Who Killed Jesus?
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
This is awesome (thank you neurostar, for linking this in the lounge):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm
TWICE!!!
That's a far better proof of the existence of God than any of the bible beating I've seen here in the political lounge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm
TWICE!!!
That's a far better proof of the existence of God than any of the bible beating I've seen here in the political lounge.
and apparently, G-d's a film critic...Originally posted by ohio
This is awesome (thank you neurostar, for linking this in the lounge):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm
TWICE!!!
That's a far better proof of the existence of God than any of the bible beating I've seen here in the political lounge.
"Wait for it to come on cable." ~ G-d gives it two mt. everest-sized thumbs down!
Of course it's easier for a believer, and not a skeptic or critic, to accept the Bible as is. But, that is erroneously assuming that (1) believers are not skeptical and (2) professionals (those who read and interpret as part of their living or duties) are not believers.
Further, if anyone says they read the Bible carefully and with an eye for truth and interpretation then saying they can (as you appear to do) grasp it with relative ease and without serious conflict then that person is either not reading carefully enough or that person is lying. Don't mean to knock your habits but I just cannot fathom how someone could claim to have so much assurance and so much knowledge. I have read much of the Bible on my own, at church and for classes and some books give me lots of trouble in their interpretation and I still need to delve more deeply. Serious ethical, moral and theological issues are raised in many places without a clear resolution (sometimes without a boldface issue).
Complacency in reading is, in my experience, the worst problem in all of the Christian churches I have been to (mostly being Episcopal and Catholic). People believe, listen to the readings and never question the author, the authenticity, the meaning or the difficult issues. Debate and serious contemplation (which, in my experience, is much more of a Jewish tradition) is passed over for the easy route.
Getting back on track, Gibson can do what he wants and I am interested to see ther result. Blaming Jews is not far from the Bible. The priests and the "crowds" asked for death and were after the (despite what some gospels might make you think) politically and socially volatile Jesus.
I did enjoy the Brick Testament also. That was very funny. We don't have a "Bible" so to speak (although we do use it as a tool in our guidance classes). So I can't really point you there. Sorry. In fact I would rather not get into it here and derail this very cool thread. PM me and we can share our beliefs.....jdcamb
This is histerical. For those who think a certain way, it would seem some type of sign. Can you imagine what the actor is thinking? Think he just plays it off, (and says) well, yeah, lots of people get hit by lightning twice........Originally posted by ohio
This is awesome (thank you neurostar, for linking this in the lounge):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm
TWICE!!!
That's a far better proof of the existence of God than any of the bible beating I've seen here in the political lounge.
You're certainly entitled to think that, but that's not Biblical.
Actually even before Jesus, God came down to "dwell in our midst", Moses even caught a glimpse of what was left behind after God passed by. By I agree God is far beyond our comprehension, and humans tend to put Him in a box. We do however get hints and ideas about Him from the Scriptures.
Interestingly, we get a glimpse of what God is like by our interactions with each other. When you are loved, forgiven, encouraged, etc, we get a glimpse (however small) of what God is like.
I guess because we have the Scriptures that give us an idea of what God is like and the things He has done throughout the years.
I have no idea, that is sad.
Would you care to elaborate on that? I don't see that what jdcamb said was not Biblical.
From my point of view Jesus was not God, but the son of God. Also the son of Mary and was himself a man. Hence not really comparable to God, in fact more comparable to you and I (prior to death and resurrection at least).
i recognise jdcamb's assertion (shared by you) that jesus was not god as inconsistent with biblical doctrine. Supporting passages include, but are not limited to:
- Gen 1:26 -> "let us create man in our own image
- Isa 6:8 -> "also, i heard the voice of the lord saying, whom shall i send, and who shall go for us?
- John 14:6 -> "no one comes to the father except through me" (package deal here)
As an aside, i'm sure glad these conversations aren't face-to-face, for i'd be a fumbling, bumbling mess. Thanks for making me bone-up.
I sure would. I'll cite a few Scriptures that clearly indicate Jesus was fully God (all Scriptures cited are taken IN context, and the Literal Translations is used):
Romans 9:5 "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." The "Word" here being the fulfillment of the OT prophecies, the Messiah.
