Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No Techie man
I am neither sidestepping gracefully or missing the point
It is true that pictures are often necessary to understand concepts. This can not be denied. Agreed? I pack my Biochem lectures with structures OK?
And pictures or artists impressions of David & Goliath or films of Bible stories do help ones understanding of the narrative especially when they are as close to the text as possible, especially with manners and customs.
But clearly Techie man, knowing what Jesus looked like does not in anyway help me to understand the doctrine of Christ.
Although I don’t know what he looks like, I can still pick him out in the types given in OT stories., the ark or safe place in the storms of life, and the ark of salvation, as the well, the ladder, the door of the sheepfold, the king, the light, the city of refuge, the brazen serpent, the torch or baking oven in Genesis 15, the rock, the manna from above, the true vine the good shepherd etc etc
You have never seen me once, but you probably have some good impression of me.
Also many things that I didn’t understand as a child, I have since understood by SEARCHING & STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES, reading proper books, listening to good teachers etc.
I do accept and go by what the Bible says. Like the departed Williiam J Massiah I try to speak where the Bible speaks, and am silent where it is silent. That is why I don’t speculate on why God made the devil etc.
This may ring hollow to you….but it’s the truth. I don’t clutter my mind with too many hard questions. I have enough issues to deal with in my life already.
I am not curious about Biochem and I don’t search for ways ,means and answers either. I have a simple system of gathering and picking and sifting. Over time the gathering and picking and sifting starts to gel. But I don’t go out of my way looking for answers, I try to keep it simple. Did the same thing with my Bible study It has worked for me.
Instead of hurting my head to even think about why there is a devil, I try to deal with his attacks on a daily basis in my life, and like Zoe, I read the Systematic theology of the doctrine of the Devil that he posted. I hate people putting me into pigeon holes. And purposely rebel!
Perhaps unlike you, I do not have a brain. If you ask me a question I will answer it if I know the answer well, or I might refer you to a source.
If I don’t know the answer to your question or think it is a rubbish question to me, since I am not in an exam or need to answer the question for my daily bread I will just flush it.
Or if I don’t think that my class is ready for the answer or know that the topic is coming up tomorrow, the next ten minutes etc I will ignore it also.
Im a very simple fellow man.
I had a fool in some extra classes I was doing for students after school interupt my lecture to ask sometiing that he was not expected yet to know. I said nothing.
Then a collegue got up and chatted for ten minutes about something else entirely . The fool was satisfied. I laughed to myself and carried on with my class. But I was not going to explain grading of tumors to him that evening because it was NOT on my agenda. My collegue used pop corn as an illustration to talk about tumorigenesis. Maybe he mis understood the question.
@Tech…………It would be a cold day in hell before anyone on here claiming to be a christian can definitively tell you from whence they got their cross….But I’ll tell you…I’ll see if I can post a picture here of an ……
ANKH
You see the ANKH is Kemetian. The Oval portion [the top] represent the Female, the Pointed portion at the bottom represents the Phallus or the Penis or the Male, then the Horizontal Bar or the Outstretched Arms represents the Child that is about to BECOME as a result of the union of the Male and Female. Its about the oldest and most sacred symbol for life.
That’s where these imposter frauds got their cross from.
So don’t let them fool you. They will never say that it came out of Ancient Egypt….because you got to remember that the BLACK MAN & HIS WOMAN were savages without any history and desperately in need of a blue-eyed blondie SAVIOUR!
@Zoe……Do you think that you could possibly define the word REALITY for me?
Here is a “Black Jesus” carried in procession in Roman Catholic Cuzco during Holy Week.
It is a yearly custom and dates back to the 17th century,
http://www.myperu.org/gallery/photos_fiesta_senor_de_los_temblores_cusco_peru_2007.html
El Senor de los Temblores …. google the words and see some of the history.
I was there one year with a group hiking the Inca Trail to Macchu Picchu and saw the procession for myself before we left Cuzcuo for the four day hike to Macchu Picchu through the mountains.
The crowds filled the square.
I have been in a crowd before, Paris 14th July celebration, and it is frightening.
You have no control and just get swept along with it.
I will never forget the feeling of helplessness.
It has to be experienced to understand.
Yet in Cuzco that day the crowd of people in the square was easily equal to the crowd I experienced in Paris on Bastille Day but was strangely different.
It was calm and peaceful and I quickly lost my fear.
There were even women with small infants tied on their backs as is the custom in Peru.
They had no worry that their precious cargo would be squashed in the crowd.
