The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[5-0 Kenpo]

I don't think many of these folks want to believe in unicorns (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalms 92:10, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:9, Job 39:10), or dragons and giants and talking donkeys (I'm not making that up...the Bible has a talking donkey...but no green trolls with Scots accents that I know of). But I digress...as I'm moving from errors and contradictions to the realm of biblical absurdities.

From Bible Gateway (NIV version):

Numbers 23:22 - God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox.

Numbers 24:8 - God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. They devour hostile nations and break their bones in pieces; with their arrows they pierce them

Psalms 92:10 - You have exalted my horn like that of a wild ox; fine oils have been poured upon me.

Job 39: - Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will he stay by your manger at night?

I'm not sure where it says anything about unicorns. No references given for dragons and talking donkeys, so I can't look them up.


And as far as assuming God ought to handle it the way we mortals would handle it--yes I do expect him to set an example and be precise, and clear, and fair in his dealings with the beings he supposedly loves. We should not be told to be moral, only to be confronted with examples of immoral behavior on His part. We should not be told to be compassionate, only to be confronted with a deity who is on record as having murdered (or ordered the murder) of thousands of children and the rape of young girls and women. This is moral relativism at its worst.

Going into this would require a lot of context and cross-referencing. Let me say this (and I'm sure I'll get one of those "Logical Fallacy: Yada-Yada" responses): who are we to understand a being as powerful and knowing as God.

Am I chumming the waters? Sure. But if the Bible is inerrant, and there are no contradictions, then no trap can be laid. You should have no difficulty here, nor should anybody else desiring to refute what I write.

One must understand, that when reading any book, the cultural and historical context must be taken into account. This does not necessarily imply contradictions.

Also, in regards to the purple vs. red debate. I would refer you to the fact that two people can see the same event and "see" different things. Being a police officer, it is something that I routinely see. However, neither is necessarily wrong, just different.

 

[Ray]

I'm not sure where it says anything about unicorns. No references given for dragons and talking donkeys, so I can't look them up.

The quotes that you ref re the wild ox are translated as "unicorn" in the KJV. I figured that a one-horned animal might have been a rhino instead of a wild ox.

Yes, in the OT there is an account of an angel speaking through a donkey. I'll find it and post the ref to it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Why do you think that? If he wanted us to all know that he existed, he would just appear to us all and prove that he is who he says he is. Maybe he'd like us to walk by faith.

Fair enough, Ray...but that is not what many inerrantists claim. In support of the Bible they state that it is historically and scientifically accurate. They don't make an appeal to faith, but certitude.

"Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to."

Its in the Bible Ray. The answers are there and are very clearly stated. That's why I asked the question.

From Bible Gateway (NIV version):

Numbers 23:22 - God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox.

From Bible Gateway (King James version):

Numbers 23:22 -God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

And that Bible version is the one that exists in a majority of hotel rooms across the United States. If you accept the NIV version, you're admitting to an error and absurdity in the KJV and exposing a contradiction.

who are we to understand a being as powerful and knowing as God.

You're right...it would indeed invite a claim of it being a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad vercundiam. You're making an appeal to authority. Further, you're doing it in the face of horrific and despicable acts, thus defending them.

One must understand, that when reading any book, the cultural and historical context must be taken into account.

Again, this is moral relativism, and abandons any universal concept of good and bad.

Also, in regards to the purple vs. red debate. I would refer you to the fact that two people can see the same event and "see" different things. Being a police officer, it is something that I routinely see. However, neither is necessarily wrong, just different.

On the contrary, one is clearly wrong. If two witnesses have different accounts that contradict each other's, and later one of the accounts is verified by a video tape, then clearly one was mistaken...or lying. The contradiction exists regardless, whether it is born of a perceptual error or a lie, it still exists. The robe can not be purple and red at the same time.

Let's look at Robert Ingersoll's view of how we might perceive a Holy book that would carry such import for humanity. Ingersoll wrote that a book conceived by an omniscient and omnipotent and perfect Deity would most certainly meet the following criteria:

It should be a book that no man--or number of men--could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise,
perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy, and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and supersition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

It should be true.





Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

This is a long post, so be forewarned...

