Differences in the Comprehension of Religious Tenets

[Xar]

I like to agree with you on a lot of this Xar, because it ties neatly into my own idea that a great deal of Christianities message, and especially in it's early days, was effectively a marketing gimmick.

As you yourself say, they had to convince people to start following their religion. And I have no doubt that it started out at least as a genuine belief that people would be better off.

I agree whole-heartedly. Keep in mind that polytheism, due to its very nature, was a tolerant religion: new deities were "imported" whenever new people were enslaved or whenever a local deity would strike the fancy of the conquerors. Think of Mithra, for example, or of Isis. Left to their own devices, when presented with the message of Christianity, most people would have happily added the Christian God to their already large pantheon of other deities, and He would have been treated just like one of them, His message diluted and eventually subsumed into the general pantheon.
This is the reason why it was necessary to persuade converts not just to accept God, but also to reject all other deities: it was an attempt to preserve the teachings of Jesus, and the importance of God. Furthermore, it is beyond doubt that the earliest preachers did believe that worshiping other deities was a horrible and unfaithful practice, and that rejecting them was the first step to become a convert.

[Avatar]

Keep in mind that polytheism, due to its very nature, was a tolerant religion: new deities were "imported" whenever new people were enslaved or whenever a local deity would strike the fancy of the conquerors. Think of Mithra, for example, or of Isis. Left to their own devices, when presented with the message of Christianity, most people would have happily added the Christian God to their already large pantheon of other deities, and He would have been treated just like one of them, His message diluted and eventually subsumed into the general pantheon.

Agreed. (And I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't all have been better off. )

What other monotheisms have there been that predated Christianity? IIRC, Mithras was part of a "duo-theism" with his opposite number (Satan) being equally a god, although I could be wrong on that.

Do any monotheisms predate Christianity?

--A

[Xar]

Yes, there are at least three main monotheistic or quasi-monotheistic religions that predate Christianity, that I know of - and this is not counting any of the tiny monotheistic or pseudo-monotheistic religions among ancient African tribes, for example.

The three are:

1) Hebraism (of course). This is likely the most well-known of the three, of course.

2) Zoroastrianism. This was actually a pseudo-dualism, in that Ahura Mazda (Ormuzd), the god of good and light, had a twin brother, Angra Manyiu (Ahriman), the god of darkness and evil. But Ahura Mazda was considered to be the most powerful of the two, the ruler of the universe, and the ultimate winner in this cosmic struggle. Still, Ahriman was, to all intents and purposes, a full god, and not a created being.

3) The Cult of Aten. Introduced by Akhenaten in Egypt before the time of Ramses II (so, in the second millennium B.C.), it worshiped Aten, the god of the sun and the only true god. It was short-lived, as upon Akhenaten's death, the priests of the previous Egyptian pantheon attempted to erase his name and his existence from monuments and documents, to restore their temples and their power.

[Menolly]

Oh, and Av, not that I think you do but don't worry too much about hell, it doesn't even start until late in the New Testament. Before that hell was Gehenna or Sheol which originated from a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. In other words, if you were a bad person you wouldn't receive a proper burial.

I've been reading along, but won't really participate. I just wanted to say there is a little bit more to Gehinnom or She'ol than lack of proper burial.

And rightious people of all nations/beliefs/non-beliefs earn a place in Olam Ha-Ba...

Judaism 101: Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife

[Kinslaughterer]

The origin of the word comes from the the garbage dump/desecrated burial.

[Prom_STar]

As far as christianity is concerned, going by Prom_Stars post there, it's not enough to just have faith, and it's not enough to just do good works.

James 2:17 (and also a few verses to come) are not saying works are a prerequisite for salvation ("For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9). The point of James 2:17 is that if all we have is faith and we don't act out that fait, we might as well be dead; we aren't being living testimonies for Christ. The point of the verse is this "You believe? Good. Now live like it." Faith helps you alone unless you live it.

Hence my eternal curiosity on the subject. Why are people so convinced?

