one Gospel, as far as I recall. In addition, and in connection with the census, its highly unlikely that there was any requirement to travel to Bethlehem, thus further undermining the idea.

Oh my goodness:

Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt:
Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own houses, that they may carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.

So yes, Rome had census' and required that everyone return to their ancestral homes and yes one was held around 4 BC.

And since Bethlehem was the City of David, Joseph woul dhave been required to go there with his betrothed.

As for the Israelites and Canaanits I dont have the info here with me, but it does exist.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

You never believed a word I said Brain, and that is hardly surprising when you come out with nonsense like what you have said above.

Go back and read post 113 of that thread and you will see where you wrre making assumptions and reading into a document to suit your own purposes. I have come to the conclusion that you have shown no interest in seeking out truth. You continue to raise the same old trash that you raise although you are given evidence to the contrary.

To compare the Da Vanci code as a story based on historical truth has been overwhelmingly nonsense yet it gets raised as such from thoise who claim to know?

C'mon. :mad::mad:

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

The entire Bible?? That is just nonsense hyperbole. It is like saying the entire works of Shakespeare reveal his love of humanity. :rolleyes:

What is God made of. Where does he exist. What does the Bible mean when it says God "created" the universe. How does God think. What does time appear like to God.

etc etc etc

None of these questions are answered in the Bible. The Mormons religion has expanded on some of the nature of God through newer interpretation. You guys say that can't work because of the framework you have developed from interpretation, not because of what the Bible actually says.

Both Christians and Mormons are trying to figure out what it means when the Bible refers to God as "one" in some parts and plural or as multiple entities, in other parts.


The Bible is as clear as mud though on what that actually means. Three entities are mentioned (the father, the son, the holy spirit), but it was early Christians who were left to figure out what that means, and came up with the doctrine of the Trinity (a word never mentioned in the Bible)

Try reading it wicknight. The Bible shows God's nature as being a nature of love.

Who gives a rats butt whether or not the word Trinity is ever mentioned, that is an argument I only ever hear from those who really know nothing about Christianity and history.

It is a word used to describe in human terms what God is.

The trinitarian concept is quite clear throughout biblical passages. Does it surprise me that you can't see it? Not really.

God is spirit, There that ones answered.
God exists everywhere, there so is that.
It means that He created the universe, He spoke it into existence, ther another answered.
Time to God is as folows: a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years I belive is the quote.
God thinks quite rationally and with purpose.

There answered them all. As for Mormonism bringing a new interpretation on teh deal, they can if they please but it contradict Biblical truth.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Name one that hasn't?

You can't be serious?

Ok, off the top of my head, events in the Bible that have not been confirmed by archaeological evidence.

- The census of Quirinius
- The birth of Jesus
- The journey of the wise men
- The slaying of the children
- Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist
- Jesus teaching and healing in Galilee
- Matthew being a tax collector in Capernaum
- The sermon on the mount
- Jesus in Jerusalem
- Jesus in the temple
- Jesus arrest and execution
- Jesus resurrection
- Jesus tomb (empty or otherwise)
- Romans guarding Jesus tomb
- Jesus appearing after his death

So, to some up, the vast majority of it :rolleyes:

We have non-Christian sources for John the baptist, and we have non-Christian sources that there were Christians in the middle of the 1st century. That is about it.

We have archaeological evidence that the places described existed, but not any for the events that are supposed to have taken place at them. Which is a bit like saying the Da Vinci Code is probably real because Paris exists.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Bible shows God's nature as being a nature of love.

A "nature of love" ... wonderful, now you can explain what that actually means?

Does it mean God could not be as described by the Mormons? Does it mean he exists in or outside of time. Does it mean he was the creator of everything or just the creator of this universe (does anything exist other than this universe, is God outside of of our universe or part of it).

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Who gives a rats butt whether or not the word Trinity is ever mentioned

The Mormons apparently.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is a word used to describe in human terms what God is.

It is a word used as part of a early Christian interpretation of ideas in the Bible. It is an idea used to reconcile various passages in the Bible, rather than an idea from the Bible itself.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The trinitarian concept is quite clear throughout biblical passages.