1) I should point out right now that what fundamentalists (i.e., "born again Christians") do and do not believe is of little consequence to this discussion. Self-confirming biases based on circular reasoning (i.e., "the Bible proclaims itself to be the inerrant Word of God and, therefore, it can never be wrong about anything" or "our tradition states Rome was not a focal point in Christian history and, therefore, it is not") is not an adequate logical defense to the issues we are bringing up. The lack of willingness on the part of some sectors of the population to honestly and critically approach these moral, historical, and theological issues is not of concern to me.

2) My account of Paul's epistemology is not, strictly speaking, 'extra-Biblical'. He explicitly distinguishes between different levels --- 'sarkic', 'psychic', and 'pneumatic' --- of Christian in his non-Pastoral letters:

"The psychic does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are pneumatically discerned, but the pneumatic discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)

"And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as pneumatics, but as to sarkics --- as to those uninitiated in Christ. I fed you milk, not meat, for you were not yet ready for it. Nor are you now. You are still sarkic. For where there is strife and envy among you, are you not sarkic? Are you not acting like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

"Therefore let us leave behind the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to another level of initiation (ten teleioteta), not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.

For it is impossible for those who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's Word (Logos) and the powers of the coming age, to have fallen back to renew repentance again. They re-crucify for themselves the Son of God." (Hebrews 6:1-6)

... On a side note, does anyone else find it interesting that Paul refers to 'repentance', 'faith in God', 'instruction about baptisms', 'laying on of hands', 'resurrection of the dead, and 'eternal judgment' as 'elementary teachings' that are to be left behind?? And, furthermore, that those that do so he describes as 'enlightened'??

2) According to T. Freke and P. Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, "All Paul's terms for mature or perfect Christians are variations on the Greek telete --- 'initiation'. 'Mature' is teleion, 'to the level of maturity' is ten teleioteta, 'the perfect man' is andra teleoin, 'the imperfect man' is ateles."

3) Regardless of what was or was not expounded in Hellenistic Judaism, it should be remembered that the terminology Paul uses in Point 1 is explicitly Platonic and Pythagorean in origin. Plato famously expounded on the 'three classes' of mankind in The Republic. Philo (circa 15 CE) adopted this schema for his philosophy, classifying three orders of men --- Earth-born, Heaven-born, and God-born: "But the men of God [...] have risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception and have been translated into the world of the intelligible and dwell there registered as freemen of the commonwealth of Ideas (ideon politeia) which are imperishable and incorporeal" (On the Giants).

4) Once again, I do not subscribe to the theory that 'might makes right'. Ergo, the fact that the literalist school condemned and murdered their opponents is not, in my opinion, a solid ground for proclaiming who is or is not 'Christian'. This would be like saying that, at the next Republican National Convention, a faction of the Republicans arm themselves and murder everyone that disagrees with them --- and then go on to rewrite history 100 years later saying all those others were simply Republican 'heretics' or merely ‘Repulicanological’. It absolutely screams of self-confirming bias and historical revisionism.

Of course, you could attempt to demonstrate the literalists are the earliest 'Christian' school, but there are no clear-cut literalists before Justin Martyr. That puts him in the same time-frame as Marcion and Valentinus (roughly the middle of the 2nd century), both of which claimed predecessors outside of Rome (i.e., Theudas, a purported disciple of Paul).

Ergo, my position on the issue is quite simple: I refuse to take sides in the sectarian squabbling and dogmatic bickering. I'm not going to say the Catholics or Gnostics aren't 'Christian' any more than I'm going to say the Theravadins aren't 'Buddhist'. I look at it as a historical and cultural phenomenon, with a myriad of expressions and offshoots --- some, admittedly, more noble than others.

5) Regardless of what modern-day fundamentalists may like the believe about their transmitted history (a good deal of which is flat-out lies), Christian literalism (as represented by, say, Justin or Irenaeus) is virtually non-existent outside of Rome prior to the 3rd century. Various 'gnostic' or 'docetic' schools, by contrast, are extremely prevalent throughout the Mediterranean.

According to E. Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the Gnostic sects "covered Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the provinces of the West". In addition, "For the most part they [the Gnostics] arose in the second century, flourished during the third, and were suppressed in the fourth or fifth centuries by the prevalence of more fashionable controversies". R. Doran in The Birth of a Worldview, states we must understand "how flexible the appellation Christian was in Rome in the second century".

In Jesus and the Lost Goddess, T. Freke and P. Gandy put it like this: "Christian Literalism was initially a minor school of Christianity which developed in Rome towards the end of the second century. By this time Christian Gnosticism was an international movement which had spread throughout much of the Mediterranean, flourishing in cosmopolitan cities such as Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome".