Once again, this is an issue not easily resolved. If I ask myself "why do I beleive this?" I can easily provide an answer. I need only think back over my life and remember the times I have felt God's presence, felt the Holy Spirit within me. Unfortunately, I can't relate that experience to someone who has never experienced it(It's like trying to describe a sunset to the blind or mozzart to the deaf).

An atheist will tell you I believe what I beleive because I am afraid of death. I cling to this idea of God so I can run from the realization of my own mortality.

Neither of us can definitively prove our positions.

I'm sure you've heard Christians talk about faith before. Most likely, you don't give much credit to it. To many, "faith" is just a nice way of saying "I don't know and I'm too lazy to try and figure it out." I can't prove God exists to anyone. I can't ever convince anyone that Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life--no beleiver can. Only the Holy Spirit working in someone's heart can convince him/her to believe. Only God can ever prove He's real.

Why do I believe? Because I've tried to live for myself, I've tried to living like God didn't exist. And I got was empty. The fact is, nothing has ever filled me, affected me, or healed me more than God. I beleive because I have felt Him. I beleive because when I look at the world around me, I can't help but see His hand. And I beleive because He proves His existence to me everyday.

Frankly, that's all the reason I'll ever need.

[Avatar]

Some good posts, some good posts indeed, and very interesting. Let's see, in order...

Xar, thanks, Zoroastrianism was what I was thinking of, not Mithraicism, but I'm not sure why you call it a psuedo-dualism, if Ahriman was a full god, not a created being?

And I don't know why Judaism escaped me. As for Aten, I think that's more of a pseudo-monotheism.

Menolly, c'mon, participate damn it. We're talking about religious tenets here, we're not confining ourselves to anything...partcipate...tell us what more there is to it than lack of a proper burial. We won't know unless you tell us. *wheedle*

And yes, I've always appreciated the fact that Judaism makes allowance for righteous gentiles, and pointed it out in one of our previous discussions on this subject.

Longest for last of course, Prom_Star, so good works aren't a prerequisite?

I give more credit than you might expect to Faith actually, I've known and know, here particularly, but in real life as well, a few Christians who I would call real Christians, who actually live by the spirit of their religions message.

But Faith precludes logic. Denies logic in fact, and as you say, it's not something that we can ever show to somebody else.

But I live as though god doesn't exist, and I certainly don't feel empty. I don't need that "external" validation. I'm sufficient unto myself. *shrug*

Personally, I see no evidence of gods existence, and frankly, as I've pointed out, if I did, I wouldn't be particularly inclined to worship him going by his apparent actions, inactions, opinions and values. They're far too similar to human ones...

--A

[Xar]

Some good posts, some good posts indeed, and very interesting. Let's see, in order...

Xar, thanks, Zoroastrianism was what I was thinking of, not Mithraicism, but I'm not sure why you call it a psuedo-dualism, if Ahriman was a full god, not a created being?

And I don't know why Judaism escaped me. As for Aten, I think that's more of a pseudo-monotheism.

I called Zoroastrianism a pseudo-dualism because although Ahriman is a full god, he is considered the "lesser" of the two: in that he is not just the enemy of Ahura Mazda and those who follow him, but he's also destined to be destroyed at the end of time - hence, his power is considered to be less than that of his brother. Zoroastrianism worships only Ahura Mazda as the ruler of the universe: Zurvanism (a current of Zoroastrianism) makes a point of this. So it's a pseudo-dualism because the two gods have different capabilities and one of them is definitely relegated to the lesser role. In fact, some scholars of religions believe that the concept of Satan in Judaism and Christianity derives from Ahriman, which was supposedly picked up by the Jews during their enslavement under Cyrus.

As for Aten, I would say it was a true monotheism. Under Akhenaten's rule, worship of the other gods was eventually forbidden, and all worship was reserved for Aten alone, so I would think that qualifies for monotheism.

[Avatar]

OK, I see your point. Anything that claims a given final outcome regardless of anything else, (i.e. that he will be destroyed, and there are no two ways about it), would qualify for that psuedo-dualism. Because if it were real dualism, there'd be no more than a 50-50 chance.