No offence Brian but your credibility for what is or is not "quite clear" is not something I consider in that high regard.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God is spirit, There that ones answered.

Wonderful, now all you have to do is define "spirit" and we are all set. You might as well say God is "Je ne sais quoi"

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It means that He created the universe, He spoke it into existence,

So he vibrated his vocal cords and the universe appeared. God has vocal cords now does he.

These are all just words Brain. Your rather silly attempts to suggest that you understand any supposed meaning behind them is just beating a bush. You have no idea that it actually means to say God spoke the universe into existence (the universe by the way is not a word found in the Bible, heaven and Earth are the terms used, that this is the universe is another interpretation)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Time to God is as folows: a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years I belive is the quote.

Ok, so to God the universe has been like 13.4 million days?

Except that is nonsense, because god is supposed to exist outside of time.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There answered them all.

You have answered them merely by quoting back the Bible, despite the fact that you clearly have no clue what any of these passages actually mean.

But don't worry I seriously doubt any of you guys do.

wolfsbane

ChocolateSauce said:

The fundamentalist Church of Latter-day saints, aka the Fundamentalist branch of Mormons, practice polygamy, and are infamous for regularly marrying off girls under 18, sometimes as young as 13 or 14, to much, much older men, frequently uncles or cousins.

My apologies, ChocolateSauce, for misunderstanding you. I was driving to work about 20 minutes after I posted that, when I realised you might not have been referring to Protestant fundamentalists. I had forgotten about the Mormon fundies.

I take it this group aim to return to the teaching and practices of the original Mormons? Does that include them viewing the negro people as sub-human? If so, do they actually teach it publically?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Hardly any of the events described in the New Testament are verified through archaeology, and quite a few are contradicted by historical records.

I can see how many events in the NT and in secular histories are not verified through archaeology - one doesn't raise a monument or strick a coin for every occasion.

But I would like to see your list of NT events that are contradicted by historical records. That gives much more food for thought to the historical detective.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So yes, Rome had census' and required that everyone return to their ancestral homes and yes one was held around 4 BC.

In Egypt. :rolleyes:

And it happened 105 AD

And the census allowed people to stay where they were if they had good reason not to travel

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I would like to see your list of NT events that are contradicted by historical records. That gives much more food for thought to the historical detective.

Why?

Surely the evidence for something is far more important than the evidence against it.

I mean do we all believe L Ron Hubbard talked to aliens until we see evidence he didn't. Or do we ask for the evidence he talked to aliens first?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Loving God completely means turning to Him in repentance and trusting in His Son Jesus Christ for salvation. Believing in a different God, and trusting in him and our works for salvation, is not Biblical religion. i am pretty sure Mormons say it is all the same God (God the Father). they just have more detail about him than is revealed in the Bible

Yes, but their 'new revelation' contradicts what the Bible already reveals. For example, The Father is an unchangeable spirit. But the Mormon God was once a man.

The Bible doesn't actually say that much about the nature of God. Passages such as "I am the alpha and omega" can be interpreted in various different ways.

All this stuff about God being outside of time and existing outside of the universe are all modern interpretations of what these Bible passages mean. The Mormons aren't really any different, they are interpreting these passages as Christians do .

Sure, some commentators go further than the Bible warrants, into speculation. But if we stick to what it actually says, there can be little wiggle-room:
God made the universe, so cannot be just a part of it.
God is unaffected by time. God always was. God always will be.
The Father is an unchangeable spirit.
The Son once was only spirit, but now is spirit and body.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons but one God.

No doubt we and the Mormons agree on some of trhat. But we differ on some. It is the differences that make them non-Christian.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I would like to see your list of NT events that are contradicted by historical records. That gives much more food for thought to the historical detective.
Why?

Surely the evidence for something is far more important than the evidence against it.

I mean do we all believe L Ron Hubbard talked to aliens until we see evidence he didn't. Or do we ask for the evidence he talked to aliens first?

No, for we were talking about events being verified through archaeology.