They continue:

"In Egypt the first Christians we hear of are the Gnostics Valentinus, Basilides, Apelles, Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes. There is no sign of any form of Christianity which resembles Roman Catholicism in Egypt until Bishop Demetrius at the end of the third century. In Antioch the Gnostics Saturninus, Cerdo and Menander had established schools at the beginning of the second century. The Literalist Justin Martyr regrets that in Edessa, eastern Syria, to be a Christian means to be a follower of Marcion. The Chronicle of Edessa notes the birth of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani before it mentions Roman Christianity. Even Rome itself was full of different schools of Christian Gnosticism, such as the Marcellites, Marcionites, Archonites, Valentinians, Sethians, Barbeloites, Montanists, and Ophites.

Literalists complained that in Persia all Christians were members of the Marcionite school of Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian [circa 200 CE] bemoaned the fact that Marcion's followers filled 'the whole universe'. At the beginning of the third century the Christian Gnostic sage Bardesanes initiated into his school a Syrian ruler who made Christian Gnosticism the official state cult. The forged Second Letter To Timothy has its phony Literalist Paul complain, 'All Asia has turned against me', which tells us that in the late second century 'all Asia' was dominated by Gnostic Christianity. The Epistle Of Polycarp laments that 'the great majority' of Christians embrace the idea of Jesus not existing in the flesh."

Occam's Razor tell us the simplest explanation is usually strongest one. So, which is more parsimonious here: that the original, true 'Christianity' was so distorted and modified on such a wide scale less than a generation after the deaths of its supposed founders --- or, that various forms of 'Christianity' existed almost from the beginning??

6) The origins of the term christiani are a bit more interesting than presupposed:

"We are told in the Book of Acts that the name of the Christiani was first given at Antioch; but so late as the year 200 A.D. no canonical New Testament was known at Antioch, the alleged birth-place of the Christian name. There was no special reason why 'the disciples' should have been named as Christians at Antioch, except that this was a great centre of the Gnostic Christians, who were previously identified with the teachings and works of the mage Simon of Samaria." (Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythic Christ)

7) Regardless of what modern-day Christian literalists may or may not wish to believe, whenever the 'Old Testament' is quoted by Jesus in the Gospels or Paul in his Letters, it is always the Greek Septuagint.

8) I find it interesting that when one is dealing with historically-verifiable 'facts' and empirical truths, one is being "pretty tight minded". But, when one subscribes to the circular ideology of a fundamentalist faction which itself rests almost exclusively on Appeals To Authority, then one apparently sees "the truth".

Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

9) As for Paul's position concerning a non-physical and non-historical 'resurrection', I think he makes his thoughts pretty clear:

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable". (1 Corinthians 15:50)

"This is it: the duly appointed time! This is it: the day of salvation." (2 Corinthians 6:2)

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions --- it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:4-7)

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin --- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)

"I have become [the church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you God's Word (Logos) in its fullness --- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:25-27)

"But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11)

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3:10-11)

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." (Galatians 2:20)

Interesting, no??

Mythologist Joseph Campbell interpreted such language this way: "It lies in the nature of the mystery cult that the mystae undergo the same experience as their god, that, as St. Paul says, they die with him, are buried with him, are reborn with him, and are resurrected with him" (Occidental Mythology).

10) As for the claim that there are no ‘internal contradictions’ in the Bible, in addition to the discrepancies Steve has already brought up, I always quite liked the glaring inconsistency of the ‘authentic’ Paul of Galatians compared to the ‘forged’ Paul of the Pastorals:

“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.” (Titus 2:9)

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing --- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Timothy 2:11-15)

Slaves and women are screwed, I guess, unless you read:

“You are all sons of God though your faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29)

So, then, which is it?? Are we all ‘one in Christ’?? Or, are there special rules that women and slaves in Christian communities are supposed to submit to??

11) As for the whole ‘Logos’ thing, I’m gonna have to go with the scholar Max Muller on this one:

“Whoever uses such words as Logos, the Word, Monogones, the Only-Begotten, Protokos, the First-Born, Hyiostou theou, the Son of God, has borrowed the very germs of his religious thought from Greek philosophy.”

