The Bible Thread: Help Fight Redundancy

Yes they may have been inspired by them, but when you have a society that is as large as the one we live in, laws are needed. Not all religous inspired laws are bad either. Just b/c they have religion at their source does not mean that conflict with the workings of a modern society. While there are laws against murder, you still dont find laws against gluttony or sloth

 

Chris2: One could argue that child molestors are the inspiration behind much anti-molestation legislation... does that somehow make child molestors a valuable part of society?

Laws are inspired by numerous religions, but people without religion aren't entirely lacking in common sense or development of secular cultural and societal standards and expectations.

On the other end of the spectrum... look at religious states which do exist like Israel and Saudi Arabia... One is in constant turmoil because being a religious state makes it so ridiculously inflexible, and the other treats women, minorities and non-Saudis horribly.

Personally, I think we can do without letting religion influence laws... we all know what good it did during the Holy Roman Empire and the influence of the Church of England upon the monarchy, the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and so on... the atrocities the Taliban committed towards Hindus well before the September 11th attacks were ignored by America. What they were attempting to do was to require Hindus to wear a "yellow label" to identify themselves... the Taliban claimed this was so that they would not inflict Taliban justice on non-Muslims. Hmm... I wonder if this is the same BS rationalization that the Nazi party gave to the Germans when justifying its use of the same "yellow labels"... and that is precisely how it starts, some group convinces us that their intervention is "for the better good" and gradually they make the shift from democracy to totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism isn't likely to happen in the US, but Bush and Ashcroft often have come very close to making theocratic-style "edicts" unilaterally without the true consent of the people (of course Congress and the courts will keep them in check, hopefully), and against the better judgment of the Constitution.

 

Some interesting things that the bible apparentally states about animals:


1-Bats are birds.

2-Ostriches 'laugh'.

Also, a note about Jesus's genealogy...if Jesus is genetically not the son of Joseph, then why is he linked to Joseph by genealogy? Also, what about the contradictions in Joseph's genealogies? He's given two different sets of ancestors. Doesn't say it's Mary's genealogy either.
Third, Jesus's sermon on the mount, where he tells us not to serve "God and mammon". It seems that Jesus is telling people to be jobless, something which most Christians-even Fundamentalists-seem to not do-in fact in these days it's nearly impossible. So are "working" Christians getting it all wrong? I suppose it could just be condemning over-materialism(Which means I'm probably in deep spiritual trouble 'cause of my AOTC shopping spree this morning )

 

Jesus is linked through joseph so that he could be linked back to members of the OT, thereby lending a legitimacy to his existence

 

It's fun to look at the Genealogies of Matt and Luke, after Jesus and Joseph they are totally different.

Question 1) is this an example of the bible as Metaphor, or contradiction? Do these two family trees really "complement" each other? To my untrained eye they don't look the same at all. I'm tempted to say they contradict, but i know they really complement. I don't know how, but i'm sure they do.

2) Why is Joseph even a part of the Family tree? Am i missing something?

 

Bats are birds.

The Hebrew word translated as bird simply means "flying creatures". This word is sometimes applied to insects as well. Bats aren't birds as we classify birds, but they are "flying creatures"


Ostriches 'laugh'.

I can't find this. I've looked up references for the ostrich in a couple of concordances and I can't find any reference to them laughing. Do you know where this is?


Also, a note about Jesus's genealogy...if Jesus is genetically not the son of Joseph, then why is he linked to Joseph by genealogy? Also, what about the contradictions in Joseph's genealogies? He's given two different sets of ancestors. Doesn't say it's Mary's genealogy either.

Matthew gives us Jesus' genealogy through Joseph and Luke gives it through Mary. Joseph is mentioned in both because Jewish genealogies were always given in relation to the men. The Greek word for son ("pais") is a very loose word. It can mean son, son-in-law, decendant, or even servant. Since Mary had no brothers, Joseph would have been considered as Heli's son in Jewish culture, which is why he is said to be Heli's son ("pais") in Luke's list. Jewish tradition calls Mary the daughter of Heli, so this view has been independently substantiated.

