Comparative Discussion and Debate of Christianity and Other religions.

philologos

[mod] Posts moved from another thread. Interesting debate could be had [mod]


Without sidetracking, how were Buddhism, Unitarianism, and the Baha'i faith more representative of the truth or any less ridiculous than Christianity was? I'm merely curious.

ttilting

Jakkass wrote: »

Without sidetracking, how were Buddhism, Unitarianism, and the Baha'i faith more representative of the truth or any less ridiculous than Christianity was? I'm merely curious.

Well I don't want to offend any catholics or christians, but most people who know about the formation of the catholic church will agree that It is very unlikely that the council managed to pick out the 4 most correct gospels.... In fact they picked these out from a multitude of gospels.
They picked out the Gospels that most suited their particular aims at a particular time.
The church it's self has a well documented shameful past, It has been a very successful political organisation in the past but this has lead to some seriously shameful behavior by its leaders,,,, The very people who have shaped the beliefs of catholics today.

My main gripes included. . .

1
Papal Infallibility? .... Believing that pope's opinion ''on matters of faith and morals can not and do not contain any errors.''

2
Transubstantiation? . . ., i.e that the Bread and wine ACTUALLY TURN INTO the body and blood of Jesus Christ during the mass. (As apposed to just being a ritual reminder of Jesus breaking the bread <protestant>) I believe that most (so called) catholics also believe this to be ridiculous.

3
Why Is the Gospel of Thomas locked away in the vatican? Many believe it is because of its mention of reincarnation,,,,, but why hide it from the world?

4. I don't believe in the concept of original sin.

3.I don't believe in virgin birth. . . . This falasy was only created to somehow disconnect Jesus from original Sin....i.e Sex.

4.I don't believe in the holy trinity?
ie.
''...that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

There is simply no evidence to support this claim.

5.
Further more I fundamentally objected to having to say the following creed each time I went to mass,,,,,I believe most catholics (If they really thought about it, would find it difficlt to agree with this word for word)

************************
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation, he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life: who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified:
He has spoken through est the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
*****************************

Contrast This with the Bahá'í Faith -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith

Or Unitarian Beliefs

http://www.ukunitarians.org.uk/#sec9

Both of the above ''religions'' do not pretent to know the truth, Unitarianism specifically encourages participants to seek their own truth.

I believe that is what a religion should aim to do.
Indeed I believe that was what Jesus (a great man) was trying to encourage us all to do just that!

philologos

They had categories by which to select the Gospels, and most theologians would accept that these Gospels had been used right from the 1st century AD, whereas the other Apocryphal Gospels weren't written until roughtly the 3rd or 4th century, making them significantly less likely to be authentic, then you have the case of the 4 Gospels being consistent with eachother. They also had other categories such as original language and so on. So no it isn't that unlikely that they picked the correct Gospels if you look to the history of how they did it with an honest and fair mind.

1. Papal Infallability only concerns Catholicism, there are many Reformed breeds of Christianity too.

2. Again, this concerns Catholics, not all in Christianity. I personally believe that Jesus is present at the Eucharist, but the wine and the bread are intended to be symbolic, and there is good reason to suggest that it was given that they were eating the Passover meal which in itself used symbolism such as bitter herbs for years of slavery and so on.

3. Locked away in the Vatican? I can quote it for you right now. It's in a book called "The Other Bible" by Willis Barnstone. I think this is basically hearsay considering that the theological community have been studying this text for decades at least.

4. As for the Virgin Birth, how would Jesus be the Son of God if He were not His begotten Son?

5. Original sin, is meaning that we all inherit a sinful nature from birth. Not exactly that we have already committed a sin when born. See Romans 5:12.

6. Holy Trinity, it isn't that difficult, surely? God is comprised of three parts, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's revealed to us in the Biblical scriptures, and most Christians would attest to witnessing the Holy Spirit in their lifetime.

As for the considering of Jesus to be a great man. Jesus taught moral principles yes, however Jesus also was one of the most prominent teachers about eternal damnation, and urging those to pick up His cross and follow Him.

As C.S Lewis said:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

As for Baha'i and Unitarianism not claiming to know the truth, religion is the search for higher truth in life. Logically surely, either one or none of these belief systems are correct in reality. People seek the truth for the most part, and that's what seeking religion is generally about.

Thanks for dealing with your objections though, it's nice to know where you are coming from.

ttilting

Jakkass wrote: »

They had categories by which to select the Gospels, and most theologians would accept that these Gospels had been used right from the 1st century AD,

Allegedly! , , , Most people believe that the 4 ''selected'' Gospels were written significantly later than the the first century and are also unlikely to have been written by any of he actual 'disciples'. (In fairness this is disputed on both sides)

Jakkass wrote: »

So no it isn't that unlikely that they picked the correct Gospels if you look to the history of how they did it with an honest and fair mind.

''It Isn't That Unlikely''! . . . OK,,,,,

So I'm going to build a 50 story building to house all of my family and relations, I think there are solid foundations on the site because the guy who sold it to me (the guy proven! to have questionable motivation) told me to believe that there was good foundations.
I will go ahead and build here and blindly believe him because ''it isn't that Unlikely'' that the foundations are not sufficient.

Personally, I have a large amount of respect for my ever changing, and truth seeking belief system, not a list of questionable assertions.

I simply can not accept that these ''sellers'' just happened to get it right.

Maybe I should have ''Faith'' in these people.
But they have made it difficult & showing themselves to be nothing less than corrupt at many points in history.

Note: I do however ! Have unshakable faith in the existence of a God . . . . I very much doubt! That she or he Is in any way represented by most churches.

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Papal Infallibility only concerns Catholicism, there are many Reformed breeds of Christianity too.

True, and many of the reformed churches do not follow the popes office, , , but again the foundation of their believe are often based(built) on past Pope teachings and bizarre assertions.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Again, this concerns Catholics, not all in Christianity. I personally believe that Jesus is present at the Eucharist, but the wine and the bread are intended to be symbolic, and there is good reason to suggest that it was given that they were eating the Passover meal which in itself used symbolism such as bitter herbs for years of slavery and so on.

Fair enough! Just catholics on this one, , , The bizarre thing is most catholics don't know about this, , , If they did they would find it laughable.

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Locked away in the Vatican? I can quote it for you right now. It's in a book called "The Other Bible" by Willis Barnstone. I think this is basically hearsay considering that the theological community have been studying this text for decades at least.

It speaks about re-incarnation, I have read extracts myself. I can assure you there has been a concerted effort to at very least ''hush'' it up. I can not agree with the sort of belief system that suppresses evidence, , , imagine they actually found something written by Jesus himself that contradicted their teachings. From what I know of them... they would suppress this,,, the term turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. How any rational minded person can continue to belong to such an organisation is beyond me. But everyone to their own.

Jakkass wrote: »

4. As for the Virgin Birth, how would Jesus be the Son of God if He were not His begotten Son?

What twisted logic is this ! ! ! ! . . .
This was probably the exact question that early cardinals asked. . . . Ah Ha! They said! Lets make Mary, a virgin! . . . Its is so transparent! can people not see it!

Jakkass wrote: »

5. Original sin, is meaning that we all inherit a sinful nature from birth. Not exactly that we have already committed a sin when born. See Romans 5:12.

And you agree with this? .. . . . . How can you just accept this? .... Who wrote Romans 5:12, What was the context, what was his motivation, who was it aimed at..... quoting scripture to prove your point is utterly absurd! Particularly when the core ''argument'' is specifically about the validity of the scripture.
By the same token! I don't discount a virgin birth.

Jakkass wrote: »

6. Holy Trinity, it isn't that difficult, surely? God is comprised of three parts, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's revealed to us in the Biblical scriptures, and most Christians would attest to witnessing the Holy Spirit in their lifetime.

I respect anyones opininion on this..... I do not accept it and believe that the early church tried to over 'intelectualise' the religion.
THERE IS NOTING IN THE BIBLE,,,, NEW OR OLD testimates about the holy trinity. . . . For me it is fairly irrelevant.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the considering of Jesus to be a great man. Jesus taught moral principles yes, however Jesus also was one of the most prominent teachers about eternal damnation, and urging those to pick up His cross and follow Him.

Jesus simply DID NOT teach about eternal damnation! .... This Is a man made belief obviously propagated through the ages by a certain type of personality trait common in aspects of most social groups.