Besides, in all honesty, its pretty naive to think previous philosophical formulations didn’t have a profound influence on the author of the Gospel of John. Heraclitus (6th century BCE) wrote that, “Having hearkened not unto me, but unto the Logos, it is wise to confess that all things are One” (C. H. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus). Vitruvius (circa 25 BCE) wrote, “Let no one think I have erred if I believe in the Logos” (De Architectura). The Church father Clement of Alexandria commented that, “It may be freely granted that the Greeks received some glimmers of the divine Logos”. Clement supports this assertion by quoting the legendary Orpheus: “Behold the Logos divine. Tread well the narrow path of life and gaze on Him, the world’s great ruler, our immortal king”. Of course, the basic idea of the Logos is quite old, preceding Greek philosophy by centuries. In the Egyptian Pyramid Texts of Saqqara, the world is created by and through words. This is associated with the ancient Egyptian god Ptah, who is portrayed as creating existence through speaking (much like Elohim in Genesis).

The association of the Logos as the Son of God is very well-established in Hellenistic literature. Book 1.5 of The Hermetica states: “My calming Word is the Son of God.” Later, Book 1.6 continues: “The light-giving Word who comes from Mind is the Son of God.” Heraclitus, again, wrote that: “Father and the Son are the same.” The early Christian Hippolytus (circa 210 CE) said of Heraclitus, “Everyone knows he said that the Father and the Son are the same”, supposedly as a prefigurement to later Christian doctrine. Clement of Alexandria admitted that Euripides (5th century BCE) had, “divined as in a riddle that the Father and Son are one God”. Plutarch (circa 100 CE), in Isis and Osiris, wrote that Osiris is “the Logos itself, transcendent and impassible”.

Even the great literalist, Augustine of Hippo, wrote of pagan philosophy:

“I read there that God the Word was born not of flesh and blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God” (Confessions).

And this isn’t even getting into Philo Judaeus (circa 15 CE), the Pythagorean Jew that probably had the most influence on the author of John’s Gospel. According to W. R. Inge’s Christian Mysticism, Philo describes the Logos as “the only and beloved Son of God” and himself writes: “And many names belong to the Logos, for he is called the Name of God, and the Man after his image”.

So, in summation, the view that the Johannine Logos is somehow separate from or magically independent of Hellenistic religious philosophy is nothing short of complete hogwash --- in all likelihood, another manifestation of the self-confirming Appeal To Authority that so much of orthodox Christian ‘history’ rests on. As such, an ignorance of such a historical, cultural, and philosophical context while reading and examining the Gospel of John lead to distortions and misperceptions of meaning.

12) An appeal to Trinitarian doctrine is cute when speaking about the Logos but, seriously, let’s get real here. The first glimmer of anything even resembling the Trinity is the Gnostic leader Valentinus around 160 CE. The actual formulation of the Trinity doctrine as we have it now was a product of the Council of Niceaea in 330 CE. Most scholars date the Gospel of John to sometime between 100 to 120 CE. So, while its amusing to retroactively project later dogma into literature that in no way had it in mind, it reeks of historical revisionism and self-confirming bias. Again.

Yeah, I think that about settles things. Laterz. :asian:

 

[BlackCatBonz]

who are we to understand a being as powerful and knowing as God

thats the same thing god said to Job.......lol

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I think we ought to use THIS for future reference, guys:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

This, in particular, is my favorite portion. What do you think of this as a guide to traditional marrigae? :

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_on_marriage/1co07_01-02.html

GO PAUL!!!


Regards,


Steve

 

[Marginal]

Darned irritating when people don't want to use your particular system of belief. You see that from those who believe deeply in Greek Logic as well as those who believe in religious systems. Of course both kinds of people stammer and say "but it's true."

Greek logic's a system of belief?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Let me echo that...Greek logic a belief?

How about the foundation of Western thought and a guide to thinking clearly?



Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

But it's still axiomatic, and one needn't accept Aristotelian logic. That would make science very difficult to do, in my opinion, but on the other hand, who hasn't seen contradictions in things--the classic notion that a rock is hard in one sense, yet soft because water can wear it down. Yes, Greek logic handles this through finer and finer propositions. But Oriental logic (slightly parodied here) would say that the thing is simultaneously both, and accept that.

I'm not advocating eitehr view, but yes, logic is something we accept as a fundamental way of doing business--a belief.

 

[heretic888]

'Logic' is a belief in the same way that language is a belief, eyesight is a belief, hearing is a belief, or feeling is a belief.