So why do Matthew and Luke take these different approaches? Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience and refered to the Old Testament more than any of the other gospel writers. In the Old Testament, we can read the genealogies of the kings. Jesus was a direct decendant of King David, so Matthew follows the genealogy through the kings. If we follow the Old Testament way of thinking, it's like Matthew's saying Jesus is the latest King of the Jews.

Luke, however, pays much more attention to the humanity of Jesus rather than his Old Testament fulfillment. He therefore follows Jesus' line through his natural parent, Mary, which actually still leads us back to King David.


Third, Jesus's sermon on the mount, where he tells us not to serve "God and mammon". It seems that Jesus is telling people to be jobless, something which most Christians-even Fundamentalists-seem to not do-in fact in these days it's nearly impossible. So are "working" Christians getting it all wrong? I suppose it could just be condemning over-materialism(Which means I'm probably in deep spiritual trouble 'cause of my AOTC shopping spree this morning)

Jesus doesn't tell us not to work. He himself earned his living as a carpenter. Jesus is talking about serving money. It's wrong to live for greed but we should all work, and work hard so we can provide for ourselves and our families.

 

BTW any thought on how extinct animals fit into the bible? I'm not talking about just Dinosaurs, here, but also the large number of extinct Mammels, reptiles, birds and fish reportedly from pre-Man eras. For some reason creationists seem to focus entirely on dinosaurs, when there are in fact other forms of extinct life!

Interestingly, the bible seems to actually describe a Sauropod:

Behold now the Behemoth, which I made with you. He eats grass like the ox.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar tree : the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are like strong pieces of brass: his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed and fens . The shady trees cover him with their shadow: the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up the Jordan River into his mouth.

He takes it with his eyes, his nose pierces through snares"

------

Note the comparison to Cedar trees, which would not match with any current other being, like a Hippo or Elephant.
It's also possible that the existence of Dinosaurs with man *could* have led to the foundation of many Dragon myths and legends throughout society. Dragons are frequently shown to be serpentine and ferocious, a feature of many Dinosaurs.

So, any idea where this could possibily fit?

---------

The reason many Christians seem to make such a fuss about evolution and elements of astronomy , as well as Atheism, is due to the fact that the Epistles tell Christians to guard against "Unbelievers" and "Knowledge"(Not *all* knowledge of course, just that which goes against God's nature-Which is why Christians have problems with Psychology and philosophy in addition to Evolution). The bible is pretty air-tight when it comes to this...hence Christian intolerance.

 

Here's another one--
The bible never seems too clear on the definition of Hell. We are often led to believe it's sort of an eternal 'torture chamber' of sorts, but from what I've read it appears that there's little reference to back this up. Apparentally the biblical nature of hell seems mainly the destruction of the soul, being cast into 'a lake of fire'-complete oblivion, in other words. After all, Jesus refers to his followers having "Eternal life" and to others "dying". There's no real mention of people having "an eternal life in hell" if you really look at it.
So in other words, "Hell" is a form of Soul destruction, which probably got mucked up with the Greek Hades and so on. Even Lazarus apparentally was not tortured, but was apparentally unconscious. So Hell is "Eternal sleep" instead of "Eternal life".


----------

Of course, this is really just a theory. The symbolism of the bible is hard to translate sometimes...

 

It really doesn't matter that much. Hell is a bad place. That's all you need to know.


I agree though, I think hell is something more than a simple lake of fire.


Someone around here said that Jesus's death wasn't really a sacrifice, because He took His life back up. Well, if hell is what I think it is (simply complete seperation in every single way from God), the Jesus did suffer hell, and He did take our place when He didn't deserve it (sin seperates us from God, Jesus had no sin).


"There's no real mention of people having "an eternal life in hell" if you really look at it."


Actually, there is. In one of Jesus's parables, He speaks of a rich man suffering in hell, looking up to Lazarus. Every human being was created with an eternal soul. That's one thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animals. We're eternal. Whether saved or lost.

 

201, doesn't that go against what you've said before about how "hell" is spiritual death and nothing more?