Jakkass wrote: »

As C.S Lewis said:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

Again thats very strange logic! ... The ''He MUST BE GOD!'' argument! . ....Please try to think for your self ! ..... this indeed was one of his key messages from Jesus.
Do you also Believe that ''Muggles are non magical people''?.... A great imagination and the ability to 'create' ... 'A TRUTH' ... does not meant it is 'THE TRUTH' !

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Baha'i and Unitarianism not claiming to know the truth, religion is the search for higher truth in life. Logically surely, either one or none of these belief systems are correct in reality. People seek the truth for the most part, and that's what seeking religion is generally about.

NO ! ! ! Thats totally wrong! .... Whats to say that it wont take another 3000 years to find the ''correct'' belief system? Why assume the correct one is already around?
Religion should be something that gives you the ability to search for your own truth, and get in touch with your own spirituality.

Not something that fills your head full of fairy tails. Thank heavans J.k Rowling wasn't on the council on Nicea !

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for dealing with your objections though, it's nice to know where you are coming from.

No problem . . . . I am on a path to learn as much as possible (as appose to just accept what I am told) so I hope none of this causes offense.

Namastay.

philologos

ttilting wrote: »

Allegedly! , , , Most people believe that the 4 ''selected'' Gospels were written significantly later than the the first century and are also unlikely to have been written by any of he actual 'disciples'. (In fairness this is disputed on both sides)

Even the later dates are in the 1st century in the vast majority of cases, most theologians accept an earlier date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

Either way they are far far earlier than any other Apocryphal work.

ttilting wrote: »

''It Isn't That Unlikely''! . . . OK,,,,,

So I'm going to build a 50 story building to house all of my family and relations, I think there are solid foundations on the site because the guy who sold it to me (the guy proven! to have questionable motivation) told me to believe that there was good foundations.
I will go ahead and build here and blindly believe him because ''it isn't that Unlikely'' that the foundations are not sufficient.

Personally, I have a large amount of respect for my ever changing, a truth seeking belief system if for me, not a list of questionable assertions.

I simply can not accept that these ''sellers'' just happened to get it right.

Maybe I should have ''Faith'' in these people.
But they have made it difficult & showing themselves to be nothing less than corrupt at many points in history.

Note: I do however ! Have unshakable faith in the existence of a God . . . . I very much doubt! That she or he Is in any way represented by most churches.

It isn't unlikely at all that they have it correct given the dating and the languages of the text. i.e Most authentic New Testament texts were written in Koine Greek rather than Syriac or other languages. You seem to underestimate the serious academic study that has been taking place on these texts basically since they emerged out of the Middle East.

The house analogy is just absurd in this case, mind you I think you were trying to pull a reductio ad absurdum argument anyway. Given the research that people have done on the subject, there is more to substantiate the Christian claim that the Gospels are authentic compared to other heretical works that were being spread at a much later date than someone trying to sell you a house. Nobody is trying to sell you anything, you are free to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour or not.

You may well have a lot of respect for your own beliefs, however respect doesn't correlate with truth surely? As for saying that Christianity is filled with questionable assertions, you'd really be surprised if you read any works of Christian apologetics how many explanations have actually been given for what you are already questioning. As for questionable assertions though, a source text allows us to properly analyse the Bible as a hypothesis, whereas the idea of God being something different for each and every person cannot be analysed at all.

Anyhow, the people who compiled the Bible in Nicea, weren't "sellers" nobody has a personal gain to make from what Christ spoke in the Gospels other than to show people a new way of life and to get people to think outside the box about the nature of the world around them, and to give people a moral framework. As for having faith in these people, no it isn't just having faith in people, it's trusting that the academic work that has involved much study and effort concerning the dating of the Bible, and the Bibles links with archaeology in the State of Israel is indeed correct.

As for relying on the Church. This is the beauty about Christianity, with the Bible at least the church is somewhat accountable since it has been made to be translated into our own language, and at least we can discern for ourselves how to live our lives given what Jesus taught us.

ttilting wrote: »

True, and many of the reformed churches do not follow the popes office, , , but again the foundation of their believe are often based(built) on past Pope teachings and bizarre assertions.

Examples? The idea of Reformed theology is to consider the Bible as the guide for how to live ones life, not the teachings of men.

ttilting wrote: »

Fair enough! Just catholics on this one, , , The bizarre thing is most catholics don't know about this, , , If they did they would find it laughable.

I think Catholics should discern this for themselves and to be honest with you I don't think you or I need to be making this judgement of their religion for them. Many others could claim that Universalism is laughable. I think we should just defend our own views and let the others defend themselves.

ttilting wrote: »

It speaks about re-incarnation, I have read extracts myself. I can assure you there has been a concerted effort to at very least ''hush'' it up. I can not agree with that sort of belief system.

It's seen to be influenced by Buddhist ideology, I've read it myself actually sections of it are missing however but the vast majority is there. Interestingly a lot of it speaks of the same things as in the Gospels such as the issue of paying taxes to Caesar. I'd be interested to hear the quote about re-incarnation I might have missed that myself. Might read it again tonight if I can.

ttilting wrote: »

What twisted logic is this ! ! ! ! . . .
This was probably the exact question that early cardinals asked. . . . Ah Ha! They said! Lets make Mary, a virgin! . . . Its is so transparent! can people not see it!

There is no evidence to suggest that the beginning of the Gospels of Matthew or Luke have been altered. This is only ridiculous if you think that it is a natural event. Quite evidently things like this do not happen of a natural accord. Do you not believe that God is a supernatural being, and can manipulate the laws of the universe through miracles if indeed the earth is of His own creation? Surely this begs the question, of what do you think that God is?

ttilting wrote: »

And you agree with this? .. . . . . How can you just accept this? .... Who wrote Romans 5:12, What was the context, what was his motivation, who was it aimed at..... quoting scripture to prove your point is utterly absurd! Particularly when the core ''argument'' is specifically about the validity of the scripture.

I wasn't using it to "prove my point". I was using it to prove that Christians argue that mankind inherits a sin nature, rather than an actual sin. I think that it is rather evident that people can fall short of God's standards for our lives, or at least do things which aren't at harmony with other things and with other beings in civilisation. I'd see that as how sin manifests itself in the world.

As for who write Romans 5:12, it was Paul the Apostle writing to the new Christian community that was emerging within Rome and explaining to them how the Christian faith came into being, how God regards them, and so on. It's a simple explanation of Christian understanding.

The core argument about the authenticity of Scripture has been dealt with time and time again by theologians, and it is deemed that it is most probable that the texts that are contained are authentic and within the time frame. Alas, some people just don't want to listen to any such research.

ttilting wrote: »

I respect anyones opininion on this..... I do not accept it and believe that the early church tried to over 'intelectualise' the religion.
THERE IS NOTING IN THE BIBLE,,,, NEW OR OLD testimates about the holy trinity. . . . For me it is fairly irrelevant.

Your argument however demands that the Christian religion be intellectualized, you demand research on the authenticity on this faith, and you have demanded that Christianity substantiate itself. This warrants intellectual research surely? There is plenty in the Bible concerning the Holy Trinity, just look at the beginning of John, or the end of Matthew and the treatment of Father, Son and Holy Spirit towards the end. However this is a complex argument which should ideally take place in the Christianity forum.

ttilting wrote: »

Jesus simply DID NOT teach about eternal damnation! .... This Is a man made belief obviously propagated through the ages by a certain type of personality trait common in aspects of most social groups.

Yes he did. Just read the Gospel of Matthew. Particularly the Parable of the Weeds where corn is grown in a field, and during the middle of the night, weeds are put in the midst of the corn. By which the farmer returns and gathers up the weeds and throws them into the fire.

Also the incident in Luke 16, where Jesus discusses the fate of Lazarus, and the fate of the Rich Man at the end of time. The Rich Man is punished and cries out to Abraham could you not get Lazarus who is there beside him in heaven to get him a glass of water. Clear contrast between heaven and hell.

In Matthew 8, Jesus claims that many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in heaven, but many who are heirs of the kingdom will be cast into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Also Jesus says that the gate is narrow in Matthew 7 and the path is long and winding, and few will find it and that the gate to destruction is wide and many will go through it.

How was it obviously propogated? Obviously must include strong indication to suggest that this is true?

ttilting wrote: »

Again thats very strange logic! ... The ''He MUST BE GOD!'' argument! . ....Please try to think for your self ! ..... this indeed was one of his key messages from Jesus.
Do you also Believe that ''Muggles are non magical people''?.... A great imagination and the ability to 'create' ... 'A TRUTH' ... does not meant it is 'THE TRUTH' !