I don’t think the colour of the statue influenced the crowd in any way.
If you do go looking for El Senor de los Temblores you will see that there are two stories, the statue changed colour over time, and the statue came that colour.
Suggests that colour really doesn’t matter.
Onlookers:
It seems ROK has taken to putting up Village Atheist level videos from YouTube instead of taking on the serious challenge of addressing the actual worldview level issues on teh merits.
Hopi has taken to the polarising, rhetoric of false, slanderous accusations. She [?] needs to recognise that anger is a blinding emotion, and that Someone would be very happy indeed to have her too angry to listen tot he corrective truth.
As to the most recent nonsense on the cross, it seems that some folks needed to look up some basics, e.g. from even so simple a source as Wiki:
The gibbet on which crucifixion was carried out could be of many shapes. Josephus describes multiple tortures and positions of crucifixion during the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus crucified the rebels;[13] and Seneca the Younger recounts: “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet.”[14]
At times the gibbet was only one vertical stake, called in Latin crux simplex or palus, or in Greek μόνος σταυρός (monos stauros, i.e. isolated stake). This was the simplest available construction for torturing and killing the criminals. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a T (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa).[15] Other forms were in the shape of the letters X and Y.
The first writings about the crucifixion of Jesus do not speak specifically about the shape of that cross, but all the early writings that do, from about the year 100 on, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau)[16] or as composed of an upright and a transverse beam, sometimes with a small ledge in the upright.[17]
Inasmuch as there was a written text put over his head by Pilate, it is logical that this was a traditional style cross. (And, the shape is immaterial to the function and significance. See how we have been red herringed and straw manned yet again? And how these ever so familiar tactics of skeptics then led on to slanderous attacks to the person, intended to polarsie the atmosphere and distort our ability to think clearly?)
If you wish to clarify, Ep Barnabas, which is at most 135 and may be C1, describes the cross as compared to the Gk letter T, i.e. it was held — well within living memory of the oral tradition of the first generation witnesses — to have a cross-piece for impaling his arms. So, there is no great mystery here: a symbol of shame and disgrace was being defiantly used as the symbol of hope for a sin-accursed world. (Just as the early Christians were in the process of re-writing the meaning of the Gk word for “witness” into its modern meaning: martyr. In their blood, taken by authorities and publics filled with slanderous hostility. [BTW, see the matches that are being played with here, as a widespread campaign of slanders against the gospel and Christians seeps into the minds of many in our own civilisation? No prizes for guessing Who is behind that!])
In any case, the cross was a symbol of death, shameful accursed public death — to the C1 heb mind, cursed is him who hangs on a tree [and the cross is a particularly barbaric and prolonged form of hanging that causes death by eventual asphyxiation on being unable to agonsingly raise oneself to breathe in the normal case (Jesus died of a literally broken heart as the blood and water that issued from his chest on being speared show)]. And the Christian response is indeed, he took our curse and gave us his blessing in exchange. And, he rose triumphant with 500+ witnesses as a proof of God’s vindication.
The Ankh, by utter contrast, of course — as the derivative in biology shows — is the Womb and its gate, as a symbol of life. In the summary of early Egyptologusts by Thomas Inman, in his well known Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism:
[It] is by Egyptologists called the symbol of life. It is also called the ‘handled cross,’ or crux ansata. It represents the male triad and the female unit, under a decent form. There are few symbols more commonly met with in Egyptian art. In some remarkable sculptures, where the sun’s rays are represented as terminating in hands, the offerings which these bring are many a crux ansata, emblematic of the truth that a fruitful union is a gift from the deity.
That he Ankh has become subsumed to cross imagery is of course the result of the triumph of the Christian faith that turned the symbol of shame and death into a symbol of rescue and triumph.
The subtext, however, is that Hopi is hoping to illustrate how the Christian faith is derivative of Egyptian religion. To do that, she has simply ignored the obvious force of the record, and has instead substituted items from a different culture, situation and worldview.
So, we need to get back on track . . .
D
PS: if you are concerned over the anti-Creationist rants that have been raised by using a video link above, I simply point out that in the recent thread — still open, folks! — which discussed the issue of the evident design of life starting with the organised complexity of the information-rich chemistry of life in the cell, the same folks were — for WEEKS now — unable to reply with any cogency. that should tell you dear onlooker, what is going on.
Ouch on formatting.
Zoe, you note ‘“You automatically assume that if someone is not a ‘Christian’ then you are sinful!”
“Not only unfair and unjust, but downright arrogant and honestly, this assertion is rabidly insane.”