It is, very simply, a way of acquiring and analyzing information about the world. This doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions gathered from said way are going to be accurate, mind you --- but, in this respect, it is no different from faculties like eyesight, smell, emotion, or language.

A belief would be something very specific and connotative; like, say, it is rational to believe God exists or it is rational to believe all cats are mammals. Just to throw some examples out there.

But 'logic' in and of itself, however, is a very natural faculty to any well-adjusted adult that is capable of formal-operational thinking. It is nothing more than the ability to postulate third-person hypothetical scenarios ("if/then" statements).

This is not a 'Greek' or 'Western' thing, as we see examples of such thought throughout Eastern literature and philosophy. The excerpt from the Kalama Sutra that I quoted earlier is one such example --- in which the author, believed to be Siddartha Gautama, very adamantly refutes Appeals to Authority, Tradition, and Popularity.

Likewise, neither is the 'non-dual' thinking present in Zen or Taoist literature a specifically 'Eastern' thing. If you doubt this, try reading up on a little Plotinus, Meister Eckhart, or John of the Cross sometime.

In my opinion, people often have a tendency to collapse specific cultural beliefs with the thinking or reasoning underlying those beliefs. The former is culturally relative, the latter is not.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

Which brings me to Mantis. If G-d gave the words of the Bible to Jesus, how do you explain the Old Testament?

Sir,
the 'Torah'?
it was also the words of God given to his prophet Moses
there were more than one book given to more than one prophet. like Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as well.

 

[mantis]

i found this site
it looks pretty good
although it's not 100% accurate, but close enoough
maybe it helps you guys in the discussion
it has more than one comparison page:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_judaism.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_islam.htm

 

[mantis]

i have to laugh when i read this.......it takes me wayyyyyyy back to the old testament and the book of job.
im not going to bother quoting the pertinent parts......i would rather people read it if they never have, or those that have, read it and refresh your memory of how the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god treats his most loyal servants.
im particularly fond of chapters 38-41, which i call "god's rant", in which he states how magnificent and all powerful he is, and how dare job question him for anything he does.

...the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, blessed be the lord - job 1:21

well..
first of all in other religions this story is different.
in other faiths Job did not complain, and did not object the will of God. and this whole deal of his sickness was just a test for him. so this is not "really" God's anger.
second, i dont see a reason why you would "have to laugh"!
thirdly, please do quote what you have. we're here to learn in the first place.
4th, God's anger involves wiping civilization leaving them ruins for us to see and consider. Small earthquakes, hurricanes and things like that are mere wake up calls.
thanks

 

[kenpo tiger]

Sir,
the 'Torah'?
it was also the words of God given to his prophet Moses
there were more than one book given to more than one prophet. like Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as well.

I don't recall ever reading where Abraham or David receiving *a book* of the Bible from G-d. The word of G-d, yes. There are books in the "Jewish bible" which recount the stories of Abraham and David, among others. And, by the by, it's Ma'am, not Sir.

Herry - here's one for you. The doctrine of Israel's messianic redemption is connected with the doctrine of resurrection: "I will open your graves and bring you out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12) and "Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise; awake and sing, you who lie in the dust" (Isaiah 26:19) Ezekiel's prediction pertains to the dead nation coming to life again. He describes a vision where he is transported into a valley full of dry bones. As he prophesies to them they come together into complete skeletons, which become covered with flesh. Then the wind blows upon the inanimate bodies and they come to life, referring to the revival of the dead nation, of which the exiles seem to be the scattered remains. During the Second Commonwealth, the belief in the resurrection of the body, in contradistinction to to the immortality of the soul, became a fundamental doctrine of the Pharisees -- they held that the soul and the body would, in a future world, be reunited, reconstituting the original persons, who would stand in judgment before G-d and receive reward or punishment according to his good or bad conduct during life. According to talmudic-midrashic statements, the righteous buried in other lands will roll through subterranean channels to Ha-Eretz (trans: The Land, or Israel), where G-d will breathe a spirit of life into them and they will arise (Kethubboth 11a.)

So:
1) Could it be that the belief in the resurrection of Christ was extrapolated from this concept? It would seem so upon casual examination.
2) If the righteous are rolling through subterranean channels to Ha-Eretz, what, exactly, might one interpret those to be? Hell?