I am thinking for myself that's the idea. I'm thinking for myself, and I'm seeing how God in my life represents Himself in a very similar fashion to the Biblical teachings, and I would agree with many other Christians of different denominations on how God would impact my life.

ttilting wrote: »

NO ! ! ! Thats totally wrong! .... Whats to say that it wont take another 3000 years to find the ''correct'' belief system? Why assume the correct one is already around?
Religion should be something that gives you the ability to search for your own truth, and get in touch with your own spirituality.

What is true now, surely has been true since the beginning of time, it's not subject to anything that may appear 3,000 years down the line. Age does not dictate accuracy. Truth is something that has always been there.

ttilting wrote: »

Not something that fills your head full of fairy tails. Thank heavans J.k Rowling wasn't on the council on Nicea !

As I say the Biblical text is far more substantiated by research than anything J.K Rowling has ever written.

ttilting wrote: »

No problem . . . . I am on a path to learn as much as possible (as appose to just accept what I am told) so I hope none of this causes offense.

I can disagree without getting offended, I prefer to keep discussion somewhat civil

PDN

ttilting wrote: »

Well I don't want to offend any catholics or christians, but most people who know about the formation of the catholic church will agree that It is very unlikely that the council managed to pick out the 4 most correct gospels.... In fact they picked these out from a multitude of gospels.

No, most people who know about the formation of the Catholic Church (as opposed to getting their ideas from novels like The Davinci Code) would know that the four canonical Gospels were in general use across most Christian churches from a very early date long before any Church Council addressed the issue at all. The other 'gospels' however never had such widespread acceptance and usually just survived among little Gnostic sects and cults.

Most people believe that the 4 ''selected'' Gospels were written significantly later than the the first century and are also unlikely to have been written by any of he actual 'disciples'. (In fairness this is disputed on both sides)

Not true.

wikipedia wrote:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68–73, c 65-70
* Matthew: c. 70–100. c 80-85. Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c 80-85
* John: c 90-100, c. 90–110,The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Why Is the Gospel of Thomas locked away in the vatican? Many believe it is because of its mention of reincarnation,,,,, but why hide it from the world?

It isn't locked away in the Vatican. It is owned by Egypt's Department of Antiquities and they will quite happily sell you a photographic edition showing you the original manuscript in every detail. Alternatively you can google "Gospel of Thomas translation" and read a number of English translations of it online.

Why would anyone claim that something available to anyone with internet access is hidden from the world? Conspiracy theorists are funny.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

No, most people who know about the formation of the Catholic Church (as opposed to getting their ideas from novels like The Davinci Code) would know that the four canonical Gospels were in general use across most Christian churches from a very early date long before any Church Council addressed the issue at all.

While it may have been a standardized canon it wasn't a standardized text. And was open to interpolation

Example:

John 3:16 - AV(KJV):
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..”

[…] this fabrication “begotten” has now been unceremoniously excised by these most eminent of Bible revisers.

In this case "begotten" means unique son. Added I believe either purposfully or unconsciously to assert Christian dogma.

By the second century Christian and Jewish leaders had cemented their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of theirs, and the Jews rejected it. The texts were re-complied, re-interpreted and copied a number of times in early medieval days.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

While it may have been a standardized canon it wasn't a standardized text. And was open to interpolation

Example:


In this case "begotten" means unique son. Added I believe either purposfully or unconsciously to assert Christian dogma.

By the second century Christian and Jewish leaders had cemented their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of theirs, and the Jews rejected it. The texts were re-complied, re-interpreted and copied a number of times in early medieval days.

Can you provide a source for this remarkable assertion? As far as I am aware the word translated as 'begotten' (monogenes) is present in all early manuscripts. The only mention I can find of it being an interpolation is on some Islamic polemic sites which are notoriously poor when it comes to accuracy. Can you cite one reliable or academic source that states this is an interpolation?

studiorat

Sorry, Just lost big post.

I'll be brief.

"monos" means "only" or "alone," and "genos" which means "race, stock, class, kind". Genos has been confused with gennao, "to beget.

J. Rendel Harris used the argument of the Greek description of Athena daughter of Zeus as monogenes meaning "of one parent".

Fenton John Antony Hort in On Monogenes both suggest the "begotten" translation of monogenes was added at a later date (4th C).

Louw & Nida: Explains monogenes as "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class" They use the description of Issac son of Abraham to illustrate.

I subscribe to Harris', for the moment.

I'm led to believe the current KJV has dropped the word "begotten". IS this true?

The main points seem to be it means a postition rather than an origin.

The other argument I stated in the previous post referred to a motive for purposeful interpolation put forward by Bart Erhman.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Sorry, Just lost big post.

I'll be brief.

"monos" means "only" or "alone," and "genos" which means "race, stock, class, kind". Genos has been confused with gennao, "to beget.

J. Rendel Harris used the argument of the Greek description of Athena daughter of Zeus as monogenes meaning "of one parent".

Fenton John Antony Hort in On Monogenes both suggest the "begotten" translation of monogenes was added at a later date (4th C).

Louw & Nida: Explains monogenes as "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class" They use the description of Issac son of Abraham to illustrate.

I subscribe to Harris', for the moment.

I'm led to believe the current KJV has dropped the word "begotten". IS this true?

The main points seem to be it means a postition rather than an origin.

The other argument I stated in the previous post referred to a motive for purposeful interpolation put forward by Bart Erhman.

You're confusing two different things here.

An interpolation is where something is added into a text. For example, if there had been manuscripts of the Greek that had not had the word monogenes at all, but then someone had interpolated it into a manuscript.

What you are referring to is simply an issue of translation, and one that is irrelevant to the discussion on which books made it into the Bible.

The word monogenes was translated by Jerome as 'only begotten' in his Vulgate translation, and it is a legitimate translation. In Greek mono means only whereas genos means kind and is related to gennan (to begat). Interestingly, our English words 'gene' and 'genealogy' both come from it and seem to attest to both meanings of kind and of begetting.

The KJV still translates it as "only begotten" but most modern translations prefer to translate it as 'only' or 'unique' interpreting monogenes as meaning 'one of a kind'.

It's the kind of discussion of translation that thelogians (being the boring old farts that we are) find fascinating, particularly exploring the historical reasons why one translation was preferred over another - but I'm absolutely staggered that anyone could ever misrepresent it as somehow arguing that the Bible has been changed. The Greek text, which is the basis for all good translations, has remained exactly the same in its rendering of John 3:16.

I'm hoping you've misunderstood Ehrmann. I know he he's a bit of a maverick, but I've always understood that he's a recognised biblical scholar. But if he has used a disputed translation by Jerome to argue that the biblical text itself has been changed then that would IMHO be evidence of deliberate deception to sway those less versed in such matters.

Nevyn

I guess that depends on what you see or consider the truth.
I think that the Truth is subjective and personal in this case.
I view christianity to be a messanic cult, isn't the first, prolly won't be the last.

I do respect people who strive to live a good live in accordance with the tenents
of the christian faith, I admire most people of faith and have seen how their spirituality
lights them up and provides strength support and comfort for them.

What I do not like is the presumption that the christain god holds dominion over the whole earth
and every living person on it. Really for a god of a desert tribe he's come along way
and Seth really lucked out.

Oh and just for the record I was baptised and confirmed in the catholic faith, studied and pursued
as far as I could to the point were I was a eucharistic minister for two of the local parishes,
my secondary school and scout troop.

I am not a 'lapsed catholic, I did get myself excommunicated and found a differnt religion
to which I am devoted and at home spiritually.

studiorat

My "lost" post stated that John was probably a bad example when I looked back at it. Interpolation as I understand it is indeed the creation of new data from an existing set of data, the mathematical meaning it seems to apply in this case too. Whether this is purposeful or un-intended I believe is moot as both incidences apply to Erhman's agrument.

I was under the impression that Jerome translated from Hebrew, but of course we are discussing the NT here. However, Jerome did not complete a translation of the NT. The Vulgate was created by assembling books from a variety of sources, including Jerome. Whether he translated John is un-known to me at this point, for an indication of what can be attributed to him I would be greatful.

I've certainly not misunderstood Erhmann. If there was any confusion maybe my post could have been clearer. I have no reference nor made any to Erhman regarding the translation of monogenes and didn't intend on it seeming so.