As for Aten, fair enough, but it was an abberation, and a short-lived one at that.

--A

[Xar]

OK, I see your point. Anything that claims a given final outcome regardless of anything else, (i.e. that he will be destroyed, and there are no two ways about it), would qualify for that psuedo-dualism. Because if it were real dualism, there'd be no more than a 50-50 chance.

As for Aten, fair enough, but it was an abberation, and a short-lived one at that.

Sure, the cult of Aten was a very short-lived religion - but that doesn't mean it was any less a monotheism than any other longer-living religion

As for the pseudo-dualism, I think you nailed it. Incidentally, as I think I mentioned elsewhere, this pseudo-dualism makes Zoroastrianism one of the most optimistic religions I've studied. In case I didn't mention it or for those who didn't read it: Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion with an "end of days" or an "apocalypse" scenario, but differently from all the various apocalypses, ragnaroks and ends of days of later religions, Zoroastrianism has a much more optimistic view. According to it, after the various upheavals, wars and cataclysms, Ahriman will be finally destroyed, and all the damned souls will be purified in a river of molten iron, and then, purged of their sins, will be blessed by Ahura Mazda and will join those who were saved. So, in short, in Zoroastrianism the concept of hell is temporary: it's similar to the concept of Purgatory in Christianity, in that it is a location where souls burdened by sins atone for those sins before being taken into the deity's arms.

[Cybrweez]

I just think its so funny, this idea of "I used to believe, but then I applied reason". Heh, reason is subjective anyway, you're believing your reason is sound. I'm a very "logical" person myself, but non-believers like to cast believers into this "illogical" group. Of course, they determine what illogical is. I have many reasons why I believe, the personal, spiritual ones most here would call unreasonable (altho their personal beliefs are founded on reason of course). I can say why most don't believe, altho you won't here it from them, they don't like the idea of not being in control. That was Darwin's crutch, evolution says we're the top of the chain, the big kahunas. That sounds great. And of course, it means whatever our "reason" tells us, is truth. That's power.

I believe in the Bible for reasons outside of personal, and many have been mentioned here before (uniqueness, fulfilled prophecy), but its not a question of reason or evidence, but will.

On a side note, I just heard recently the uniqueness of the Bible put forth in an interesting way. Talking about the fact that the Bible is consistent, yet talks about the controversial topics of life. Imagine getting 40 people from NJ to write about sex, death, homosexuality, even stealing. What are the chances they all have the same ideas? What if they were from around the world? What if they spoke 3 different languages, over 2,000 years, different cultures, educational backgrounds? What are the chances the result would be consistent? We know how impossible it is, that's why we have so many denominations. We can't even agree w/in a much shorter time frame, among less people, who profess to believe in the same God. How did these writers of the Bible do it?

Also, I heard a great message this Sunday, it would fit perfect in this thread. It was from Matthew 7, when Jesus talks about those who will call His name, and He'll say I never knew you. Those who said we did mighty works in Your name, and He'll say, depart from me. The example was given of Saul, who was told to kill all the (I think) Moabites, including all animals. Then Samuel heard the sound of animals, and asked Saul what was up. Saul kept the best of the Moabites in order to sacrifice to God. Samuel says obedience is better than sacrifice. We would rather sacrifice than just obey. We would rather claim that Jesus is God rather than obey. We would rather do mighty works than just obey.

[Kinslaughterer]

I just think its so funny, this idea of "I used to believe, but then I applied reason". Heh, reason is subjective anyway, you're believing your reason is sound. I'm a very "logical" person myself, but non-believers like to cast believers into this "illogical" group. Of course, they determine what illogical is. I have many reasons why I believe, the personal, spiritual ones most here would call unreasonable

Logic can be subjective but then it becomes a logical fallacy.

can say why most don't believe, altho you won't here it from them, they don't like the idea of not being in control. That was Darwin's crutch, evolution says we're the top of the chain, the big kahunas. That sounds great. And of course, it means whatever our "reason" tells us, is truth. That's power.