I await your take on this. KT

 

[mantis]

I don't recall ever reading where Abraham or David receiving *a book* of the Bible from G-d. The word of G-d, yes. There are books in the "Jewish bible" which recount the stories of Abraham and David, among others. And, by the by, it's Ma'am, not Sir.

i do apologize for that
i stupidly thought that the chances of a "tiger" being a male is more than being a female. sorry ma'am.
then perhaps you might wanna check with a jewish person, or a muslim person to tell you about those books (they're actually scriptures, to be precise)
Stories are present in the jewish, christian, and muslim books regarding those prophets.
regards,

 

[7starmantis]

One could cite extra-biblical texts that support evidence of an omission. In this case, none exist.

*sigh* Your still not reading my posts with any intent to understand them. Once again I didn't say there was an ommision that "fixed" the contradiction, what I said was the contradiction was not a contradiction but an ommision by one story. How hard is that to understand? I'm confused by why you can't grasp what I'm saying, or prefer not to grasp what I'm saying.

The two stories are SO different that your supposition of an omission simply doesn't carry water. It is far easier to believe that the two stories are two totally different accounts circulating through Christian communities in the late 1st and early 2nd century.

Haha, you can't be serious, can you? Those two stories are SO different? I guess that all depends on your viewpoint. Plus, I offered no supposition of an ommision. How easy it is to believe something does not affect its truthfullness or factualness.

I'm assuming they're errors, yes. A hare does not chew its cud, and a bat is not a bird (both Duteuronomy 14...see also Leviticus). The value of pi isn't 3 (1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2). For this latter value I task the Bible with the accuracy my high school geometry teacher demanded...and I won't accept "rounding off."

Its obvious you have only read the english text of these scriptures. Thats a quick way to make yourself uncredable in this discussion.

And as far as assuming God ought to handle it the way we mortals would handle it--yes I do expect him to set an example and be precise, and clear, and fair in his dealings with the beings he supposedly loves. We should not be told to be moral, only to be confronted with examples of immoral behavior on His part. We should not be told to be compassionate, only to be confronted with a deity who is on record as having murdered (or ordered the murder) of thousands of children and the rape of young girls and women. This is moral relativism at its worst.

Care to quote your "record"? I dont really expect you to, as I've asked this question at least three times allready with no true response. But if you would care to quote the "record" your talkingabout I'm sure we could shed some light on it. You keep misquoting things to make your point and refusing to post your sources.

Note too that different Bibles have different translations. The NIV will not read the same as the NRSV or the King James. At times the differences are significant...and that too makes for contradictions.

Yes of course, because God come down and translated and princted all the bibles in circulation today
More is needed to make that point.

From Bible Gateway (King James version):

Numbers 23:22 -God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

And that Bible version is the one that exists in a majority of hotel rooms across the United States. If you accept the NIV version, you're admitting to an error and absurdity in the KJV and exposing a contradiction.

Yes and a "gay young man" meant the same thing 150 years ago as it does today
So now your having to fall to saying the contradictions are from translation to translation? God didn't claim control over translators.

7sm

 

[CanuckMA]

then perhaps you might wanna check with a jewish person, or a muslim person to tell you about those books (they're actually scriptures, to be precise)
Stories are present in the jewish, christian, and muslim books regarding those prophets.
regards,

Consider it checked. The Torah contains the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob amongst others, but the only book given was Torah to Moses at Sinai.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm confused by why you can't grasp what I'm saying, or prefer not to grasp what I'm saying.

7Star, I understand you perfectly. You know that. How many times have you pulled this tactic out in the last week or so? You've danced and dodged around this issue--and others--a number of times now.

Haha, you can't be serious, can you? Those two stories are SO different? I guess that all depends on your viewpoint.

I'm quite serious. A fifth grader ought to be able to discern the difficulty in harmonizing the two versions with any cogency:

Matthew 27:5
"And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

He not only killed himself with two different methods, he also disposed of the blood money in two separate ways.

Plus, I offered no supposition of an ommision.

You wrote in post #115: "Ommisions, these passages contain, but contradictions are not present."

You wrote in post #130: " I simply stated that what you had shown was an ommision from one story to the next, not a contradiction.

Again, in post #130: "Maybe you shouldn't construe an ommision as an error."

Its obvious you have only read the english text of these scriptures. Thats a quick way to make yourself uncredable in this discussion.

