| ||||||||||||
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyway, that was my first impression. My second is that, while Christianity could be arguably a later development that sprung from Judaism, it also makes the most philosophical sense. Religions like Islam/Mormonism have come after the fact but do not seem to follow in the foot-steps of Judeo-Chrisitianity but rather divorce themselves from Torah - which was the foundation God laid for the Jewish faith. And plenty of Jews agree with this and choose to call themselves Messianic Jews. Last edited by TheAristocat; February 10th, 2012 at 08:09 AM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I see statements like "Gospels like Torah" when "Gospel" is a combination of the Old English words "God" and "Spell" which respectively mean "good" and "story". The etymology of the word shows a relation to the phrase "good news" for which meaning our word "Gospel" stands today. The Torah was the teaching of God and could be said to be "good news" since it contained predictions concerning the Messiah's coming and God's atoning sacrifice, but I can't shake the impression I've been left with that the phrase "good news" didn't come about until after the Messiah's more obvious appearance in the books comprising the New Testament. With the statement of "Around 150 A.D, the Word 'Gospel' was used for the books of 'Saint Justin'" found on the above website I can't help but think it's meant to imply that the phrase "good news" was only used later around A.D. 150. Also it lumps the Torah in with the rest of the Gospels to discredit both the Old and New Testaments together in one swoop, but in doing so it fails to make the distinction between the assumed oral tradition of the Torah and the written copies of the New Testament. Then it seems to imply that since the Qur'an was written down more quickly than the Gospels (in which it mistakenly included the assumed oral tradition of the Torah in its entirety) that it is more trust-worthy and less prone to error. But it must even be assumed that the Torah was once passed down through oral tradition rather than having been written down since the Torah itself denies that claim with repeated claims to the contrary. These claims of its written medium are seen in the law of phylacteries which command us to bind the laws upon our foreheads and hands (which you cannot do if said laws were only passed on through oral tradition) and other passages it refers to as having been recorded in writings such as the Book of Jashar, Book of the Law of Moses and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. There is also passing mention of reading which cannot be done if the Torah was entirely passed on through oral tradition. I think these are relatively unbiased claims that do not have anything to prove but instead contradict the claim of an oral tradition without having to try. Last edited by TheAristocat; February 10th, 2012 at 09:28 AM. |
|
||||
|
So far I like the author's ability to reason in his article here: http://www.real-god.com/en/archives/26. But he doesn't seem to know enough about Christianity or Judaism to reason about them in such a way so as to discredit them. He also doesn't understand the use of the word "God." In Old English it was most likely a word used for summoned spirits and not a First Cause and Supreme Power.
That is why even the pagans, who had their pantheons of gods, often had supreme gods. And their word for "god" you might actually find to mean something akin to "power." In fact in the Bible we are said to be "gods" but the word for "god" here does not mean a supreme being but rather a "power" or "el." And "elohim" means multiple, individual "powers" except when a single power or "el" is assumed such as with God Almighty. Then "elohim" implies a "supreme power" or "power of all powers" and is only ever applied to a supreme god such as the false god "B*al" among the pagan Caananites' pantheon or to the one, true God "Elohim" of Judeo-Christians. |
|
||||
|
Also the following is mentioned on that website:
Quote:
1. If God just changed Satan into a benevolent being, then he would have had to do away with Satan's free will. Satan's will is against God's, and no amount of seeing God's power for himself would change his mind to align his will with God's. 2. God requires the death of the sinner. Why? Because sin ultimately leads to death. Satan's sin can be seen all over the world today: wars, lies, thieving, murdering. Although it sounds hypocritical at first, killing a murderer to do away with death is a logical option. Otherwise the murderer, with his free will, will just murder again. Sin leads to death, so the sinner must die to cause death to cease. 3. If God required a death penalty of sinners with no atonement, then he would have no creation because all of his creation would die. So he needed atonement. 4. If he did not kill himself to make atonement for our lives then he would be holding himself to a different standard than he held us to and this would be hypocritical. He would essentially be saying, "I require the life of a sinner out of practicality. But I do not want to pay such a high price myself, so I will reconcile sinners to myself using a double standard." God does not like hypocrisy. 5. Atonement means "buying back". If Christ had sinned then Christ would have died for his own sins, and we would have died for our own sins as well. Christ's sacrifice then would have no atoning value. This is why Christ had to be sinless, and this is why a perfect life was needed to be offered. Otherwise he would have died a sinner's death in vain. Atonement does not necessarily mean a blood sacrifice, but it does in the case of someone's life. For the life of a person is in their blood. You want a life? You have to offer a life. So I submit that a perfect God, who both requires the death of a sinner but who wants to atone for a sinner's life, must offer himself as a sacrifice. Otherwise he becomes a hypocrite and becomes tainted by sin. He then becomes something other than God, and we should not worship him. Last edited by TheAristocat; February 10th, 2012 at 11:32 AM. |
|
|||
|
You missed my second reply further up, which was in response to your opening questions..