Not even close...I know just as Av, Prebe, and a whole host of other Watchers that we have only so much control over our lives and we accept that. Speaking from a standpoint of Darwin or evolution illustrates that lack of control yet exhibits logic. As for for being on top I think its pretty clear we are "on top" since I'm using my computer to write a post detailing an argument on the subject, however I don't feel we as humans are any more important or special than the animals around us. We are primates after all, even if we walk upright.

On a side note, I just heard recently the uniqueness of the Bible put forth in an interesting way. Talking about the fact that the Bible is consistent, yet talks about the controversial topics of life

This is just an outright lie. A careful read through just a few passages will show an extremely inconsistent document full of errors both logical and historical. For instance, the Pharisees were not the leading denomination nor were they well represented until perhaps 100 years after the supposed date of the Synoptic Gospels. The Saduccees were in control and represented the elders of Jerusalem. They would be the ones to condemn and argue with Jesus. The Romans didn't do their homework when "fixing" the Synoptics.

Those who said we did mighty works in Your name, and He'll say, depart from me. The example was given of Saul, who was told to kill all the (I think) Moabites, including all animals. Then Samuel heard the sound of animals, and asked Saul what was up. Saul kept the best of the Moabites in order to sacrifice to God. Samuel says obedience is better than sacrifice. We would rather sacrifice than just obey. We would rather claim that Jesus is God rather than obey. We would rather do mighty works than just obey.

That quote alone dismisses Christianity as a truth or religion of good.

Also, Judaism was not a monotheistic religion. The original dieties comprised multiple gods who would later make up YHWH/Jehovah. For quite sometime kings of Israel had temples to other gods.

[Avatar]

Hmm, I seem to remember you mentioning that before Kins. When did Judaism amalgamate into a monotheism?

CybrWeez, I have no problem at all with people having faith. But if you have a logical proof for faith, I for one would love to hear it.

And I have to agree with Kins about the inconsistencies. And those are only the ones that remain, and haven't been edited out.

And as for this insistence on obediance, that's sorta my whole issue. What sort of a god is one who cares only that you obey him?

Amusing to hear you call evolution Darwin's crutch, although traditionally religion has been called a crutch, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before the tables were turned.

I agree with Kins again, we're just highly developed animals. We're born, we eat, mate, and die, just like every other animal. We're not special, except in and of ourselves. We're not part of some divinely obscure plan that will end with all the good people, (read Christians) eternally happy, and all the bad people out of the way and punished for their badness.

We are pretty damn amazing though. We went from flint hand-axes and fire to wheels and masonry in around 30,000 years, but from wheels to the combustion engine in only 5,000, and from there to silicon chips in only seventy, and from chips to teeny tiny cell phones in about half that time. We've evolved to be amazing. But we didn't have anything to do with getting it started. It was a level playing field, and the best lasted the longest, to the eternal detriment of everything else.

--A

[Kinslaughterer]

It seems that the Babylonian Exile spurred on the last majore restructuring of Judaism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/an ... jesus.html

The New Testament depiction of Jesus suggests that he was largely a law-abiding and highly nationalistic Jew, and a man with strong ethical concerns. Like many of Judaism's great rabbis, he saw love of neighbor as religion's central demand. Though many Christians are under the impression that he opposed Judaism's emphasis on law, in actuality he criticized anyone who advocated dropping it. "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law [the Torah] or the Prophets," he declared to his early disciples. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved." The law's "purpose," of course, is the universal recognition of God, a goal which neither Christianity nor Judaism believes was realized in Jesus' time, or since. Jesus concluded his message with a severe warning: "Therefore, the man who infringes even the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

On at least one specific legal issue, Jesus identified with the stricter rather than the more lenient rabbis. The prevailing School of Hillel taught that divorce was permitted for any reason, while the School of Shammai only permitted it in cases of sexual misconduct (Mishna Gittin 9:10)—the position later attributed to Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 5:31-32). The subsequent Catholic ban on all divorce seems to represent an even stricter legal standard than the one Jesus established.