Well, Crusoe, that’s YOUR arrogant, self-righteous, secular humanistic, worldview re what the Word of God states’
No. I am not arrogant. I do not judge others and verbally condemn them for having alternate views to my own.
But, I will stand and say, that you nor anyone else has no right, to condemn such as myself who has another view.
Neither will I stand by and let you put select groups above others, not only out of a sense of what is truly right and wrong (no one has had to teach me that), but also because such rantings are arrogant and are an attempt to force your views on others.
That also, is not right.
You have a right to your beliefs, others to theirs.
But when you condemn others for their views, you are stepping out of line.
Note that I am not condemning you for your views, you have a right to your beliefs.
I have my own beliefs, as do others, no doubt mine are probably very different than for example, Hopi’s and ROK’s.
But, they are just as valid as yours, Hopi’s, ROK’s.
I wish you well, but the line stops where one condems others, for alternate beliefs.
God is an unknown spiritual entity
Christ was a revolutionary rebel who
challenged indoctrinated schools of
thought
When you look beyond all the rhetoric and all this fancy pasting, Dictionary still has not addressed the issue raised either!
You condemn Hopi about anger but Zoe gets a pass (expected).
You should be a Bajan for it is you who uses the most red herrings soaked in biblical jargon to confuse (or impress) the discussion.
The fact that D refers to this as ‘nonsense of the cross’ above is just another example of the dismissive attitude to questions asked.
How could it be nonsense to someone wanting to know? Is this the way you deal with your students?
If the Greek text never had the words cross or crucify, where or when were these words added?
@ John…
Before you even go any further, the issue here is not one of color, it is about the symbol of the cross.
D wrote..’That he Ankh has become subsumed to cross imagery is of course the result of the triumph of the Christian faith that turned the symbol of shame and death into a symbol of rescue and triumph.
My research says..’In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross piece lowered, was adopted .
Begs to question?
Onlookers:
Now, back on the main issues, here dealing with the skeptics Peter predicts [2 Pet 3!] would mark these last days.
To properly understand the authenticity, credibility and authority of the Scriptures in the teeth of such dismissive rhetoric, we need to take the matter in steps:
1 –> One of the selectively hyperskeptical tricks out here today is the hermeneutic of suspicion, by which the statements of the Bible are dismissed, unless they are specifically supported by external sources.
2 –> This of course turns on the – frankly, cynical — calculation that it is unreasonable to expect that every statement in such a long work will be externally supported [especially given the fragmentary nature of the records and traces of classical times], but it is usually presented rhetorically to the ordinary person or student in the form of an accusation of religious bias leading to suspicion of falsehood or inaccuracy.
3 –> Of course, just about anyone who cares enough to write on a serious or controversial matter will have a viewpoint!
5 –> And, by the same token, atheistical and skeptical attackers of the Bible are blatantly biased and — by making the same knife that would stick the sheep stick the goat — disqualify themselves out of their own mouths.
6 –> So, this selectively hyperskeptical argument [no one in his right mind would dream of subjecting the full range of classical history to such criteria] is obviously self-refuting, and the proper approach is to look to the merits of the facts and logic.
7 –> But also, the Bible is a prime source document from classical times, in its own right, and is replete with eyewitness reports and chroniclers of such. So, the proper approach may be borrowed from the courtroom, as Simon Greenleaf has highlighted on assessing the credibility of witnesses. So, excerpting Section F of the note on Selective hyperskepticism (citing SG’s Testimony):
5] Criteria of Proof: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 – 9. NB: by definition, the sort of selective hyperskepticism above is biased, often bigoted and uncivil,UNREASONABLE doubt.]
6] Credibility of Witnesses: In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. [p. 29. Notice how the burden of proof is being improperly shifted by the sort of skeptics we are dealing with!]
7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.]
8] Ability of a Witness to speak truth: the ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known . . . It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence . . . Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector. [pp. 33 – 4.]
9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39. key step!]
8 –> As noted above, the central warranting point of the Christian worldview is as described in Ac 17 and in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, with over 500 witnesses, which released into our world an outpouring of transforming power by which millions have come to be forgiven by, and meet God in the [very middle eastern, ROK et al!] face of Christ.
9 –> Since the evidence of the record is clear and credible [dating to AD 55 – 62, on an immediate context of incidents of AD 50 and 51 that speak of events in the 30’s], we have every reason to respect it; apart from anti-super-naturalistic prejudices distorting our ability to learn from history.
10 –> Precisely as Rom 1:28 warns against.