I cited Erhman to back up the argument for reasons behind interpolation. Which I believe are fair and un-biased

"Christianity was in a prepetual state of flux… This was an age of competing interprations of christainty"

" The scribes of the second and third centuries in fact altered their texts in order to make them orthodox on the one hand and to make them less susceptable to heretical construal on the other."

The Orthodox corruption of Scripture. - Erhman 1993

Ehrman may be a maverick but looking at his background and up-bringing I see no reason for him to to have any agenda other than seeking the truth of the matter.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

I guess that depends on what you see or consider the truth.
I think that the Truth is subjective and personal in this case.
I view christianity to be a messanic cult, isn't the first, prolly won't be the last.

This is the problem though surely Thaedydal. How can truth be subjective? Surely at the end of all days some things will be true and others will be false. For example it cannot be true that there is one God, and there is no God, or there are many Gods. They all contradict eachother.

As for Messianic cult, Jesus is the only Messiah claimant that was born in Bethlehem of Judea, and the only Messiah claimant who having been born there lived in Galilee. Both of which are Messianic prophesies, of which there are over a thousand that Jesus fulfilled.

Thaedydal wrote: »

What I do not like is the presumption that the christain god holds dominion over the whole earth
and every living person on it. Really for a god of a desert tribe he's come along way
and Seth really lucked out.

What is a God if He doesn't have dominion over the earth? I trust Him, and considering that He has provided for me and other people time and time again, I don't think that it is unreasonable that we should follow His moral codes as they are clearly what are best for mankind. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob may have spread through their patriarchs, but the Bible has rung true when it speaks of the Jewish people having been a blessing to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ and Christianity.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Oh and just for the record I was baptised and confirmed in the catholic faith, studied and pursued
as far as I could to the point were I was a eucharistic minister for two of the local parishes,
my secondary school and scout troop.

I am not a 'lapsed catholic, I did get myself excommunicated and found a differnt religion
to which I am devoted and at home spiritually.

Fair enough, I think it's a positive thing that people consider faith more these days, and think about what they are doing before they commit themselves to a faith. I'm not denying that I would like more people to come to Christ and to come to Christianity though and to go on the path that God has set for them.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Messianic cult, Jesus is the only Messiah claimant that was born in Bethlehem of Judea, and the only Messiah claimant who having been born there lived in Galilee. Both of which are Messianic prophesies, of which there are over a thousand that Jesus fulfilled.

Sorry about this,but I feel I must play the devils acrobat here.

Here's a list of Messianic Claimants around the time of Jesus...
Judas, son of Hezekiah
Simon of Peraea
Athronges, the shepherd
Judas, the Galilean
John the Baptist
Jesus of Nazareth
The Samaritan prophet
King Herod Agrippa

We see here Judas, the Galilean. Judas was crowned Messiah in Galilee (4-2 BC), just as the Gospels portray the ministry of Jesus. The ministry of Judas lasted from 4 BC to 19 AD or 22 years. (Josephus)

Jesus birth in Bethlehem is doubtful for a number of reasons I've mentioned already regarding actual dates for the census. Here's some more:

Why would Joseph bring his nine month pregnant wife on a trek from Nazareth, if only the heads of the household were required to take part in the census? The census would have been ongoing for weeks or even months anyway.

Why didn't they stay with Mary's relation Elizabeth just miles away?

Why Bethlehem at all? There were 42 generations since David in Bethlehem, his ancestors would have been in the thousands and everywhere.

Why 42 generations back? Why not 16 or 10? It seems strange that it matches so exactly. Why not even before David for that matter?

Besides, the Davidic line would have been of absolutely no interest to the Romans in context. It was only of interest to the Jews. Why then were people to attend the ancestral home and not where they lived. The tax like others of the time all was on land people owned.

Christians I believe would have known little or nothing about Jesus' birth after the crucifixion and ressurection. The placing of his birth would have been created in Bethlehem IMO in order for it to concur with the prophesies.

EDIT:
Over a thousand Messianic Prophesies?
Would you be so kind as to give me a citation for that? I'm reckoning about 60 or 70 and about 400 references to those.
Thx.

philologos

Were any of those claimants born in Bethlehem of Judea (Micah 5:2)? I never said there weren't any other Messiah claimants, I said there wasn't any that fulfilled Biblical prophesy like Christ did. How is Jesus' birth in Bethlehem unlikely? The problem is "unlikely" doesn't cut it, one would have to provide an absolute refutation for Jesus not to have been born in Bethlehem.

As for why not before King David, most of the Messianic prophesies date long after King David died.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

Were any of those claimants born in Bethlehem of Judea (Micah 5:2)? I never said there weren't any other Messiah claimants, I said there wasn't any that fulfilled Biblical prophesy like Christ did. How is Jesus' birth in Bethlehem unlikely? The problem is "unlikely" doesn't cut it, one would have to provide an absolute refutation for Jesus not to have been born in Bethlehem.

As for why not before King David, most of the Messianic prophesies date long after King David died.

I don't think ANYBODY was born in Bethlehem around the time we're talking about, Period.

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times

"Bethlehem Ephratah" refers the clan of Bethlehem, the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah. (Chr. 2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).

The prophecy does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which Jesus never did.

Matthew claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy.

It should be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah".
He did this, intentionally to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Matthew differs substantially from both the LXX and Masoretic texts (MT) of the same passage. They refer to Bethlehem as Bethlehem Ephratah, which Matthew alters to Bethlehem, land of Judah, apparently to further emphasize that Jesus was born in Judea not Galilee. (an area that was viewed by most religious Jews as being unclean).

An even more important change is the almost total inversion of the meaning — Micah has "you are little among the thousands of Judah" whereas Matthew's quote of it has "you are not least among the princes of Judah".

Matthew also replaces the word ruler with shepherd, apparently to present the argument that a Messiah would be a religious figure rather than a political one.

At the time it was not widely accepted the Messiah would have to be born in Bethlehem, only that his ancestors were. Unfortunately because the area where most modern scholars do believe Jesus' was born would have been a most unsuitable place for a Jewish Messiah to be born. (see underlined above)

Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BC when Jesus is believed to have been born.
Archaeological studies of the town have turned up Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BC and material from the sixth century AD, but nothing from the 1st century BC and 1st century AD.

According to Aviram Oshiri, "...there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus." So, it appears that Bethlehem was deserted at the time that Jesus was born.

Christians in the first century AD diligently searched the Hebrew Scriptures for references for the coming Messiah. They would have found the reference to Bethlehem, Judea, in Micah and assumed that Jesus must have been born there. So, the authors of Matthew and Luke would have followed this tradition.

Now Jakass, maybe you could define an "absolute refutation" for me. I have provided about 10 reasons already on this thread and the Christianity: A History thread.

However I'll provide some links which also refute your previous statements.
They are from the Biblical Archeology Review:


http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-02.asp


As for why not before David? The question is why did the ancestry stop at David? Why didn't Joseph go to the town where Ruth or Boaz came from?



Finally I'll ask you to provide me with a citation of "over ,1000 Messianic Prohphesies" or else retract the statement.

Thx.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the problem though surely Thaedydal. How can truth be subjective? Surely at the end of all days some things will be true and others will be false. For example it cannot be true that there is one God, and there is no God, or there are many Gods. They all contradict each other.

But until any of them are proven substantively people will pick for themselves based on a number of factors including personal gnosis.

For me it is the many god option, which includes the christian god and he will get a nod from me but I will never bend my knee ever again.

Jakkass wrote: »

What is a God if He doesn't have dominion over the earth?

A deity which sticks to his/her own people.
A deity which sticks to certain roles for his/her own people.
A deity which sticks to a certain place

Plenty of scope with out saying I own it all and I own all of you wether ye like it or not, sorry no real free will.

Jakkass wrote: »

I trust Him, and considering that He has provided for me and other people time and time again,

Good I am glad that you have a good personal relationship with you god.
I did and I didn't there were too many of his edicts or what seems to be his edicts that I found I had issue with and out of respet for those who are christian and catholic and not being a hypercrit I left those who count themselves part of his flock.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think that it is unreasonable that we should follow His moral codes as they are clearly what are best for mankind.

You may choose to do that, I live my life in another manner and I disagree
that they are what is best for mankind.

Jakkass wrote: »

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob may have spread through their patriarchs, but the Bible has rung true when it speaks of the Jewish people having been a blessing to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ and Christianity.