__________________
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Ok, I re-read. I see you did answer my question. But I have a couple quick notes on your points. You say it is impossible for men to write the bible without God? Why would it be? You said that the Bible has no contradictions, many people would argue that, even other Christians. You say the Bible has never been wrong? There are several prophecies that did not come true. Now, I do believe that the Bible was inspired by God, I really do. But humans wrote it, and I think it is obvious that the writings in the Bible were influenced by the people and the times they lived in. My evidence of that is that today, many people do not follow the rules set forth in the Bible, many of those rules would be even considered offensive today. I think the Bible came from a good place, I think God did intend to inspire people to write his word. But I also believe that humans are not perfect, and some of that imperfection can be found in the written Bible. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yea, good video. I am not a fan of that guys pastor though. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
You spoke about being a believer and being right...go to heaven. If you are wrong and there is no God, then no big loss. I have another scenario for you. What if you die and you go on to find Zeus and Hades waiting for you on the other end of the tunnel. And they are not happy that you listened to some guy from desert? I know that is a stretch but, I see that argument alot. 'Either A is right and I am good, or B is right and it doesn't matter, while completely forgetting about C. But beyond all that, I agree with you, and enjoyed your comments God Bless |
|
||||
|
Quote:
We learn that God forbids other gods, images of them or any Heavenly beings, consulting the dead, and other things. Don't even think about them. Then, what do you do next? Do what Jesus instructs us to do. Paul teaches about WHAT to do (get with other believers, grow in your faith, use your gifts and talents while you're on Earth, etc.). Knowing all this, you'll be able to know just what religions to stay away from. Myself, I believe in Acts 2. It's only common sense to take heart that in His presence is FULLNESS of JOY. Anywho, just some thoughts. Hope it helps. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Nath |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
so the way of Quran's explanation is that you see a rule or advice, so to make it more clear, it talks about the real stories of previous people after that, like someone doubted about hereafter, so Quran explained the life of one of the prophets which asked God same question and god died him for 100 years and after that revived him and showed him his donkey is destroyed but his food beside him is not changed in this 100 years. or you see the different aspects of Moses' life which is used for different subjects. it's a so funny answer to say the author had a nomadic life-style, while Muhammad 53 years lived in Mecca and the last 10 years in Medina and also Quran is not Muhammad's thoughts, it's like the original Torah, the divine book. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
so all these 1400 years they tried to act against what Muslims act (like jews tribes in Arabic saudia) second: why you don't look at the other aspects? wars, women, etc... did you know it was a rule that when Muslims are in a battle field, they have to do 3 steps before fighting: 1- they have to declare that we're ready not to fight with you and live in peace beside each other 2- if they didn't accept the peace, Muslims say we only fight with your men, not women, nor children nor even old people and nor injured men. 3- then it's forbidden to destroy anything of that people's houses, also it's forbidden to poison their water or fire their houses, or even follow injuries to kill them, etc. now take a look at deuteronomy:13:15-18 and see the rules for fighting. which one is more peaceful? killing all inhabitants and even their cattle? firing and burning everything? Last edited by Imaan; February 11th, 2012 at 12:56 PM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
1) Because it makes you feel good. 2) Because it removes the risk that you might go to Hell when you die. Excuse me, but isn't this is a bit selfish? Isn't it better to not believe at all, than to believe for the wrong reasons? It's so easy for the dying man, fearful of death, to 'find God' on his deathbed so that he goes to Heaven, rather than Hell - after all, he's just hedging his bets! Is belief in God and in Jesus and in Heaven enough? I'm not sure it is. In my view, a true Christian must seflessly succumb to the love of God in order to reach Heaven; I'm not altogether sure that 'it makes me feel good' and 'I don't fancy the idea of Hell' are good enough reasons to be spared eternal damnation. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Arabic, as it existed then, existed in all sorts of different dialects and methods of inscription. In its written form, there are no short vowels, and only small dots to signify different sounds such as 'B' and 'P'. As such, it's possible to get many different meanings from the source text*. The most famous example: According to the Koran, when read in Arabic, when Muslim men are martyred, they go to Heaven, where they are presented with many virgin girls. A better incentive for suicide bombers and terrorists I have never heard! However, the words can equally be read in Syriac-Aramaic (rather than Arabic), in which case it means a different thing entirely: instead of virgins, martyrs are presented with wine and fine raisins! Just imagine how much less terrorism the world would have faced if the only incentive to martyr yourself was a multi-pack of Sun Maid and a couple bottles of Sauvignon Blanc! *By source text, I refer to the writings that we now know as the Koran. The book wasn't codified until many years after Muhammad's death, by which time the original text had been copied and re-copied so much that - like an extended game of chinese whispers - it's difficult to ascertain whether or not the Koran we have now is truly representative of Muhammad's original teachings and writings. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think there may be a lot of people who say they're Christian, but then if they look death in the face they'll probably be unsure of what's on the other side. And whether or not that means they're saved, they're faith is still in a perilous position at that point in time. God made it relatively easy for us, but that doesn't mean that Satan will stop trying to make it hard on us. Last edited by TheAristocat; February 14th, 2012 at 08:59 AM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
nath |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
![]() |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6 |
![]() |