I have a difficult time believing you have any mastery of Latin and Greek. You don't seem to have a passing familiarity of the Bible in any language.

Care to quote your "record"? I dont really expect you to, as I've asked this question at least three times allready with no true response. But if you would care to quote the "record" your talkingabout I'm sure we could shed some light on it. You keep misquoting things to make your point and refusing to post your sources.

The record to which I referred, 7Star, is called the Holy Bible.

The incidents to which I referred are fairly easy to spot, regardless which language one reads them in.

And no, you have not asked me--until now--to cite "the record" to which I referred in this post (#135). This was your first post since I wrote that.

Yes of course, because God come down and translated and princted all the bibles in circulation today

Sarcasm noted, indeed it drips in your posts, but it is a poor substitute for reasoned argument.

The Bible is either inerrant, or it is not. The Bible either contains contradictions, or it does not. That would apply to all translations. If God can oversee their inspired authorship, he could see to the accuracy of their translations.

Which of these following Bibles do you suggest is in error insofar as translation? We have--among others--the King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the New International Version.

You've suggested above that at least one of them is a flawed translation. Which one?


Regards,


Steve

 

[kenpo tiger]

i do apologize for that
i stupidly thought that the chances of a "tiger" being a male is more than being a female. sorry ma'am.
then perhaps you might wanna check with a jewish person, or a muslim person to tell you about those books (they're actually scriptures, to be precise)
Stories are present in the jewish, christian, and muslim books regarding those prophets.
regards,

Oy vey! Now you're converting me. See Canuck's post if you don't believe me. *Tiger sighs*

In the wisdom of all your 23 years on this Earth, I must give you points for persistence. My younger son is your age and similarly convinced that he is correct on many levels.

[Why am I Kenpo Tiger? In kenpo, which is a first cousin to kung fu, the tiger is the manifestation of corporeal strength, and represents the Earthly being in us all. The dragon is the ethereal or cerebral state we all strive for in martial arts. I choose to be recognized as the tiger since I am always learning, despite my time in in martial arts and my rank.]

So, you're stating that I should consult a Moslem about the Old Testament. You are partially correct, since there are various anecdotal stories about Ishmael being a fallen Jew as well as Africans who believe that they are the Lost Thirteenth Tribe. But why would I want to consult a Moslem? True, their belief system seems to be similar to ours, but Jews don't believe in Allah as the manifestation of the Divine Being nor do we believe that there is an afterlife, as Moslems seem to. Judaism is a religion for the living. The Torah is our set of guidelines for life. Indeed, when a Jew dies, the service is all about those who are still alive keeping the deceased alive: "They still live on Earth in the acts of goodness they performed and in the hearts of those who cherish their memory. May the G-d of peace send peace to all who mourn and comfort the bereaved among us. Amen." That is from the Mourners' Kaddish, the prayer said for the dead at every service I've attended in my half century on this earth. It is said not only for one's relations who have passed on but also for the six million so that they are remembered.

 

[7starmantis]

7Star, I understand you perfectly. You know that. How many times have you pulled this tactic out in the last week or so? You've danced and dodged around this issue--and others--a number of times now.

Its funny, your serious and yet you keep refusing to actually cite what your talking about. Now I've been dancing and dodging, but you seem to have forgoten to cite what I danced or dodged around except your ambiguous use of the word "issues". What issues have I danced around? The "issue" we are tlking about is the use of the word ommission by me. You hardheadily (ironic) read one post of mine and immediately began telling me and everyone else what I meant, which was incorrect. Allow me for the last time to restate the obvious. You brought up an issue of a supposed contradiction...the fact of two differing stories of Judas' death. What I said was that there was no contradiction, but simply a fact of one person telling more of a story than another. You took that to mean that I was saying there was some ommission not in the bible that would clarify the so called contradiction. Thats not what I was saying, but that one author ommitted certain details that the next author included. The proof of the ommission is simply the very text you quoted. You seem to expect all authors of books contained in the bible to be identical in every way, not allowing for personal or educational, or experiential differences in human beings. Your bias for wanting to prove contradictions overshadows your willingness to argue in context of the christian belief system or biblical truth. You say, "Well they say god gave the word to the authors, so everyone must have used the same words". Thats not consistent with the belief system of those your arguing against. Basically your arguing against yourself. No one who believes the bible is Gods Holy word believs the way you are arguing against. No one believes the english translations to be exact verbatim transcripts of Gods words, yet you argue that point is incorrect. I agree. Your refusing to listen to my points because your so set on disproving what you think is my point.