That maybe so for some people but not for all.

http://www.sanfords.net/Pagan_Humor_and_Thoughts/Other_People.html

Their mission, of course, is to save our heathen souls by turning us on to "The Word of the Lord"— their Bible. I guess they figger some of us just haven't heard about it yet, and we're all eagerly awaiting their joyous tidings of personal salvation through giving our rational faculties to Jesus. Every time they come around, I look forward to trying out a new riposte. Sure, it may be cruel and sadistic of me, but hey, I didn't call them up and ask them to come over; they entered at their own risk! This time should be pretty good. After letting them run off their basic rap while lovely Morning Glory serves us all hot herb tea, I innocently remark: "But none of that applies to us. We have no need for salvation because we don't have original sin. We are the Other People."

"Hunh? What?" they reply eloquently. It's clear they've never heard this one before. "Right," I say. "It's all in your Bible." And I proceed to tell them the story, using their own book for reference: (Genesis 1:26) The [Elohim] said, "Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth." Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated "Gods" or "Pantheon." (1: 27) The Gods created humanity in the image of
themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and female they created them. (1:28) The Gods blessed them, saying to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth." Now clearly, here we are talking about the original creation of the human species: male and female. All the animals, plants, etc. have all been created in previous verses. This is before the Garden of Eden, and Yahweh is not mentioned as the creator of these people.

The next chapter talks about how Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it: (Gen 2:7) Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being. (2:8) Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. (2:9) Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. (2:15) Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh's precise words: (2:16) Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. (2:17) Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." Fateful words, those. We will refer back to this admonition later. Then Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don't forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, "male and female," who are presumably doing just fine somewhere "outside the gates of Eden." But this set-up in Eden is Yahweh's own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny. (2:21) So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. (2:22) Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. Right. Man gives birth to woman. Sure he does. But that's the way the story is told here. (2:25) Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other. Well, of course not! Why should they? But take careful note of those words, as they also will prove to be significant...Now this next part is where it starts to get interesting. Enter the Serpent: (Gen. 3:1) The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" (3:2) The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. (3:3) "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death." (3:4) Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die! (3:5) "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh. Obviously, one of them has to be lying.Which one, do you suppose? And, if the serpent speaks true, wouldn't you wish to eat of the magic fruit? Wouldn't it be a good thing, to become "like gods, knowing good and evil"? Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?

(Gen. 3:6) The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. (3:7) Then the eyes ofboth of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths. The author makes an interesting assumption here: that if you realize you are naked you will automatically want to cover yourself. Further implications will unfold shortly...

(Gen. 3:8) The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. (3:9) But Yahweh God called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked. (3:10) "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid." (3:11) "Who told you that you were naked?" he asked. "Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?"

And so the sign of the Fall becomes modesty. Take note of this. The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked. It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked are, by definition, notcarriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!

(Gen. 3:12) The man replied,"It was the woman you put with me; she gave me the fruit, and I ate it." Right. Blame the woman. What a turkey! (3:13) Then Yahweh God asked the woman,"What is this you have done?" The woman replied, "The serpent tempted me and I ate."So of course she blames the serpent. But just what did the serpent do that was so evil? Why, he called Yahweh a liar! Was he wrong? Let's see... (3:21) Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on. Out of skins? This means that Yahweh had to kill some innocent animals to pander to Adam and Eve's new obsession with modesty!

And now we come to the crux of the Fall. Yahweh had said back there in chapter (2:17), regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter (3:4-5): "No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." So what actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse: (3:22) Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."

Get that? Yahweh himself admits that he had lied! In fact, and in Yahweh's own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover, Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam (and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge. To prevent them, in other words, from truly becoming gods! So who, in this story, comes off as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes
off as a tyrant? THE SERPENT NEVER LIED!

This story, to digress slightly, bears a remarkable resemblance to a contemporary tale from ancient Greece. In that version, the Serpent (later identified as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer) may be equated with the heroic titan Prometheus, who championed humanity against the tyranny of Zeus, who wished for people to be mere slaves of the gods. Prometheus, whose name means "forethought," gave people wisdom, intelligence, and fire stolen from Olympus. Moreover, he ordained the portions of animal sacrifice so that humans got the best parts (the meat and hides) while the portion that was burned to the gods was the bones and fat. In punishment for this defiance of his divine authority, Zeus condemned Prometheus to a terrible punishment for an immortal: to be chained to a mountain in the Caucasus, where Zeus' gryphon/eagle (actually a Lammergier) would devour his liver each day. It would grow back each night. Zeus promised to relent if Prometheus would reveal his great secret knowledge: Who would succeed Zeus as supreme god? Prometheus refused to tell, but history has revealed the answer... The interesting thing about all this is that the Greeks properly regarded Prometheus as a noble hero in his defiance of unjust tyranny. One may wonder why the Serpent is not so well regarded. On the contrary, snakes are loathed throughout Christiandom. (3:23) So Yahweh God expelled him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken. (3:24) He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the cherubs, and the flame of a flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life. So that's it for the Fall. But the story of Adam and Eve doesn't end there. (Gen 4:1) The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain... (4:2) She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain. Now Abel became a shepherd and kept flocks, while Cain tilled the soil. (4:3) Time passed and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh, (4:4) while Abel, for his part, brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favor on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast. Well, why shouldn't he be? Both brothers had brought forth their first fruits as offerings, but Yahveh rejected the vegetables and only accepted the blood sacrifice. This was to set a gruesome precedent: (4:8) Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out;" and while they were in the open country, Cain set on his brother Abel and killed him.

Accursed and marked for fratricide, (4:16) Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. We can assume that the phrase "left the presence of Yahweh" implies that Yahweh is a local deity, and not omnipresent. Now Eden, according to (Gen. 2:14-15), was situated at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, apparently right where Lake Van is now, in Turkey. "East of Eden," therefore, would probably be along the shores of the Caspian Sea, right in the Indo-European heartland. Cain settled in there, among the people of Nod, and married one of the women of that country. Here, for the first time, is specifically mentioned the "other
people" who are not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. i.e: the Pagans. So let's look at this story from another viewpoint: There we were, around six thousand years ago, living in our little farming communities around the Caspian Sea, in the land of Nod, when this dude with a terrible scar comes stumbling in out of the sunset. He tells us this bizarre story, about how his mother and father had been created by some god named Jahweh, and put in charge of a beautiful garden somewhere out west, and how they had gotten thrown out for disobedience after eating some of the landlord's forbidden magic fruit of enlightenment. He tells us of murdering his brother, as the god of his parents would only accept blood sacrifice, and of receiving that
scar as a mark so that all would know him as a fratricide.

The poor guy is really a mess psychologically, obsessed with guilt. He is also obsessively modest, insisting on wearing clothes even in the hottest summer, and he has a hard time with our penchant for skinny-dipping in the warm inland sea. He seems to believe that he is tainted by the "sin" of his parent's disobedience; that it is in his blood, somehow, and will continue to contaminate his children and his children's children.

One of our healing women takes pity on the poor sucker, and marries him... (4:17) Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became the builder of a town, and he gave the town the name of his son Enoch. With both of their first sons not turning out very well, Adam and Eve decided to try again: (4:25) Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Seth... (4:26) A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh. Now it doesn't mention here where Seth's wife came from. Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among "the other people." But whatever happened to Adam? After all, way back there in chapter Gen. 2:17, warning Adam about the magic fruit of knowlege, Jahweh had told him that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." So, when did Adam die? (Gen. 5:4) Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he became the father of sons and daughters. (5:5) In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died. Hey, that's pretty good! Nine hundred and some odd years isn't bad for a man who's been told he's gonna die the next day!

Well, the story goes on, and maybe next time the Witlesses come to visit I'll tell more of it. But suffice it to say that those of us who are not of Semitic descent (i.e., not of the lineage of Adam and Eve) cannot share in the Original Sin that comes with that lineage. Being that the Bible is the story of that lineage, of Adam and Eve's descendants and their special relationship with their particular god, Yahweh, it follows that this is not the story of the rest of us. We may have been Cain's wife's people, or Seth's wife's people, or some other people over the hill and far away, but whichever people the rest of us are, as far as the Bible is concerned, we are the Other People, and so we are continually referred to throughout.

Later books of the Bible are filled with admonitions to the followers of Yahweh to "learn not the ways of the Pagans..." (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic. And worship the sun, moon, stars and the "Queen of Heaven." "You must not behave as they do in Egypt where once you lived; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you. You must not follow their laws." (Lev 18:3) For Yahweh, as he so clearly emphasises, is not the god of the Pagans. We have our own lineage and our own heritage, and our tale is not told in the Bible. We were not "made" like clay figurines by a male deity out of "dust from the soil." We were born of our Mother the Earth, and have evolved over aeons in Her nurturing embrace. All of us, in our many and diverse tribes, have creation myths and legends of our origins and history; some of these tales may even be actually true.