John 10:38 (Jesus speaking)"But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may perceive and may believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." How can Jesus be in the Father and the Father be in Him if He is not God?
Joh 10:30 (Jesus speaking)"I and the Father are One!" Again how can they be "one" if they are separate?
Joh 20:28 (after the ressurection) "And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!"
John 15:23 (Jesus speaking) "The one hating Me also hates My Father." If I hate you does that automatically mean I hate your father? Because Jesus was fully human and fully God (I can't explain how that works), if you hated Him (according to this verse) you also hate God. Why? Because they are the same.
One of the core beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus was God in the flesh, and we get that from the Scriptures. Now you can believe otherwise, as I said in my other post, but that is not Biblical.
abba, father, son of man, etc.
not aware of any terms which aren't masculine. This is a stronger statement than saying, "i can't find any feminine references". It does not allow for any gender neutral terms. The holy spirit is not in body form, and thusly gender does not apply. I'm not trying to anthropomorphise, merely sharing inferences.
anyone observe differently?
John 14:6 does not give any backing to your view of Jesus being anyhting other than a normal man. Simply that he is the pathway to God. In fact as he speaks of his father as a separate entity is actually opposes the point you are trying to put across.
Gen 1:26 implies multiple being but not necessarily multiple Gods, whereas Isa 6:8 implies a single God only.
Here's some further 'Jesus is not God' viewpoints:
1 Tim. 2:5: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
"But to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:6) (note where the comma is)
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God" (Mark 10:17,18)
"prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup (of suffering and death) pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matt. 26:39)
Very much apropos of this thread:
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life...No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:17,18)
My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)
That'll do for now. I won't reciprocate on the thanks for making me bone up, you are simply reviving memories of my childhood!
Not I. That is exactly what I believe. Sorry for the distraction....jdcamb
having a firm belief that god takes on 3 forms, i don't find those passages to contradict my earlier statements. The passages you chose (i believe jesus is speaking in all of these, if memory serves) of particular interest, are these:
*sidebar: for anyone reading this who thinks a case can be made for "prosteletysing" & therefore violating RM rules, i ain't preachin', just trying to make sense of it myself.
they of are interest (to me) in that i can't flippantly dismiss them by saying "1 = 3, see?" like the others. Also requires choosing to believe in the trinity.
*sidebar: for anyone reading this who thinks a case can be made for "prosteletysing" & therefore violating RM rules, i ain't preachin', just trying to make sense of it myself.
prosteletysing
That's a big word.
I think you are clearly not engaged in the dark arts of the evangelical...:devil:
It's always been fine to discuss the Bible.
That's a big word.
I think you are clearly not engaged in the dark arts of the evangelical...:devil:
It's always been fine to discuss the Bible.
Ok get ready and put your Bible running shoes on. First of all in the literal translastion the "man" is capitalized to denote Jesus' deity. Check out Genesis 15, where God makes the covenant with Abraham. God desired a relationship with Abraham, and he wanted Abraham to understand that relationship in a concrete way. So he used a covenant ceremony that was common in Abrahams daya blood path walk that sealed the relationship between two parties. Animalssheep, goats, birdswere hacked into two pieces, from head to toe, and placed on the ground with their blood in a single path. Each party walked through the blood, indicating: I will keep my part of this covenant or you can kill me like these animals.
God promised Abraham that hed become a great nationthat all people on earth would be blessed through him. And to show Abraham he was serious, he walked through the blood and staked his life on it, in effect it became God's responsiblilty to fulfill the covenant.
Now back to 1 Timothy 2:5, refering to Jesus at the mediator is in effect refering to Him as God, since in Genesis 15 God's made the statement (by His actions) that He would fulfill the covenant (ie be the mediator).
Dude, you're pulling a "typical" Christian trick here, quote the WHOLE verse. " but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him." Notice the end of the verse, one Lord (capital "L") Jesus Christ.
This is the passage where Jesus tells the rich young man and the whole "going through the eye of a needle". And how does Jesus saying no one is good except God refute that Jesus was God on earth? There are plenty of verses that indicate He was without sin, so of no one is good but God and Jesus had no sin then.............
So if Jesus was fully man and fully God why did He pray to God? Not a clue, but I'll try to find out. I don't believe this refutes Jesus being God in the flesh.