I'm quite serious. A fifth grader ought to be able to discern the difficulty in harmonizing the two versions with any cogency:

Matthew 27:5
"And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

He not only killed himself with two different methods, he also disposed of the blood money in two separate ways.

Now, I've made this point twice, both of which have been ignored, so I'll try it once again. Your attempting to disprove biblical relevence with differences in historical writings (according to the bible). I was actually expecting contradictions in Gods words (red letters) or in core principles of the teachings of the bible, not one story of a person lists more details than another. However, to address this you must look deeper than one scripture of passage. What do you know about who wrote the books of Acts? What about Matthew? Why would there be differences?
Ok for your 2 contradictions:
1.) Did Judas buy a field or did he throw the money in the temple?
Ans: The first account is a detailed synopsis of what happened concerning Judas and how those things fullfilled earlier prophesies. In fact he quotes Zechariah which many think are fulfilling prophesies from Jerimiah. This story is detailed and contains very specific accounts. If you read it, after he threw the money what happened with it? They bough a field with the money and called it what?Aceldama. This means "The field of blood".
The second account is a "recap" of the first story, one that is widely known allready. He is speaking to believers here of a story they know well (as we can see by verse 19 saying, "Everyone had heard of this"). There is no need for extreme details, as everyone was well aware of the story he was speaking about. It would be the same as you or I saying something about 9/11 to New York Firemen, we wouldn't need to go into great detail.

2.) How did Judas Die?
Ans: The two stories actually do not contradict, both accounts are true. The first again being very factual and precise presents the cause of death as hanging. Which is not contradicted by the later account. The Later account is being given to believers and the intent of the account of the story is to bring about a feeling of revulsion. According to tradition it would seem that Judas would have hung himself on the edge of the cliff, thus either having the rope break, be untied, or cut, causing him to fall to the rocks below. We do agree that he isn't still hanging there today, correct? Someone would have cut him down or left him there until the rope broke, yes? The story presented in Acts, never contradicts or refutes the death of Judas by hanging. So therefore, there is no contradiction.

It seems your expecting a 5th graders understanding here. It takes more than surface knowledge in order to understand these points. Mere surface acceptance of the one passage or scripture is not a thorough study of the alleged contradiction.

I have a difficult time believing you have any mastery of Latin and Greek. You don't seem to have a passing familiarity of the Bible in any language.

I have no mastery of the Latin language, and Greek I dont know if I would claim mastery. I have studied greek for about 15 years of my life, but there are those (you may very well be one) who know it much better than I.
My familiarity of the bible comes from being forced to memerize (and quote on request) books of the bible in english, hebrew or greek. I'm talking about the book of Matthew, Romans, James, Proverbs, Genesis....the list goes on. If that is a passing familiarity, then I will gladly accept that as my familiarity.

The record to which I referred, 7Star, is called the Holy Bible.

The incidents to which I referred are fairly easy to spot, regardless which language one reads them in.

And yet again, you refuse to clearly state your case. Post scriptures which show the allegations, not just simply posting, "They are easy to spot". That makes it seem as though you are not truly confident in yoru arguemnt.

The Bible is either inerrant, or it is not. The Bible either contains contradictions, or it does not. That would apply to all translations. If God can oversee their inspired authorship, he could see to the accuracy of their translations.

Again your arguing that because "god" could, he would. Thats a whole different discussion, one that I'm not interested in becoming involved in. Your holding "believers of the bible" to standards way out of reach for anyone. Because George believe in the bible, he must also believe that every translation of it by whomever is also 100% inerrant and completely accurate? Thats simply not the case, and holds no water in this discussion.

Which of these following Bibles do you suggest is in error insofar as translation? We have--among others--the King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the New International Version.

You've suggested above that at least one of them is a flawed translation. Which one?

I suggested nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out that human translation of so many differin kinds lends a huge margin for human error. I personally study from a greek and hebrew text, but thats just me. The only english version I ever spend much time in is KJV, but I've been known to read NIV as well. Your mispointing the importance. Its not on what words are used, but what point is conveyed. Like I said before, in this fast paced world, words take on and loose meaning quite quickly.....gay for instance. How about the word "***" in the bible, means something a bit different now, no? A talking *** would be very believable in todays world!

7sm