Like the descendants of Adam and Eve, many of us also have stories of great floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other cataclysms that wiped out whole communities of our people, wherein "I alone survived to tell the tale." Nearly all of our ancestral tribes (and especially those of us who today are reclaiming our own Pagan heritage) lack that peculiar obsessive body modesty that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall. We can be naked and unashamed! Why, our Goddess even tells us, "as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites." Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of a Messiah to redeem our sinful souls.

Neither heaven nor hell is our destination in the afterlife; we have our own various arrangements with our own various deities. The Bible is not our story; we have our own stories to tell, and they are many and diverse. In a long life, you may get to hear many of them...

Fair enough, I think it's a positive thing that people consider faith more these days, and think about what they are doing before they commit themselves to a faith. I'm not denying that I would like more people to come to Christ and to come to Christianity though and to go on the path that God has set for them.[/QUOTE]

Húrin

ttilting wrote: »

Both of the above ''religions'' do not pretent to know the truth, Unitarianism specifically encourages participants to seek their own truth.

I believe that is what a religion should aim to do.
Indeed I believe that was what Jesus (a great man) was trying to encourage us all to do just that!

If you think that the Gospels are unreliable then how do you manage to think that Jesus' message was to make up your own mind about the truth? You contradict yourself.

The original sin was not a sexual sin. You don't know much do you?

ttilting wrote: »

Religion should be something that gives you the ability to search for your own truth, and get in touch with your own spirituality.

Indeed, and what gives you a licence to claim that Christian churches do the opposite?

ttilting wrote: »

Again thats very strange logic! ... The ''He MUST BE GOD!'' argument! . ....Please try to think for your self ! ..... this indeed was one of his key messages from Jesus.

Given that Lewis was using logic to deduce the nature of Jesus based on his actual claims (as opposed to what you wish Jesus said) it appears that Lewis was thinking for himself. Your idea seems to be that nobody who agrees with Christianity could possibly be thinking for themselves.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

But until any of them are proven substantively people will pick for themselves based on a number of factors including personal gnosis.

For me it is the many god option, which includes the christian god and he will get a nod from me but I will never bend my knee ever again.

It's impossible that God exists as described in the Bible, and several others also exist because in many faiths God is a monotheistic being. i.e no other gods. Sense would dictate that for me anyway.

As for proving God. God is strongly indicated for in apologetics. One can never prove a God absolutely, but one can gain rather strong reason for believing in one.

Thaedydal wrote: »

A deity which sticks to his/her own people.
A deity which sticks to certain roles for his/her own people.
A deity which sticks to a certain place

That isn't a deity at all!

One of the key attributes of God is omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience. If God is the author of the world, surely He has authority over all things, and rightly so!

Thaedydal wrote: »

Plenty of scope with out saying I own it all and I own all of you wether ye like it or not, sorry no real free will.

Of course there's free will, look around you. People can reject God's teachings whenever they want to. However He is waiting for them to accept Him again.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Good I am glad that you have a good personal relationship with you god.
I did and I didn't there were too many of his edicts or what seems to be his edicts that I found I had issue with and out of respet for those who are christian and catholic and not being a hypercrit I left those who count themselves part of his flock.

Fair enough, that is merely exercising the free will that you contend you didn't have under God at all

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://www.sanfords.net/Pagan_Humor_and_Thoughts/Other_People.html

Actually Thaedydal, Elohim is the royal We in that context, not actually a panthenon of gods. This also happens in the Qur'an, where it says "We" people conclude that there must be more than one god in Islam, but that isn't the case.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

It's impossible that God exists as described in the Bible,

I never said that there isn't a christain god ( wether it is JVH or not is another arguement ).

Jakkass wrote: »

and several others also exist because in many faiths God is a monotheistic being. i.e no other gods. Sense would dictate that for me anyway.

Shall we run a tally of how many faiths are mono vs poly ?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for proving God. God is strongly indicated for in apologetics. One can never prove a God absolutely, but one can gain rather strong reason for believing in one.

Such as ?

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't a deity at all!

In you opinion.

Jakkass wrote: »

One of the key attributes of God is omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience.

Please show where you found that defination or how you came to that conclusion.

Jakkass wrote: »

If God is the author of the world, surely He has authority over all things, and rightly so!

I do not agree with the claims that a god of desert tribes created the whole planet and the universe.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course there's free will, look around you. People can reject God's teachings whenever they want to. However He is waiting for them to accept Him again.

And then there are all those who have never heard of him and he plays no factor what so ever in their world or spirituality. Christians are simply not in the majority on this planet.

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough, that is merely exercising the free will that you contend you didn't have under God at all

So you are saying as a christian that human's don't have free will ?

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Thaedydal, Elohim is the royal We in that context, not actually a panthenon of gods. This also happens in the Qur'an, where it says "We" people conclude that there must be more than one god in Islam, but that isn't the case.

That is one translation there are others.

ttilting

Húrin wrote: »

If you think that the Gospels are unreliable then how do you manage to think that Jesus' message was to make up your own mind about the truth? You contradict yourself.

I just believe it to be 100% true from my studies of many bibles. I also believe there were many Jesus Type figures at the time, but they were all bundled into one convenient JESUS CHRIST messianic figure, most had the primary message to ''Think for yourself'' & Do Unto otheres as you would have them do unto you, but
I also believe that i could totally wrong!

The difference is i have the mental capacity to know that I will never know the low level finner detail, and being hung up on such matters is a waste of time, particularly when this low level ''dogma'' was clearly created to control the masses in the early centuries and not ! To spread the truth.
Oh ! and I don't intend on murdering/condemning/burnig/interfering with(politically!) anyone who doesn't agree with me either!

Many So called catholics merely use the religion as a vehical to look down on others, , , , there are also MANY More who believe much of the churches teachings to be rubbish! But have invested too much of their time in the dogma and are too steeped in the tradition to have the courage to admit they want to take a new path.

Húrin wrote: »

The original sin was not a sexual sin. You don't know much do you?

I stand corrected on this, i find this part of christian dogma to be laughable, and obviously invented 300ad to fill a gap or to control a certain amount of people....Good story! ,,,, No Truth.
Thank you for pointing it out in such a Christian way.

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed, and what gives you a licence to claim that Christian churches do the opposite?

Most traditional christian (mainly catholic.. small c or Big C) churches aim to propagate the '''findings''' of lots of men with questionable motives in red dresses and caps, after they have studies the writings of lots of even older men in red dresses and caps with even more questionable motives....... when you keep following the line back to the authors... you DO NOT come to Jesus! ..... nor do you come to Figures with the motivation of the Dalhi Lamha or mother Theresa,,, You come to a lineage of corrupt, egotistical zellotts comparable to todays George Bush, Robbert Mugabe or Osama Bin Ladden.
Imagine 2000 years from now people were pointing to these tyrants' teachings/writings As a way to live life! Or even if their teaching & writings formed a small part! of an organisations' code of ''how we should live,,,, and what is the truth,,,,,''
No self respecting person would go anywhere near such an organisation.

Further more , , , , The existance of One single Jesus was in doubt from the first century.

From the gospel of ''John''

"deceivers" who "have gone out into the world, people who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh."

what If john was wrong and those ''decievers'' were correct? What were johns motivations?. . . . What If like Nicolaus Copernicus after them. . . they were right!


Peace & courage unto you.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

I never said that there isn't a christain god ( wether it is JVH or not is another arguement ).

I'm just saying. Logic dictates that the God of the Bible cannot exist as described if He indeed is a monotheistic being and many gods exist. Either this is true, or this is false. Either one God exists, or many gods exist.

You may not have said this per sé but the consequences of what you are saying in effect means that the God of the Bible cannot exist.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Shall we run a tally of how many faiths are mono vs poly ?

Numbers are quite frankly irrelevant to me, but if you want go ahead.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Such as ?

Such as in the cosmology of the universe the mere probability of the world being formed, the planets being placed in the right position to the Sun, and for the right type of chemicals to be surrounding it to sustain life and finally for life to come from non-life in the first place is in the millions of billions of zeroes indicating that this is a supernatural event rather than a natural one.