I'm sure you don't reject all historical records that aren't so verified. You accept, or give weight to, contemporaneous testimony and incidental references, for example. No coins, tablets or statues necessary.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

In Egypt. :rolleyes:

And it happened 105 AD

And the census allowed people to stay where they were if they had good reason not to travel

Which just shows that local areas were allowed to vary their methods. Why not such a modified census in Palestine? No record of one c.4BC, except that of Luke? Sure, but are there records for every census in every locality?

Silence vs Luke - hardly a proof that he was mistaken.

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Oh my goodness:

Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt:
Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own houses, that they may carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments..

That occured some years after.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So yes, Rome had census' and required that everyone return to their ancestral homes and yes one was held around 4 BC...

The census was a literay device to get the birth to occur in Bethlehem.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As for the Israelites and Canaanits I dont have the info here with me, but it does exist.

O there were "Israelites" and Canaanites, but the Exodus and entry into Israel is fiction, I'm afraid.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, but their 'new revelation' contradicts what the Bible already reveals. For example, The Father is an unchangeable spirit. But the Mormon God was once a man.

Well no, it contradicts your interpretation of what the Bible reveals.

The Jews say the exact same thing about Christians and the New Testament version of Jesus. Don't get them started over the ideas in the New Testament that a man could be God, or that the messiah would claim to be the "son" of God, or that a new covenant could replace the original one. I have had the miss-pleasure of listening to an orthodox Jew in college argue these points with a some what bewildered Christian girl. While most here would think that would be fun to watch as an atheist, I just felt sorry for the Christian (see was a friend of mine, as shocking as that may sound).

http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_nobel.htm

To them the New Testament ideas about Jesus are utter nonsense totally contradicting the revelation of the one, true, God in the Old Testament.

A debate on why fundamental Christians are right and orthodox Jews are wrong isn't necessary, my point is simply that I don't see many Christians losing sleep over that.

Nor do I think many Mormons are going to be nodding their heads and agreeing that there books contradict the New Testament.

If it makes you feel any better, I know you are all, equally, wrong

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

Surely the evidence for something is far more important than the evidence against it.

I mean do we all believe L Ron Hubbard talked to aliens until we see evidence he didn't. Or do we ask for the evidence he talked to aliens first?

Isn't it true that in science a theory is held until there is a solid refutation to negate it? This is the reason why so many of you boast that science can change the whole time, ignoring the clear fact that atheism doesn't have a monopoly on science.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Which just shows that local areas were allowed to vary their methods. Why not such a modified census in Palestine? No record of one c.4BC, except that of Luke? Sure, but are there records for every census in every locality?

Silence vs Luke - hardly a proof that he was mistaken.

That isn't what is being debated.

The claim is that the events in the New Testament have been verified historically. They haven't.

The position that it some how means something significant that they haven't been unverified historically is a particularly weak one, that I don't think anyone here would apply to anything other than their own religion.

Does anyone seriously consider claims by other religions, particularly supernatural ones, because they haven't been shown to have not happened?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

A "nature of love" ... wonderful, now you can explain what that actually means?.

Yes, a choice to care fior someone else rather than oneself.

Wicknight wrote: »

Does it mean God could not be as described by the Mormons? Does it mean he exists in or outside of time. Does it mean he was the creator of everything or just the creator of this universe (does anything exist other than this universe, is God outside of of our universe or part of it). .

Right the moprmons have it wrong. God never describes Himself as a man who populated thsi planet withcelestial wives. He exists everywhere, in and out of time. He is the creator of everything.

Wicknight wrote: »

The Mormons apparently. .

It is a word used as part of a early Christian interpretation of ideas in the Bible. It is an idea used to reconcile various passages in the Bible, rather than an idea from the Bible itself. .[/QUOTE] Passages that show thenature of God and the human attempt to put it into words.

Wicknight wrote: »

No offence Brian but your credibility for what is or is not "quite clear" is not something I consider in that high regard. .

That is because you refuse to look at objectively at anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. You are a probably the least objective and most close minded individual that Ihave ever met. You have seen all the passages where Jesus calls Himself God and put sHimself on equal footing with God and therefore makes Himself to be God.