A perennially interesting, though probably unanswerable, question is how Jesus regarded himself. Did he see himself as the Messiah? Probably, although one must remember that in the first centuries of the Common Era the word "Messiah" had a different meaning than it has today. Contemporary believers usually think of the Messiah as a wholly spiritual figure. Then, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews from foreign (i.e., Roman) rule, bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher in an age of universal peace. A century after Jesus, many Jews accepted the military general, Bar-Kokhba as the Messiah, although even his greatest supporter, Rabbi Akiva, made no claims regarding his spiritual greatness. Indeed, it was precisely because of the military association with the word "Messiah" that the occupying Roman authorities must have seen Jesus as dangerous and decided to crucify him. That the Romans hung over Jesus' body a sign proclaiming his crime, KING OF THE JEWS, again underscores the apparently militant and political direction of his activities.
Jesus' nationalism, which occasionally spilled over into an unpleasant chauvinism, is illustrated by a story in Matthew: "Jesus ... withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Then out came a Canaanite woman from that district and started shouting, 'Sir, Son of David, take pity on me. My daughter is tormented by a devil.' But he answered her not a word. And his disciples went and pleaded with him. 'Give her what she wants,' they said, 'because she is shouting after us.' He said in reply, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' But the woman had come up and was kneeling at his feet. 'Lord,' she said, 'help me.' He replied, 'it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the house-dogs.' She retorted, 'Ah, yes, sir; but even house-dogs can eat the scraps that fall from their master's table.' Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, you have great faith. Let your wish be granted"' (Matthew 15:21-28).

Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus' crucifixion.

Is there a Jewish consensus on how Jews are to regard Jesus? Perhaps not, but in recent decades many Jewish scholars have tended to view him as one of several first- and second-century Jews who claimed to be the Messiah, and who attempted to rid Judea of its Roman oppressors. However, almost no Jewish scholars believe that Jesus intended to start a new religion. Were Jesus to return today, most Jews believe, he undoubtedly would feel more at home in a synagogue than a church. An increasing number of Jewish scholars believe that Christianity's real founder was another first-century Jew, Paul.
Most statements attributed to Jesus in the New Testament conform to Jewish teachings. This is, of course, not surprising, since Jesus generally practiced Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism. However, at least three innovative teachings ascribed to Jesus diametrically oppose Jewish teachings.

1. Jesus forgives all sins: "The Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matthew 9:6). Judaism believes that God Himself only forgives those sins committed against Him. As the Mishna teaches: "Yom Kippur [the Day of Atonement] atones for sins against God, not for sins against man, unless the injured party has been appeased" (Yoma 8:9). The belief that Jesus can forgive all sins is fraught with moral peril. Some fifteen hundred years after he lived, Protestant reformer Martin Luther, writing in the spirit of Jesus' statement, taught: "Be a sinner and sin vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is victor over sin, death and the world.... It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us, even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or murder" (letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521). Humorist Jules Feiffer has bitingly satirized Luther's position: "Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?"

2. Jesus' attitude toward evil people: "Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well" (Matthew 5:38-39), and "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors" (Matthew 5:44). The Torah commands that one offer the wicked man powerful resistance: "You shall burn the evil out from your midst" (Deuteronomy 17:7). Elsewhere, the Torah approvingly records Moses' killing of a brutal Egyptian overseer who was beating a Jewish slave.

America's survival in the Second World War came about only because almost all American Christians rejected Jesus' advice to "resist not evil." One of the few religious groups to incorporate this principle into their everyday life, the Jehovah's Witnesses, were used in Nazi concentration camps as barbers. The SS was confident that they would do nothing to harm them or other Nazi mass murderers. Judaism, likewise, does not demand that one love one's enemies. Jews are not commanded, for example, to love Nazis, as the statement in Matthew demands.

3. Jesus' claim that people can come to God only through him: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him" (Matthew 11:27). The implication of this statement — and the continuing belief of many fundamentalist Protestants is that only one who believes in Jesus can come to God. Judaism holds that anyone can come to God; as the Psalmist teaches: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18).

[Avatar]

Very interesting post Kins.