The archaeology and the history of events in the Biblical scriptures being correlated. For example if one visited the Holy Land today, one could find absolutely every single site mentioned in the land of Israel. One could also look to historical sources and find that indeed Hezekiah did confront the Assyrian king, amongst various other things. This leads us to affirm that the Bible is authentic in many things. Prophesies and so on about the Messiah being fulfilled through the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Spiritual experiences and encounters with other Christians who often are quite different to me being similar or indeed the same. This is more than just a coincidence given the vast amount of people I've had the pleasure of talking to in confidence about these things. Difficulties, and how things happen in a Christian lifestyle are by and large the same between believers. This causes me to suggest that there is far more in common with us than just what we have read and what people have shared with us with the Gospel.

This is the shortened version. All in all, the Biblical scriptures correlate to reality quite sharply.

Thaedydal wrote: »

In you opinion.

What is a deity then?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Please show where you found that defination or how you came to that conclusion.

Most likely through divine revelation. However most definitions of a deity would indicate that it holds these characteristics. Mind you, if you don't accept that a divine being created the world, then any divine power that you do believe in would be almost relegated to human standards rather than divine standards.

"The essential nature of a god, divinity; A powerful entity that possesses numerous miraculous powers (e.g. a god or goddess)"

"A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings"

Surely miraculous powers would indicate that one would have a knowledge of the physical laws of the universe to be able to manipulate them, and that one would have a power far removed from humankind to be able to carry out these things? A divine power without this kind of power wouldn't really be a divine power at all surely?

Thaedydal wrote: »

I do not agree with the claims that a god of desert tribes created the whole planet and the universe.

Fair enough, but how would a higher power come to such an intimate understanding with mankind, or be able to communicate with mankind if they didn't have some essential component of communication that is in the likeness of that of God's?

Thaedydal wrote: »

And then there are all those who have never heard of him and he plays no factor what so ever in their world or spirituality. Christians are simply not in the majority on this planet.

I didn't claim that Christians were the majority and that is really of no consequence to me. Truth is truth irrespective of how many people adopt it. God doesn't play a factor in peoples lives because they choose not to accept His will for their lives. Again I am yet to see that just not being the majority makes the truth of Christianity less true? This is almost as poor as the argument that is often made about Christianity being less true because it uses a "bronze age book", yet antiquity doesn't dictate whether something is more or less true either. Truth is truth irrespective of antiquity, or population adherence.

Thaedydal wrote: »

So you are saying as a christian that human's don't have free will ?

Of course not, humans certainly have free will. However, it was you who disputed that human beings have free will in the light of a God like the one depicted in the Bible. God wants us to come to Him of our free will, and to learn of him as free willing intelligent beings.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is one translation there are others.

With my basic Hebrew reading skills I found the word in the Genesis 1 passage in the original Hebrew. (Makes me want to take out the Biblical Hebrew books again)

אֱלֹהִים - "eyloheeym" (if one does a bit of phonetics on it)

In part 1 we saw that the word Elohim is an "intensive plural". The intensive plural has the plural ending but the verbs and adjectives that accompany it are singular. The intensive plural denotes a singular object or individual but adds a connotation of greatness. So Elohim does not mean gods but great God.

Seems to make sense to me.

SkepticOne

Thaedydal wrote: »

For me it is the many god option, which includes the christian god and he will get a nod from me but I will never bend my knee ever again.

Monotheism is intrinsic to the Christian idea of god and so can't be included in a personal pantheon unfortunately. You can include a variation based on the christian god but not the the christian one. This goes for any of the monotheistic gods.

philologos

ttilting wrote: »

I just believe it to be 100% true from my studies of many bibles. I also believe there were many Jesus Type figures at the time, but they were all bundled into one convenient JESUS CHRIST messianic figure, most had the primary message to ''Think for yourself'' & Do Unto otheres as you would have them do unto you, but
I also believe that i could totally wrong!

What do you have to suggest that this is the case?

ttilting wrote: »

The difference is i have the mental capacity to know that I will never know the low level finner detail, and being hung up on such matters is a waste of time, particularly when this low level ''dogma'' was clearly created to control the masses in the early centuries and not ! To spread the truth.

How was this a control mechanism when Christianity actually became a problem for the Roman government until Constantine eventually accepted it as the faith of the Empire in the 4th century?

ttilting wrote: »

Oh ! and I don't intend on murdering/condemning/burnig/interfering with(politically!) anyone who doesn't agree with me either!

I don't intend to do any of these things either, I just want to live out my Christian faith and encourage others to do so too.

ttilting wrote: »

Many So called catholics merely use the religion as a vehical to look down on others, , , , there are also MANY More who believe much of the churches teachings to be rubbish! But have invested too much of their time in the dogma and are too steeped in the tradition to have the courage to admit they want to take a new path.

Well, luckily for me what many believe doesn't influence my faith. As I said to Thaedydal, numbers do not make what is true any less true. How is this an argument against the truth of Christianity (as a whole not just Catholicism)?

Also as for taking a new path, many ex-Catholics are trying out other forms of Christianity and have moved to other religions. This happens with every demographic of people at some point, be glad in the West that we have these freedoms.

ttilting wrote: »

I stand corrected on this, i find this part of christian dogma to be laughable, and obviously invented 300ad to fill a gap or to control a certain amount of people....Good story! ,,,, No Truth.
Thank you for pointing it out in such a Christian way.

Problem. Genesis was written circa 800BC, and the Jewish Tanakh was compiled circa 450BC by the Jewish Rabbinate. The Jewish Tanakh is the same as the Old Testament. When we are discussing the Council of Nicea and the compiling of the Bible we are discussing the selection of the New Testament books, not the Old. The Old Testament books were already compiled by the Jews.

ttilting wrote: »

Most traditional christian (mainly catholic.. small c or Big C) churches aim to propagate the '''findings''' of lots of men with questionable motives in red dresses and caps, after they have studies the writings of lots of even older men in red dresses and caps with even more questionable motives....... when you keep following the line back to the authors... you DO NOT come to Jesus! ..... nor do you come to Figures with the motivation of the Dalhi Lamha or mother Theresa,,, You come to a lineage of corrupt, egotistical zellotts comparable to todays George Bush, Robbert Mugabe or Osama Bin Ladden.

Hence why I believe in the Bible alone. The word revealed from God unto man, and Jesus Christ being the one true Mediator and High Priest. Do you not understand that one can be a Christian without bowing to authority figures. I'm quite happy with the pastors and the bishops in the COI, however, I'm sure they would tell you as much as I am that it is up to the individual to check that what they say correlates to the word of God as the Jewish converts at Berea did to Paul (Acts 17).

ttilting wrote: »

Imagine 2000 years from now people were pointing to these tyrants' teachings/writings As a way to live life! Or even if their teaching & writings formed a small part! of an organisations' code of ''how we should live,,,, and what is the truth,,,,,''
No self respecting person would go anywhere near such an organisation.

Imagine just? Are you arguing that the Apostles are comparable to these people or just the people who were in the Church?

ttilting wrote: »

Further more , , , , The existance of One single Jesus was in doubt from the first century.

Of course it wasn't. They had just witnessed Jesus, the Apostles were spreading the Good News across Asia Minor by that point. Luke's Gospel even was compiled from the testimony of those who had witnessed the ministry of Jesus Christ. Even in the 1st century authors such as Josephus had been creating history concerning the martyrdom of James the Righteous (with reference to Jesus of Nazareth), and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth himself in the Jewish Antiquities. Likewise other figures such as Tactius, and Pliny the Younger did in earlier centuries. Also historical evidence does lean to the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, and Eusebius in his History of the Church notes that the site was the site on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands today.

ttilting wrote: »

From the gospel of ''John''

"deceivers" who "have gone out into the world, people who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh."

Verse so I can put it in context?

ttilting wrote: »

Peace & courage unto you.

You too

hiorta

Perhaps a longer view might help the discussion.

The following are the seventeen slain saviour – gods listed by Arthur Findlay and known to history.
All were believed by their followers to have died for the sins of the world.