11 –> But also, there have been millions across 20 centuries and many thousands of our neighbours in our region who have encountered God through the gospel, in the face of Jesus; and have had their lives transformed thereby.
12 –> So, this is knowledge that we do or should know.
13 –> On the strength of that historical record and resulting supernatural power that is present and active all around us on the terms of the promises of the Scriptures, we know or should know that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of life, Lord of Death, Light of the World, reason Himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life.
13 –> So, as the magisterial late John Wenham [author of the famous Gk textbook, Codrington College monitors . . .] put it in his Christ and the Bible, we have every right to hold the same attitude to the Scriptures (especially the Tanakh, i.e. Old Testament — including the Septuagint translation that the apostles so freely used!) and the testimony of Jesus’ apostles.
14 –> To wit:
Jn 10:35b: “the scripture cannot be broken”
Mt 22:22:29 Jesus32 answered them, “You are deceived,33 because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God . . . 22:31 Now as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God,35 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?36 He is not the God of the dead but of the living!”37 [i.e. he subtly but powerfully exegetes a text in the OT, in Exodus 3:6 . . . authenticating the record of Moshe!] 22:33 When the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching.
Lk 12:12:11 . . . when they bring you [esp. the apostles, but more broadly those who are his] before the synagogues,26 the27 rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense28 or what you should say, 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment29 what you must say.”30
Jn 14: 14:16 Then36 I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate37 to be with you forever – 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept,38 because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides39 with you and will be40 in you . . . . 14:25 “I have spoken these things while staying58 with you. 14:26 But the Advocate,59 the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you60 everything,61 and will cause you to remember everything62 I said to you.
[ . . . ]
15 –> So, we have a perfect right to stand on the full authority of Him Who is the truth Himself, and declare to those who would overthrow the scriptures, echoing Rom 3:4: “let God be true and every man a liar!”
16 –> But — as we may see from the concession to Thomas (who doubted the collective testimony of credible witnesses and the eloquent fact of the empty tomb with neatly folded grave clothes [no longer needed by their former occupant!] — we need not be so drastic!
17 –> For, God is gracious and has given us many points of evidence whereby we may see just how credible and authentic — thus trustworthy and authoritative (even as as a top class dictionary is trustworthy and authoritative) — is the witness of the Scriptures, NT and OT.
18 –> A good point of departure is the story of Sir William Ramsay, who, influenced by the Tubingen History of Religions school, set out to do archaeology in Anatolia to overthrow Luke’s record in the Acts once and for all. To his shock, he discovered just how fine grained his accuracy was, and wrote the famous work, St Paul, Traveller and Roman Citizen. And since then, Luke’s work has been astonishingly vindicated, so that Ramsay’s now century old judgement that he was a historian of the first rank of importance and achievements is vindicated.
19 –> Similarly, on the Gospels, as the well-known NT professor Craig Evans reported in the already linked U Calgary Benthal Public Lecture of 2004 [cf my conclusion in the Selective Hyperskepticism note]:
Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever.
20 –> In turn, that sets up the context of the authenticity of the epistles, especially those of Paul.
21 –> So, we have every reason to be confident in the text of the Gk or responsible translations thereof. [Above I have used the new public domain NET Bible, which has 60,000 translators’ footnotes. And I have strongly recommended that we take NT scholarship out of the hands of the modernist, liberal and liberationist hyperskeptics in the pulpit or the theology classroom, and get eSWORD or The Word for ourselves, with the tools in these. Tools worth US$1,000’s.]
22 –> As we turn to the OT, it is worth noting again that we have some rather direct authentication in hand, from the Lord of truth Himself.
23 –> And, on the single most contested teaching in our era of secular humanist evolutionary materialism, Creation, it is worth pausing to hear God out of the storm in Job 38:
38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind:2
38:2 “Who is this3 who darkens counsel4 with words without knowledge?
38:3 Get ready for a difficult task5 like a man; I will question you and you will inform me!
38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation6 of the earth?
Tell me,7 if you possess understanding!
38:5 Who set its measurements – if8 you know – or who stretched a measuring line across it?
38:6 On what9 were its bases10 set, or who laid its cornerstone – 38:7 when the morning stars11 sang12 in chorus,13 and all the sons of God14 shouted for joy? . . .
24 –> So, we should not be unduly overawed by Nat Geog sagas on TV, or by Dawkinsian village atheist rhetoric railing against God our Creator, or bones in museums or the many misleading icons of macro-evolution, or by “dating” technologies [you should see how isochrons — the star technique — can give misleading results!] or by various cosmological speculations.