--A

[Cybrweez]

This is just an outright lie. A careful read through just a few passages will show an extremely inconsistent document full of errors both logical and historical. For instance, the Pharisees were not the leading denomination nor were they well represented until perhaps 100 years after the supposed date of the Synoptic Gospels. The Saduccees were in control and represented the elders of Jerusalem. They would be the ones to condemn and argue with Jesus. The Romans didn't do their homework when "fixing" the Synoptics.

The NT speaks of the Saduccees and Pharisees Kins.

Dr Nelson Glueck, Israeli archeologist:
“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

I thought you would recognize that Kins, you are an archaeologist. What historical errors are there?

Also, Judaism was not a monotheistic religion. The original dieties comprised multiple gods who would later make up YHWH/Jehovah. For quite sometime kings of Israel had temples to other gods.

"That is an outright lie". Boring link as well, tho I just skimmed the highlighted parts, there were too many "probablies", "perhaps", and "many scholars tend to thinks'. The bit about what kind of Messiah is not surprising or even controversial. Of course Jews of that time were looking for a military leader, thats why they had such a problem w/Jesus. The OT speaks of a Messiah that will erect a kingdom of peace. But it also speaks of a Messiah that will suffer. We're humans, which would you look for?

Ok, now I'm reading the rest of this post. I like this part: "Jesus' nationalism, which occasionally spilled over into an unpleasant chauvinism". Does this guy actually understand what he's reading? Jesus doesn't tell her to beat it b/c she's a woman. It says it right in his quote, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' She wasn't Jewish, nothing to do w/sex. Complete nonsense.

As to how Jews regard Jesus. I wouldn't doubt there were many who claimed to be Messiah around first and second century, b/c that's when Daniel's prophecy said He would come. "Were Jesus to return today, most Jews believe, he undoubtedly would feel more at home in a synagogue than a church." Of course, b/c they believe He is not the Messiah, therefore a Jew just like any other Jew. Why would they think He would feel more at home in a church? And Jesus didn't found a new religion, He fulfilled the prophecy of the OT.

His 3 points:
1. I don't understand his point here. Yes, Judaism says only God forgives sin. Jesus is God. If you don't believe Jesus is God, then of course you wouldn't believe He could forgive sin. And Luther can be answered by Paul himself, who talks about licentious in Romans.

2. A common ploy, used by Prebe as well. The Torah is talking on a national level. Jesus is talking on a personal level. And how does the Torah "approvingly records Moses' killing of a brutal Egyptian overseer who was beating a Jewish slave"? Jews are not commanded to love Nazis? They are commanded to love their God, who loves everyone. Wouldn't it make sense to love everyone as He does?

3. Ha, nice one. Where does Jesus say you can't call unto God? All those who sincerely seek God will be lead by Him to His Son's sacrifice.

I can't believe anyone would take this nonsense seriously. Kins and Av, if you really do, then I have to believe you cannot be objective. It seems b/c it dumps on the Bible, its interesting.

[Prebe]

there were too many "probablies", "perhaps", and "many scholars tend to thinks'

People that look for alternative sources in stead of believing in just one tend to be a little less sure of their statements than biblical literalists.

The Torah is talking on a national level. Jesus is talking on a personal level.

So it's ok to kill nations, and Jesus just says it's not ok to kill persons? If you honestly think that finding blatant contradictions between the old and the new testament is a ploy, I confess that I am a sneaky bastard.

[Kinslaughterer]

The NT speaks of the Saduccees and Pharisees Kins.

Of course it does, however Jesus constantly deals with the Pharisees when in history he would have been arguing with the Saduccees.

Dr Nelson Glueck, Israeli archeologist:
“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

I thought you would recognize that Kins, you are an archaeologist. What historical errors are there?

Objectivity---acting without bias or prejudice.
Sorry, Weez but you are the one who can't be objective. You've already admitted that your beliefs may be illogical or unreasonable. Neither logic or reason is open to interpretation.
Yes, and as an archaeologist I take particularly pains to be objective when it comes to this subject. Dr. Glueck is apparently a "biblical" archaeologist who unfortunately surrendered his objectivity at the door. For instance, the town of Nazareth doesn't exist archaeologically until the 3rd century, long after Jesus died. There is not even enough evidence to show that the Israelites (some 600,000) lived in Egypt for any length of time.