Wicknight wrote: »

Wonderful, now all you have to do is define "spirit" and we are all set. You might as well say God is "Je ne sais quoi".

Spirit - invisible and existing outside of time and space.

Wicknight wrote: »

So he vibrated his vocal cords and the universe appeared. God has vocal cords now does he.".

Read into things again eh wick? He spoke the world and universe and living creatures into existence.

Wicknight wrote: »

These are all just words Brain. Your rather silly attempts to suggest that you understand any supposed meaning behind them is just beating a bush. You have no idea that it actually means to say God spoke the universe into existence (the universe by the way is not a word found in the Bible, heaven and Earth are the terms used, that this is the universe is another interpretation).".

Who ever said anything about understanding? Putting words into peoples mouths again. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I understand that God is eternal and at a point in time He created the HEavens and teh Earth which is a term that implies all. So lets deny evolution because that word didn't exist until teh19th century. woot woot, wicknight has singlehandedly shut down the theory.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so to God the universe has been like 13.4 million days? .

Now you show your absolute lack of undeerstanding of a simile within the English language. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote: »

Except that is nonsense, because god is supposed to exist outside of time..

If He exists everwhere then it is not nonsense.

Wicknight wrote: »

You have answered them merely by quoting back the Bible, despite the fact that you clearly have no clue what any of these passages actually mean.

But don't worry I seriously doubt any of you guys do.

Of course I got them from teh Bible. We are talking about the nature of God here

I seriously doubt that you n=have any intelligence at all.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't it true that in science a theory is held until there is a solid refutation to negate it?

Depends on what you mean by "held".

If you mean knocks around while it waits to be tested further, then yes. If you mean people take it seriously as an accurate model of the universe, then no.

A model that has never been tested is called a hypothesis. And hypothesis are not taken seriously until they have been tested. The less a model has been tested the less it is taken seriously. The very serious models, such as gravity, speed of light, evolution, have been tests millions of times.

This doesn't quite fit a historical case, but the principle would be that there is only one "test" of the Bible, and that is the Bible itself. Without any further tests it would not be taken that seriously as being an accurate model of what happened.

And example from science would be a theory that gravity is stronger in a particularly place on the Earth because once a ball was measured to fall faster, but this has never been tested since. No scientist would take that seriously as an accurate model. They would want to test it again, and again and again. If that wasn't possible the original result would be considered simply a curious oddity.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the reason why so many of you boast that science can change the whole time, ignoring the clear fact that atheism doesn't have a monopoly on science.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science is the principles of the scientific method. If you follow them you are doing science.

One of the key insighs of science though is that people are unreliable. Which is why personal opinion is given almost zero weight in science. You have to demonstrate something independently of your own assessment of it. That is the foundation of the scientific method.

As such the Bible accounts of what happened, particularly the supernatural events, would not be taken seriously in science as an accurate model. Not out of any atheist bias, but simply because people are unreliable.

Scientists would want to test the claims independently of those making the claims. That is clearly not possible since everyone is dead or in heaven.

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

That occured some years after..

It did,

Nodin wrote: »

The census was a literay device to get the birth to occur in Bethlehem..

but what it shows is that census' did take place. BothTertullian and Justin write of the Census at that time.

Nodin wrote: »

O there were "Israelites" and Canaanites, but the Exodus and entry into Israel is fiction, I'm afraid.

I'll grab my piece about this topic from home when I get there.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, it contradicts your interpretation of what the Bible reveals.

The Jews say the exact same thing about Christians and the New Testament version of Jesus. Don't get them started over the ideas in the New Testament that a man could be God, or that the messiah would claim to be the "son" of God, or that a new covenant could replace the original one. I have had the miss-pleasure of listening to an orthodox Jew in college argue these points with a some what bewildered Christian girl. While most here would think that would be fun to watch as an atheist, I just felt sorry for the Christian (see was a friend of mine, as shocking as that may sound).

http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_nobel.htm

To them the New Testament ideas about Jesus are utter nonsense totally contradicting the revelation of the one, true, God in the Old Testament.