 

Yes, I did say that, and I still say it. But when I say spiritual death, I mean something totally different than what most people think I mean. I just mean that the part of you that feels joy, love, peace, and life dies. The eternal part (the soul?) contiues to live, but is seperated from the other part (the spirit?). I don't know exactly how to put it into words, but the point is, I believe that there is a hell and you stay there eternally. But a big part of you dies (or is seperated- completely-from God).

 

Alot of people feel like that anyway. Sounds like this hell would be more of the same.

 

Chris2, you *definitely* should check out the link in my sig.

 

Cydonia, I actually don't think hell will be much different than this life.


Well, it will be slightly different, in that every bit of happiness you've ever felt, every bit of comfort from a loved one, every calm after a storm, will be missed in hell. In my opinion (and the Bible's, not to mention Jesus's ).

 

Something I've been wondering--in the gospels, Judas apparentally hangs himself. However, in ACTS, Judas apparentally implodes-perhaps an act of God. How can the two be reconciled?

 

Kudos to Fat_Fett,Grand_Moff_Monkey and Jedi_Master201 for defending our faith so well. People will continue to do everything in their power to "prove" religion (i.e. the Bible, it's stories and our fundamental belief's)'s a bunch of bunk. That fact is mentioned in the Bible several times.

I wrote a long speech but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to proselatize so I deleted it. If I am banned I can be of help to no one.
We can debate, though. I am not the most skilled debater, but I'll learn.
Keep it up.

 

Another question-many Christians assume that they are *guided* by the holy spirit. However, from reading scripture, it appears to me that the Holy spirit was mainly reserved for the disciples/apostles, giving them a unique, divine understanding and also miracle powers similar to Jesus.

Also, I've been reading about other religions and noticed some similarities--for instance, Moses and Peter striking the rock and water coming out...and also Poseidon stricking the rocks and water coming out from Greek myth...any thoughts?

Also,still wondering how our fossil records of extinct creatures fit into the whole creation story...

 

Well, I don't like to get into evolution vs. creation debates, because I'm not really good with them, and the usually just turne into a big mess. But for the record, many people, including myself, believe Carbon dating to be inaccurate. But I don't really know how to give a satisfying answer to that question, so I'll just go back to the first one.


"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."-- Luke 1:41


"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophecied..."--Luke 1:61


"Now there was a man in Jeruselem called Simeon who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him."--Luke 2:25


"Which of you fathers, if a son asks for bread, will give him a sstone instead, or if he asks for a fish, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to you children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"--Luke 11:13


Those are just a few examples of the many refrences to the Holy Spirit being given to people other than the apostles.


As to the many religions, there are definitely similarities between many different religions. This, in my opinio, shows that we decended from common anscestors that taught their children and grandchildren certain truths that God revealed to them. And theose people taught their children and son on and so forth. On down the line these stories got watered down with some cultures, some got built upon to gigantic sizes, and then one civilization, the Jews, were given the task of preserving the truth for the rest of the world until the Savior came into the picture. (This is all just my opniion)

 

One thing I'm wondering--in the nativity story-Matthew's version-Matthew qoutes the OT, saying that Christ being brought out of Egypt fufilled a prophecy "I take my son out of Egypt". However, when you actually look at the passage it refers to, Hosea 11:1, it's clear that it's not a prophecy, but a history of Israel. Matthew was qouting out of context-a clear error in an otherwise flawless record. So Matthew apparentally was taking things out of context.
Also, there is the troubling case of many of the religions pre-dating the biblical accounts. For instance, the Osiris myth of ancient Egypt-Osiris was killed, came back after three days, was the 'redeemer' of mankind, would preside over a 'last judgement' and also was a trinity of three persons representing sun one god-Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
So could this simply be "Diabolical mimicry"?

 

Hmm doubtful. It seems from my studies of it at least that it is it's own system. While it may have similarities to others, it remains seperate in both geography and in historical context.

 

Still, Egypt was fairly near Israel...

Another problem, I think, are the enalogies to "Stars". It's obvious that the evening/morning stars referred to in the bible refer to Venus. Yet if God knew it was actually a planet, why did he refer to them as a star?