Also, Judaism was not a monotheistic religion. The original dieties comprised multiple gods who would later make up YHWH/Jehovah. For quite sometime kings of Israel had temples to other gods.

Prove me wrong! Abraham worshipped El, a Cannanite god, possibly short for Elohim a plural word suggesting multiple godheads. YHWH is the god of Moses, a violent deity quite possibly originating and worshipped in Midian where Moses was banished by Pharaoh. Ironically, the Golden Bull/calf is hte traditionally idol of El, god of Abraham. Hosea 2:16 asked to be called by a different name other than "Baal" another Cannanite god.

As for worshipping other gods try: 1 Kings 11:4-10. Asteroth was openly worshipped in Israel until the 6th century B.C. Asherah was the wife of El and the Holy of Holies was also called the womb of Asherah. These two would later be combined with YHWH and angliicized to Jehovah. The Shekinah would take the place of Asherah as the female spirit rather than god to properly accomodate monotheistic ideals.

Mithra is an ancient diety that has several curious connections with Jesus despite predating him by as as much as a thousand years. For instance, Mithra was born on Dec. 25 to a virgin and was attended by shepherds. He was a traveling teacher with 12 companions that performed miracles and promised immortality to believers. His death was proclaimed to save the world afterward he rose back to life within three days. He often was referred to as the "lamb" and his principal feast fell on modern day Easter. In fact Mithra was one of the most popular cults around the time of Jesus and it appears the Romans and Paul would take full advantage of the "pagan" religions.

As for Jesus, a true description would show him as a militant. Considering most Israelites were (and still are) well trained in warfare and are responsible for numerous massacres and atrocities in the OT. Firstly, his disciples included Judas Sicari (anglicized to Iscariot) meaning Judas the Dagger and denoting a member of a league of assassins, Simon the Zealot who is a Zealot leader. The Zealots are guerilla fighters determined to remove the Romans. He advises his disciples to purchase weapons and suggests they act as "clever as serpents". A cohort of men arrested Jesus, a cohort being half a roman legion ie 600 to 1000 men. He purposely tried to fulfill prophecies because they were well known to scholars of the OT and being actively looked for during that time. His entry into Jerusalem shows a blatant attempt at rousing the populace to riot as he enter as descendent of David (King of the Jews). His lineage is constantly drawn back to David although they don't match (compare Matthew 1:6-16 to Luke 3:21-31 so much for accuracy?) and are a logical fallacy since he is claimed to be the son of god and a virgin birth.

Also assuming the OT is the infalliable word, it should be wholly correct especially with regards to the environment and animal kingdom. However it claims rabbits chew cud, insects have 4 legs, the sun goes round the earth, the erroneous timeline of species and the enormous geologic data a very old Earth.

Sorry if you didn't like the link, it merely detail how most modern Jews look at their own history. Hmph, what do they know anyway?

How about a reading list?
The Writings of Josephus
When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein
A History of God by Karen Armstrong
Who Wrote the New Testament By Burton Mack
The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
The Nag Hammadi Library by James Robinson
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Oxford Companion to the Bible
Yahweh and the gods of Cannan by W. F. Albright
The Early History of God by Mark Smith
The Religion of Israel, From Beginning to the Exile by Yehezkel Kaufmann
Jesus and Judaism by E.P. Sanders
Early Christian Creeds by J.N. Kelly

I can't believe anyone would take this nonsense seriously. Kins and Av, if you really do, then I have to believe you cannot be objective. It seems b/c it dumps on the Bible, its interesting.

Yes, nonsense. How could anyone believe it?

[Avatar]

there were too many "probablies", "perhaps", and "many scholars tend to thinks'

People that look for alternative sources in stead of believing in just one tend to be a little less sure of their statements than biblical literalists.

Well pointed out Prebe, and good post Kins.

--A