A debate on why fundamental Christians are right and orthodox Jews are wrong isn't necessary, my point is simply that I don't see many Christians losing sleep over that.

Nor do I think many Mormons are going to be nodding their heads and agreeing that there books contradict the New Testament.

If it makes you feel any better, I know you are all, equally, wrong

You seem happy enough to allow interpretation of the Bible to be a wax-nose, open to any formation. Do you say the same for all history? Is the history of WW2, for example, open to such treatment? Did the Nazis win? Or if we stick to the communication aspect, did Churchill promote National Socialism and Hitler captialism?

I suspect you will say that while some parts of WW2 history and message are open to interpretation, honest scholarship will rule out a lot of rubbish. Apply that to the Bible's history and message. Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity, whatever, can have understandable disputes about some difficult/complex issues - but the core of the Bible history and message is easier to understand.

That some Orthodox guy perplexed some Christian girl is hardly surprising. Most Christians are not great Bible scholars. He should have engaged with a Christian scholar, one who both knew his Bible and believed it. That would have been an interesting debate!

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't what is being debated.

The claim is that the events in the New Testament have been verified historically. They haven't.

The position that it some how means something significant that they haven't been unverified historically is a particularly weak one, that I don't think anyone here would apply to anything other than their own religion.

Does anyone seriously consider claims by other religions, particularly supernatural ones, because they haven't been shown to have not happened?

You raised the aspect of archeological verification - I was responding to that.

However, the historical record of Luke does contain items that have not been verified by any other source. That does not prove them either false or true.

The Christian belief in the Luke's record lies not in any outside verification - useful as that is - but in the internal witness of the Spirit. You believe it or not as God opens your sinful eyes.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Who ever said anything about understanding?

I understand perfectly well Brian that you don't understand what any of this actually means. I doubt you care.

But when we are discussing the nature of God there is little point quoting back sound bites that don't explain anything.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So lets deny evolution because that word didn't exist until teh19th century. woot woot, wicknight has singlehandedly shut down the theory.

And lets tell the Mormons that the Bible has already made it perfectly "clear" what God is, despite that fact that we don't understand any of it :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Now you show your absolute lack of undeerstanding of a simile within the English language. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

And you are apparently showing your absolutel lack of understand the difference between a similies and you know, the real world

If I asked "How far is it by car to Belfast" and someone said "Oh twice as long as a piece of string", along with being rather annoyed at them I might very well say "No, seriously, how far is it by car to Belfast"

You have no idea what time is to God, any more than the person has any idea how far it is to Belfast.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Of course I got them from teh Bible. We are talking about the nature of God here

No, I'm talking about the nature of God here and you are talking about passages you have memoriesed from the Bible, passages you don't understand and that don't answer the question of what is the nature of God.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

You raised the aspect of archeological verification - I was responding to that.

However, the historical record of Luke does contain items that have not been verified by any other source. That does not prove them either false or true.

The Christian belief in the Luke's record lies not in any outside verification - useful as that is - but in the internal witness of the Spirit. You believe it or not as God opens your sinful eyes.

Any artifacts thathave been found corroborate Luke. Historically people ahve commented on how Luke really wasn't true as he named and said thinsg that weren't true. However arcahelogical discoveries have shown that Luke was correct and then we can be confident that all he wrote were truthful accounts.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

but what it shows is that census' did take place.

It shows that census', in general, took place? Are you kidding Brian. That is your evidence???

Are you sure you aren't just winding us up, or playing devils advocate, or something.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

It shows that census', in general, took place? Are you kidding Brian. That is your evidence???

Are you sure you aren't just winding us up, or playing devils advocate, or something.

Now we may be getting somewhere, since census did take place then why would one not have happened in 4 Bc as Luke staes? And Luke is corroborated by Tertullian and Justin who instruct people to go look at the records?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suspect you will say that while some parts of WW2 history and message are open to interpretation, honest scholarship will rule out a lot of rubbish.

No. I would say that WW2 was a historical event, not a "message"

On the other hand there were plenty of writings from the period of WW2 and they most certainly are open to interpretation.