Check out verse 15 in that passage, Jesus says that the Father knows Him and He knows the Father. That second "know" is the Greek word Kago, which can be translated to mean "both me" or "me also". Taking the Scriptures out of context can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.
Check out Psalm 22:1, it's the prayer of a righteous person suffering. The only person has ever been righteous (without sin) according to the Bible is Jesus. How was He sinless, because He was God in the flesh.
The best commentary for Scripture IS Scripture. I'm still waiting for you to refute the verses I posted that indicate Jesus was God.
Anyway, this has been fun.
Which translation/version of the Bible are you using here? I ask because the first quotation (Romans 9.5) is (I think) in the King James version 'Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever' and reads rather differently to your post.
Also in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) it reads; 'They are Israelites . . . to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen' Which is wholly different.
In order to take this discussion any further we need to agree on a single version or start a separate thread/forum!
I would propose the King James version for two reasons:
1. I'm more familiar with it (so it's easier for me to discuss)
2. Later versions may be based upon it rather than a new translation from the original.
I'm not a practising Christian BTW and I have no real axe to grind but I have always found the theory of the holy trinity a bit flimsy (my opinion, not stated as fact) and counter to the very idea that Christ was the saviour of mankind, was tempted, died and was sinless. After all, if he had been God all the way through it really wasn't much of a challenge.
I used the Literal Translation, which is a word for word translation of the Hebrew Greek texts.
Actually the translations are not that far off contextually. Your KJV of that verse still assert Jesus is Lord (who is over all).
OK, firstly capitalisation proves nothing!
So you think he prayed to himself?
I think we have clearly demonstrated that scripture is open to interpretation and not always easily understood though!
Christian trick? Eh? I don't even profess to be religious never mind a Christian. Still looks to me like they're talking about two separate entities to me..
Erm, perhaps the fact that he talks about God in the third person and refers the other party in the conversation away from him and towards God. And because he was sinless does not make him God. If you think about it it makes him a man as being God and sinless is nothing remarkable at all. Being a sinless human being is remarkable and that's what it is all about after all!
So you think he prayed to himself?
I'll certainly agree with the last sentence and pass it straight back!
Once again how God being sinless would be even worth writing about is beyond me. With regard to the question about refuting your other quotes please see my other post about versions and also bear in mind that my time and access to this thread is limited (and this subject could run and run).
I think we have clearly demonstrated that scripture is open to interpretation and not always easily understood though!
No it don't. It say:
'Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever'
Can you not see at least one other meaning? If you say no then we may as well stop this discussion right now.
Also why would God be God blessed?
Ok Fluff, we could go round and round with this for days. You are not a Christian, so I don't expect you to understand or be able to grasp the whole Jesus being God thing, or the Trinity thing. But that's ok your intitled to your opinion.
I would say the only thing (with all due respect) have an issue about what you have said is that the Bible does not support the whole Jesus being God thing (which it does). I think Stinkle posted on here you can choose to believe it or not, that's true, part of why we as Christians believe that Jesus was God in the flesh is because the Bible says so. But to assert the Bible does indicates Jesus was not God is uninformed at best.
BTW- Capitalization is everything and was used in the orginal texts to indicate which "Lord" they were referring to. In one of the verses you cite the one about "no one is good but God", the whole rich man thing. In that passage in some KJV translations I think they refer to him as a "lord" (ie ruler), so does that mean he was God also? LORD is in all caps in the OT to refer to God's name, Yahweh or in the Hebrew YHWH. Why is it in all caps, as a form of reverence and to differentiate between what who was being described in teh text (man or God).
I didn't not mean to imply that you were a Christian, my point was is that only quoting part of or taking a verse out of context is used by lots of "sects" to explain or justify unorthodox beliefs or actions.
The text in that verse is pretty clear, "one Lord Jesus Christ". If the text says one Lord Jesus Christ, how can that be multiple entites?
I beg to differ. The Scriptures say that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Being sinless from a Biblical perspective is a big deal. According to the Bible God cannot look upon sin, and that separated us from God, and thus the whole reason He came down in human form to be the blood atonement for our sins. We as humans, according to the Bible, can never be sinless (surprise surprise).
It's worth writing about because only one person was able to live a sinless life according to the Bible, and that was Jesus.