 

Stop questioning Chris2. Stop questioning Chris2. Stop questioning Chris2. Stop questioning Chris2.

go here:

beware

Thought Crime!Thought Crime!Thought Crime!Thought Crime!Thought Crime!Thought Crime!



It's early.

 

No one answered this:


1)Unicorns, centaurs, and dragons are in the bible...how can you explain this?

Unicorns, centaurs, and dragons. Show me the context and I will explain it. Maybe the hebrew scholars didn't have words for it other than that.

2)How could Noah have honestly had two of every creature? There are millions of species in the world, the Ark was probably very, very, very big...has satan "mutated" the initial species in the ark?

There are millions of species, but I suspect that most of them are insects. Many species, such as the canines are one species, yet different breeds. Noah may have only taken a few of each breed, or maybe only two dogs. The ark was very big and by current estimates could hold around 500,000 sheep. Most of the animals wouldn't have taken up that much space as there are only around 35,000 species of animals to my knowledge.

3)What about Dinosaurs and other fossils? Real or satanic deception?

What do you expect over a long time and many small disasters with lots of animals? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

If you have a huge global flood with lots of living things in the earth, what do you get? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

4)What are the other planets and stars for? Light?

Signs, seasons, and years. And to look pretty. God actually likes to look at pretty things that he has made.

5)Why would god be offended by a Ziggauraut when other structures in the world were much larger?

He was offended by the theoretical(Because it was a tower, nothing more is specified) Zigguarat because it was an attempt by the whole of all mankind to unite themselves and be as one mind so that Satan could easily take advantage of the whole race.

6)The knowledge of Earth's nature in the bible doesn't seem to jive with what we now know:

That is a topic for the Creation or Evolution thread. And who says that it doesn't?

Hmmph. And I'll answer this though no one may have asked it:

Where did Cain get his wife?

Adam had sons. And Adam had... daughters. Back then the gene pool was much stronger, and close marriages would have been fine. He married his sister.

 

Chris2

One thing I'm wondering--in the nativity story-Matthew's version-Matthew qoutes the OT, saying that Christ being brought out of Egypt fufilled a prophecy "I take my son out of Egypt". However, when you actually look at the passage it refers to, Hosea 11:1, it's clear that it's not a prophecy, but a history of Israel. Matthew was qouting out of context-a clear error in an otherwise flawless record. So Matthew apparentally was taking things out of context.

Matthew doesn't quote the OT out of context. He doesn't say that Hosea 11 is a prophesy, but simply that Jesus fulfilled his words. Confused? Let me explain. Jesus claimed that he had come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets - that is, the whole OT. He didn't simply fulfil a handfull of prophecies. The whole Law finds its fulfilment in Jesus. For example, the sacrificing of a Lamb in the OT no longer needs to happen because Jesus is the Lamb of God, sacrificed once for all. That's just one example.

In regards to Hosea and Matthew's words, we need to understand that the Messiah was a fulfilment of Israel itself. There are many parallel's between Israel's history and the life of Christ. He came to show us and to show Israel how it's meant to be done. He satisfied the law and the prophets perfectly.

Just a few of the many parallels are:

• Both Israel and Jesus were the seed of Abraham.
They are both God's chosen ones.

• They have both had the responsibilty to show God's glory to the world.
• They both had humble beginnings.
• They were both called out of Egypt.
• They were both baptized (1 Corinthians 10 describes Israel's walk through the Red Sea as baptism, in that the water cut off their old way of life)
• The both spent time in the desert. Israel doubted God and stayed in the desert for 40 years, while Jesus resisted temptation and stayed there 40 days.

And the list goes on. Jesus fulfilled (ie satisfied the conditions and circumstances of Israel in the OT. With regards to Hosea's words, Matthew simply pointed out that they found their fulfilment/satisfaction in Jesus. "Out of Egypt I called my son."

I hope this makes sense.

 

Yes the parrallels are there b/c the people who created the jesus myth drew upon earlier myths, both jewish and pagan