For example an awful lot of Hitlers writing is open to historical interpretation about his motivations and how he felt about people around him. The most controversial is how much he knew and ordered about the holocaust. Also interesting is his feelings towards those around him.

It is quite possible we will never know definitively the answers to any of these questions. Luckily no one has started a religion based on one particularly interpretation of them yet.

You are confusing the New Testament, a writing on history, with history itself. There are a lot of things we can say conclusively about the New Testament books themselves.

That is different to saying that what is actually written in them is free from interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Apply that to the Bible's history and message. Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity, whatever, can have understandable disputes about some difficult/complex issues - but the core of the Bible history and message is easier to understand.

You guys keep saying that. Why? It seems that the only important things to you guys is finding something, anything, that is comforting and nice.

I could say the core of Hitler's message (he is very angry and hates a lot of people) is clear and we can all agree he was a nasty person.

But that doesn't help any of us understand if he hated Gobels or not, how involved he was in the day to day running of the holocaust, or if he loved his partner.

It is just an excuse to avoid asking any more questions.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That some Orthodox guy perplexed some Christian girl is hardly surprising. Most Christians are not great Bible scholars. He should have engaged with a Christian scholar, one who both knew his Bible and believed it. That would have been an interesting debate!

Or a Mormon scholar with a Christian scholar.

I have a sneaking feeling neither is going to manage to convert the other :pac:

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Now we may be getting somewhere, since census did take place then why would one not have happened in 4 Bc as Luke staes?

You said that the New Testament events where historically supported.

If by historically supported you mean "we don't have evidence they didn't happen" then yes by all means they are historically supported. All the events are supported by the deafening sound of absolutely nothing from history.

I didn't see any reports in the newspapers last year that a man in, oh lets say, Utah, didn't mange to create a black hole in his back garden shed with a car battery and a lemon.

Therefore I can claim he did and guess what! History supports me!

This is fun!

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It did,

but what it shows is that census' did take place. BothTertullian and Justin write of the Census at that time.

No census occurred with those criteria at the time. Herod was dead by the time of Qurinius census in 6Ad.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Any artifacts thathave been found corroborate Luke. Historically people ahve commented on how Luke really wasn't true as he named and said thinsg that weren't true. However arcahelogical discoveries have shown that Luke was correct and then we can be confident that all he wrote were truthful accounts.

Please share these artefacts and archaeological discoveries that "corroborate" Luke.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You believe it or not as God opens your sinful eyes.

Why do conversations between always start with you guys disagree with me, then eventually agreeing with me but telling me some day I will understand

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

No census occurred with those criteria at the time. Herod was dead by the time of Qurinius census in 6Ad.

We didn't say that the census was in AD 6. It happened in 4 BC when Quirinius was governor, a diffrent Quirinius was governor in AD 6.

JUst as there were two Gorge Bush's have been president of teh USA>

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknight you are so full of nonsense it amazes me. :mad: They think themselves wise yet they are fools.

Brian -- an off-topic comment here, but one that may be needed. Without counting, I'd say that around half to two-thirds of your recent posts have contained insulting comments about other posters, particularly Wicknight and others who disagree with your point of view.

You'd quite possibly win more to your cause by being a bit more polite.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

You said that the New Testament events where historically supported.

If by historically supported you mean "we don't have evidence they didn't happen" then yes by all means they are historically supported. All the events are supported by the deafening sound of absolutely nothing from history.

I didn't see any reports in the newspapers last year that a man in, oh lets say, Utah, didn't mange to create a black hole in his back garden shed with a car battery and a lemon.

Therefore I can claim he did and guess what! History supports me!

This is fun!

Historians: Tacitus, Josephus.
Other Riman docnuments I thhink of teh one from Pliny the younger.

Luke 3:1 he portrays Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene about AD 27. Scholars said that Luke was wrong because Lysanias was the ruler of Chalcis a century before. An inscription found thathad Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene from 14 to 37. Luke right, scholars wrong.

Acts 17:6 Luke mentions 'politarchs' which all the scholars knew didn't exist. Yet and inscription found that ius now in teh Britiash Museum from the1st century says, 'In the time of the politarchs...'. There are now more than 35 such references to the post of politarch. Luke right, Scholars wrong.