Now that said, you can choose to believe that or not to, and that's fine, you're intitled to that choice. But to assert that being sinless is not big deal in the Bible is uninformed.
Yes I think we have. The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not cut up to suit an agenda. That's why I try to quote whole passages in their context, and study the passage in it's cultural (the Jew's had a different way of thinking than us westerners) and historical context.
Can you not see at least one other meaning?
Who is over all? According to the Bible God is. How did God bless Himself? I have not a clue, there is ALOT about the trinity I don't understand, but like I said in my other post believe by faith. However the Scriptures support that (the concept of the Trinity that is).
Let me put up the same verse in a few different translations:
Literal: "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Alternate Literal: "of whom [are] the fathers and out of whom [is] the Christ [or, the Messiah] (the [ancestral descent] according to [the] flesh), the One being over all God blessed into the ages [fig., forever]! So be it!"
Contemporaty English Version: "They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of Jesus Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.
Hebrew Names Version:"of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Messiah as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amein"
The Message: "to say nothing of being the race that produced the Messiah, the Christ, who is God over everything, always. Oh, yes!"
So you see, if you are really going to study the Scriptures and be able to understand them (as much as a human can) you have to use different translations, look at the context of the whole passage etc.
I'm not even going to get into how I don't think the KJV is a totally accurate translation in addition to the fact that it is hard to read.
What do you mean by "original texts"? I find your sentence confusing since there was no capitalization in ancient Hebrew or Greek. Those are modern English translations. It would be accurate to say that the capitalization in English (and the words chosen as well) refer to the various words in Hebrew; capitalized for the divine and not otherwise. I assume that is what you meant since you seem to know more than I do about translation.
Also, it is relevant to note, given the wide range of quotes appearing here, that in parts of the OT (Gen. may be the only one), the word "elohim" is used in place of the later YHWH. The latter is commonly interpreted as LORD and the former as God. They have different connotations as well with elohim possibly meaning a divine body included in a range of others and YHWH being the more modern concept of a single and powerful cohesive force.
I was in a hurry, but yes you are correct in your assumption. Thanks for clarifying that.
Exactly, thanks for reinforcing my point.
I can see more then two meanings as it happens.
On one hand you say scripture supports the trinity yet where there is evidence against it you ignore or trivialise it yet it is part of the same scriptures.
You accuse me of a Christian trick, patronise my ability to understand due to my lack of faith and then throw in complete nonsense about capitalisation.
Here's a little background on me to put things in perspective.
My father is a preacher and I was raised in a very religious household by parents whose faith was absolutly founded on the words on the Bible and nothing else. They constantly study scripture going back to the earliest Hebrew and Greek and base their faith on what they find. They constantly question the tenets of their beliefs and theeir understanding of the Bible. They can do this with an open mind without questioning or losing their belief in God.
As for myself, I had read at three translations of the bible several times by the age of 14 and given what I had read and what I saw in the world I cannot believe in any of the great religions in the world (having subsequently looked into others).
I intend to live the best life I can according my moral code (which unsurprisingly is very similar to a christian code without the religious hang-ups) and take death or damnation with all the learning and guidance I was given. But as I do not believe in hell I'm not too bothered.
I won't argue faith with you (because there is no point) but don't try and patronise my ability to understand the bible or Christian beliefs.
Fluff, first off I want to apologize if I came of or was patronizing to you. You clearly know your Scriptures and I did not intend to characterize you as stupid or anything remotely like that.
After sleeping on it, I came to the realization that we are not going to agree on this, but I can however cause us to explore other points of veiw, which is a good thing.
I would however submit that some of the concepts in the Scriptures take a measure of faith to understand. I would compare this to evolution (not wanting to start a discussion on that topic) but there are aspects of that theroy that take a measure of faith to understand. I don't have that faith and I don't understand (more like they don't make sense to me, like you with the whole Trinity thing) many aspects of that theroy.
Anyway Fluff, I again apologize if I came of patronizing, you obviously know your Bible.
Dude, the apology is not necessary, I posted my reply this morning (UK time) and I'm notoriously grumpy until the afternoon...
The thing with scripture is that we could probably bat various quotations back and forth ad infinitum and it wouldn't change a thing (as you have said). At the end of the day I feel that how you live should always be more important than the finer points of your belief.