Bel (Babylon) 1200 BC
Orisis (Egypt) 1700 BC
Atys (Phrygia) 1170 BC
Themmuz (Syria) 1160 BC
Dionysus (Greece) 1100 BC
Krishna (India) 1000 BC
Hesus (Europe) 834 BC
Indra (Thibet) 725 BC
Bali (Asia) 725 BC
Lao (Nepaul) 622 BC
Alcestis (Pherae) 600 BC
Quexalcote (Mexico) 587 BC
Wittoba (Travancore) 552 BC
Prometheus (Greece) 547 BC
Quirinus (Rome) 506 BC
Mithra (Persia) 400 BC
Jesus (Rome) 325 AD

In all 34 god-men are known to religious history. 17 became saviours,
Around whose lives was told a similar story as was told about Jesus.
All saviour – gods were elevated by their followers to be god – men on earth and saviours and mediators in heaven.
Most were believed to be born of virgin mothers.
All died to save us from sin.
All were reported to have been seen after death.
Some of the beliefs surrounding the saviour gods are identical to the Christian fable.
So much so that 18th century Christian missionaries thought the natives had heard the stories of Christ before. Indeed they had!

philologos

hiorta: There is nothing compelling to suggest that either Mithra, Osiris or Horus had virgin births as there is no documents to account of this that are dated pre-New Testament. Even the Church Fathers wrote to say that the followers of Mithra were feigning similarity to Christianity to gain followers. However, you are only looking for what is there to suggest the other way around however, and fair enough. However it is a two way street.

Also Jesus didn't emerge during 325AD that's just absurd to be honest with you. The message of Christ was being propogated during the 1st century. Paul's documents are dated to 55AD and these are the first mention of Christianity in Asia Minor and in Europe. Do you want to actually research the truth about it or find what is only useful for your cause in particular?

As for Prometheus wasn't he the one that had his liver plucked out day and night, and for it to regrow so that the pain would never end for casting fire down to the earth from Olympus the land of the gods? Doesn't sound like a saviour to me?

Bear in mind that Zeitgeist the documentary has been refuted quite heavily, and it's sources were proven to be dubious many coming from the same author with different pen names.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Prometheus wasn't he the one that had his liver plucked out day and night, and for it to regrow so that the pain would never end for casting fire down to the earth from Olympus the land of the gods? Doesn't sound like a saviour to me?

Prometheus didn't cast fire down to earth... that makes it sound like he was torching the place...
The story goes he saw the people on earth suffering, cold and miserable, he took pity on them and took (some) fire from the gods and gave it to the humans, before this he also somehow got to be in charge of deciding which parts of animals were to be sacrificed to the gods, the bone and offal wrapped in fat rather than the meat... making sure the best bits got to the hungry humans.
He got chained to a rock for helping humans not for Casting fire down on them...

He also wasn't there for ever... apparently Heracles frees him many years later.

You should read Hesiod's Theogony...

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

What is a deity then?

Personally I know it when I see/experience it, they are a bit like porn in that way.

Jakkass wrote: »

Mind you, if you don't accept that a divine being created the world, then any divine power that you do believe in would be almost relegated to human standards rather than divine standards.

I am happy with my imperfect Gods, that doesn't make them human mind.

Jakkass wrote: »

"The essential nature of a god, divinity; A powerful entity that possesses numerous miraculous powers (e.g. a god or goddess)"

I agree on that one.

Jakkass wrote: »

"A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings"

That one too there are many who are worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

Jakkass wrote: »

Surely miraculous powers would indicate that one would have a knowledge of the physical laws of the universe to be able to manipulate them, and that one would have a power far removed from humankind to be able to carry out these things?

As a magical practitioner I disagree, who when last I checked was human.

Jakkass wrote: »

A divine power without this kind of power wouldn't really be a divine power at all surely?

You belief that only your god as such power, I know that those I interact with do as well. You can not as a christain acknowledge other gods I get that but that doesn't mean they are not gods to other people.

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough, but how would a higher power come to such an intimate understanding with mankind, or be able to communicate with mankind if they didn't have some essential component of communication that is in the likeness of that of God's?

Some of my gods did walk this earth indeed this very land before they went beyond the veil.

What do you mean by communication ?

Jakkass wrote: »

Truth is truth irrespective of how many people adopt it.

Truth is always subjective.

Jakkass wrote: »

God doesn't play a factor in peoples lives because they choose not to accept His will for their lives.

And you choose not to let other gods play a factor in your life as your god
forbids it, Why else would he command do not have other gods before me.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again I am yet to see that just not being the majority makes the truth of Christianity less true? This is almost as poor as the argument that is often made about Christianity being less true because it uses a "bronze age book", yet antiquity doesn't dictate whether something is more or less true either. Truth is truth irrespective of antiquity, or population adherence.

Again it' is your truth which has been re enforced due to your experiences
other people have thier own truth which has also been re enforced by thier personal spiritual experiences.

Jakkass wrote: »

Seems to make sense to me.

Clearly christianity does make sense to you but it doesn't to me and I am
far happier now then I ever was as a christian.

SkepticOne wrote: »

Monotheism is intrinsic to the Christian idea of god and so can't be included in a personal pantheon unfortunately. You can include a variation based on the christian god but not the the christian one. This goes for any of the monotheistic gods.

I never said I included the christain god in my personal pantheon,
I acknowledge that he/it is a god but that is as far as it goes other then
a nod of the head when I have to be in a church or to ask for aid for one of his followers.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am happy with my imperfect Gods, that doesn't make them human mind.

Are gods which are imperfect gods at all?

Thaedydal wrote: »

I agree on that one.

I'll savour the moment

Thaedydal wrote: »

That one too there are many who are worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

How does one determine that there are many rather than one?

Thaedydal wrote: »

As a magical practitioner I disagree, who when last I checked was human.

What does that involve? I do believe that magic can occur, however I would consider it harmful rather than positive in any sense of the word, and moreover dangerous for those who practice it. Then again that's the Christian bias I guess.

Thaedydal wrote: »

You belief that only your god as such power, I know that those I interact with do as well. You can not as a christain acknowledge other gods I get that but that doesn't mean they are not gods to other people.

"Being gods to other people" doesn't neccitate that they must also exist. I personally think this comes from a misreading of what God is trying to tell people, and there is indeed truth in just about all religions, however I would see Christianity to be the ultimate truth.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Some of my gods did walk this earth indeed this very land before they went beyond the veil.

What do you mean by communication ?

By communication, I mean that God speaks through life experiences, and by things happening in your life He can guide you a certain way. I know this is certainly true of me. For some it comes differently, through visions amongst other things. I also think that when I read the Bible and something stands out in particular, that is also a means of divine communication.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Truth is always subjective.

How is it? Is the world truly flat or is it round? I think it is true to say that it is round. Some may disagree with me but they are deviating from the truth.

Thaedydal wrote: »

And you choose not to let other gods play a factor in your life as your god
forbids it, Why else would he command do not have other gods before me.

The use of the g, rather than G is rather important. Throughout the history of the State of Israel (Biblical) God came down rather harshly on people for holding other concepts of god besides Him alone. If I deemed it acceptable to hold other concepts of god beside God Himself, then I would be nullifying that God Himself was true.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Again it' is your truth which has been re enforced due to your experiences
other people have thier own truth which has also been re enforced by thier personal spiritual experiences.

Due to my experiences, due to how reality and how people live seems to reinforce the concept of God being as well as the Biblical scriptures being confirmed and reinforced in other aspects such as historicity and archaeology.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Clearly christianity does make sense to you but it doesn't to me and I am
far happier now then I ever was as a christian.

It makes sense to me, but there is still much I am yet to understand. People grow in faith, it doesn't come of immediate effect always.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I never said I included the christain god in my personal pantheon,
I acknowledge that he/it is a god but that is as far as it goes other then
a nod of the head when I have to be in a church or to ask for aid for one of his followers.

It cannot be a God as it is described if one is to admit the existence of others. So if one of His followers needs help you would pray to a God that you don't particularly adopt? Surely you could recommend a prayer group or something? This is just a confusing notion.

Anyhow, thanks for entertaining yet another response. I'm just curious about how this understanding works that is all

SkepticOne

Thaedydal wrote: »

I never said I included the christain god in my personal pantheon,
I acknowledge that he/it is a god but that is as far as it goes other then
a nod of the head when I have to be in a church or to ask for aid for one of his followers.

If we are talking about the Christian god then in order to be the Christian god he must be the only god. If you acknowledge this god then you are denying the other gods.

kiffer

SkepticOne wrote: »

If we are talking about the Christian god then in order to be the Christian god he must be the only god. If you acknowledge this god then you are denying the other gods.

Not so much... You could agree that he exists but disagree about his nature. The whole "only god" thing could just be propaganda...

If multiple gods exist then the christian god is one of many regardless of what monotheists claim.