As for your balck hole idea, nothing supports that at all. Sit down now and pay attention: History relies on eyewitness accounts, and records mostly to draw conclusions. So in thecase of the Bible we see that anything that has been discovered by the way of records and accounts has supported the writings of the gosples.

So, the historian will trust the authors as being accurate on all they say.

when with the black hole: where is the evidence to support 1) that you are an accurate eyewitness or that any exist? 2) is it possible to create a black hole with said ingredients? 3) Where are the effects of that created black hole?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Brian -- an off-topic comment here, but one that may be needed. Without counting, I'd say that around half to two-thirds of your recent posts have contained insulting comments about other posters, particularly Wicknight and others who disagree with your point of view.

You'd quite possibly win more to your cause by being a bit more polite.

I agree robin but I'd be a little more patient with wicknight if he actually paid attention to any of this stuff that has been pointed out to him over the years.

And if he didn't come up with such stupid remarks as his black hole in Utah.

I respectfully say that wicknight and others have given JC even worse treatment over on the thread that shall not be named.

If he and some others came in with an honest question searching for an honest answer instead of asking questions to immediatly ridicule and twist and insert words and continually ignore the facts at hand we could be a little more patient.

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And if he didn't come up with such stupid remarks as his black hole in Utah.

The point he was making is that finding historical evidence to support an event is not the same as not finding historical evidence directly contradicting it. A salient and reasonable point you appear to have missed.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Historians: Tacitus, Josephus.
Other Riman docnuments I thhink of teh one from Pliny the younger.

Luke 3:1 he portrays Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene about AD 27.

Acts 17:6 Luke mentions 'politarchs' which all the scholars knew didn't exist.

"Luke" (ie the author) was alive back then!

Are you seriously surprised that he got well known people and places accurate?

If you read a fictional book set in Canada written by a Canadian author I'm pretty sure he won't make up new names for the cities. That has nothing to do with if what he is writing happened or not.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

History relies on eyewitness accounts, and records mostly to draw conclusions.

And when it doesn't have enough of that it draws the conclusion that particular view points are un-confirmed.

Which wouldn't be a problem with anything else (Athens in the 4th century BC, Ireland in the middle ages) except when it comes to Christianity because you guys all like to believe that you have really strong reasonable reasons for believing all this is true and accurate.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So in thecase of the Bible we see that anything that has been discovered by the way of records and accounts has supported the writings of the gosples.

That is because the only thing you have discovered is the Bible

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So, the historian will trust the authors as being accurate on all they say.

They most certainly will not trust the authors. I've never heard such nonsense.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

when with the black hole: where is the evidence to support 1) that you are an accurate eyewitness or that any exist? 2) is it possible to create a black hole with said ingredients? 3) Where are the effects of that created black hole?

The evidence to support it is that there is no evidence not to support it. Isn't that enough for you BC?

I'm not the eyewitness. I'm describing the eye witness to you. You have to not only trust that I got it right but also the eye witness got it right. You can't talk to the actual eyewitness, he is dead. But that handily means there cannot be any contradiction to my report, so surely that is even more evidence that it must be correct, no?

Is it possible to create a black hole with a car battery? Not sure. Is it possible for a man to come back to life after being executed? Who knows what is or is not possible.

If we start limiting our assessment of history to events that fit inside the fundamental laws of nature where will we be BC?

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

The point he was making is that finding historical evidence to support an event is not the same as not finding historical evidence directly contradicting it. A salient and reasonable point you appear to have missed.

It is not a reasonable point at all.

The historical analysis works like this: Biographical evidence, eyewitness reports, competing accounts, arcahelogical evidence. Now we have a picture of the event. Wicknights onlymentiosn competeing accounts without offering anything more.

Now did a writer agree with all of this, yep, so event happened.

The gosples are a bigography on teh life and minsitry of Jesus Christ.
They are eyewitness, they are supported by other texts, they are supported archaeologically. Therefore historically speaking theyare ruled to be an accurate portrayal of events.

These are the disciplines that are applied to other abncient historical documents and events.