A major factor in my rejection of my parent's belief (and pretty much by association most organised religion) was each sect/denomination's assertion that they had the only answer and everyone else was condemned. Didn't sound much like a God I wanted to know if he was that pedantic.
I prefer to stand or fall on my actions.
It's funny you mention that. Up until about the year 500 Christians were known for how they live ("the Way") not a set of doctrine they believed. I think way too often Christians get way too wrapped up in a set of beliefs rather than living the kind of life Jesus calls them to live.
For the record God is not like that, there are no "denominations" in the Scriptures (as I'm sure you know). Jesus didn't say I am the way truth and the light, but you also need to be Methodist, Catholic, Baptist or whatever. I think many Christians confuse their faith with their "membership" with a particular denomination.
Anyway, good discussion.
Did the "assumption" ring too near? I think it no less jackass to pretend that you make no generalizations based upon your experiences. How many more times will you nitpick my comments with your own assumption that I refer to ALL when I really refer to a trend? Did I say ALL or UNIVERSALLY? Did I say non-Christians are godless? If not, quit injecting it with editorial license you do not posess. Yet another irony is that you would transfer your own faulty judgements onto me as if they are my own. I agree with you from time, but your distaste for my political and social leanings apparently obstructs your reading comprehension.
Now to clarify for those who read $hit that isn't there, "godless left-wingers" refers to those and just those(nobody else)- liberal atheists. Yes, there are plenty of conservative atheists but AS A GENERAL RULE, they are not the ones supporting reparations. Get it? Good.
By the way, this rant was not aimed at LO, as I recognize you were just being good-natured.
For someone with a vocabulary as broad as yours you need to work on clarity. The phrase "godless left-wingers" can mean EITHER only the leftwingers that are godless or leftwingers ARE godless.
If the former was your intent, I'll take back my statement.
For example, if I were to say "uptight WASPs"... that is clearly intended to mean all WASPs are uptight. I'd have a hard time defending it as only the WASPs that are uptight, but not the mellow ones.
edit: almost skipped this part
No but it's an easy assumption to make when the thread is explicitly about the Jews and whether or not they are guilty. Additionally, while you're going way off topic to make a statement about liberals, it's pretty easy to assume your prejudices are all encompassing. If you were really concerned about who fell under your umbrella, it wouldn't have been hard to be more explicit. If you don't want to have your words nitpicked, choose them more carefully. This is unfortunately an internet board, not a conversation, so it's more important to get it right to first time.
I know, I'm more moderate than liberal and I'm a jew, so I ain't godless... I'm one of the choosen people. G-d loves me more than he loves you
EDIT: Uhh, what'd I say anyway that was good-natured?
So, would it have been ok if he put a comma in?
"G-dless, left-wingers"
Ha. Talking about grammar when I'm taking a break from Calculus
I don't think jews -- well, me anyway -- care whether people think we're guilty. I just don't want some ignorant schmuck giving any jew a hard time for it.
Yup, misunderstandings are so easy. They do it all the time here and he continues to correct them even tho they really weren't even in the conversation in the first place when he was talking in third-person to the other guy.
I stand corrected. FVCK YOU!
Hows about when it comes to me, you just assume I only refer to those I specifically indicate? I very rarely trade in universals because so few of them really exist. I mention this because we have had this same discussion before where I made a general observation you interpreted as a sweeping condemnation. Would you not agree that many stereotypes are indeed based in truth even if they are not universal or flattering?
I don't think I'm specifically targeting you. I've reread that phrase numerous times since it came back into discussion, and I still feel like it most clearly reads as a statement that all liberals are godless and support reparations. I understand that it can mean other things, but its simply not the way it reads. That has nothing to do with my conception of you and your views (normally you crack my **** up). Like I said, if that's not what you meant, I take back my statement... but it's still going to read to me the way I first interpreted it.
As for stereotypes, yes, I will agree that they are usually born out of some truth, but that doesn't make them correct. ALL stereotypes have been twisted from the real truth even in their application to a select few, and the belief that they come from truth is what makes them dangerous. It's human nature to buy into them (and I am as guilty as everyone else of this), but that doesn't mean they should be encouraged or accepted. When I get called out for using them myself, I'm usually in the wrong.