25 –> For, these are at best stories made up by men to model the unobserved, unobservable past as they imagine it might have been, not indisputable truth based on direct observation, knowledge and record of the deep past of origins.
26 –> And remember the embarrassed silence when the implications of the observations we can make were brought out: in the cell and in the heavens and even the models such as the Big Bang, that the cosmos and life are the product of intelligence.
27 –> But also, yesterday, I put up a useful summary slide show, by Hugenberger; which shows case after case where skeptical dismissals of the OT record run up against subtle clues and subsequent discoveries.
[ . . . ]
28 –> Scooping out a few cases:
Slides 10 – 11: Haran, Abraham’s home city, was occupied when he lived but shortly thereafter not for hundreds of yeasrs
14 – 20: The pattern, sound and frequency of names used in the Patriarchal narratives fits the traditional time, not that of the critics’ skeptical “revisions”
21 – 23: Camels, we were assured, were not domesticated in the time of the patriarchs’ visits to Egypt. but, now we know they had been domesticated for at least 1,000 years at that time [~ 1800 – 1700 BC].
24 – 38: Prices for slaves, all along the OT plotline, match the known price patterns [and gradual inflation!] of the traditional dates, not those of the skeptical revisionists
45 – 55: Covenant forms fit the times and places, not those of the skeptics’ dates
57 – 60: Places mentioned in the Exodus narratives — contrary to the skeptical dismissals — are known to be occupied at the relevant time, e.g. Dibon etc in Jordan [Cf Num 33:45 – 50]
75 – 76: Merneptath’s stele (recovered from his tomb) shows that Israel was in the land by 1220 BC, as the Pharaoh boasts – in exaggerated form — of a victory over them.
77: Lists a long list of specific detailed confirmations of people, places events etc
79 – 80: I cannot close off without mentioning how confidently the Hittites (e.g. “Uriah the . . .” ) were dismissed as a myth, only to be recovered as a major civilisation.
. . . and more . . .
28 –> So, we see the precise pattern of true and trustworthy witness and record, of subtle and hard to confirm accuracy [and being willing to put down copious incidental details that could be checked in a never so natural manner], on incidental details and passing mentions, not just on the mainline narrative.
29 –> Now, we may turn to the intersection of that mainline narrative with the civilisation of Egypt, from about 1800 BC – 1300 BC or so, with a due respect for its fundamental accuracy.
30 –> There, we find in Genesis, how in the the run up to the full Hyksos period of dynasties 15 – 16 [note how 13th dynasty Khendjer, ~ 1765 BC, is the first generally acknowledged Semitic Pharaoh; and is based in Lower Egypt (part of it at least! Xois became a breakaway province in the W Delta)], the Patriarchs get a relatively warm welcome, and Joseph rises from semitic slave [sold for the right price for that time too . . . ] and prisoner to Vizier under a Pharaoh (of Lower Egypt). His family are brought as refugees [and incidentally as reinforcements to the foreign rulers . . . ] settling in Goshen, in the Delta region.
31 –> However, after a time, friendly dynasties are replaced, and we read:
Exod 1:8 Then a new king,15 who did not know about16 Joseph, came to power17 over Egypt. 1:9 He said18 to his people, “Look at19 the Israelite people, more numerous and stronger than we are! [typical rhetorical exaggeration . . . ] 1:10 Come, let’s deal wisely20 with them. Otherwise21 they will continue to multiply,22 and if23 a war breaks out, they will ally themselves with24 our enemies and fight against us and leave25 the country.”
1:11 So they put foremen26 over the Israelites27 to oppress28 them with hard labor . . . . 1:12 But the more the Egyptians31 oppressed them, the more they multiplied and spread.32 As a result the Egyptians loathed33 the Israelites, 1:13 and they34 made the Israelites serve rigorously . . . . 1:15 The king of Egypt said40 to the Hebrew midwives,41 one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah,42 1:1643 “When you assist44 the Hebrew women in childbirth, observe at the delivery:45 If it is a son, kill him,46 but if it is a daughter, she may live.”47 1:17 But48 the midwives feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them; they let the boys live.49
32 –> It is against this backdrop of (a) enslavement and (b) attempted genocide, that when Moshe is born, he is hid in the house until he has to be put in the famous basket in the river set up just where the princess is likely to come for ablutions, with big sister Miriam watching from a strategic spot.
33 –> The princess, who plainly knows just what is going on, adopts the boy [Take that, daddy-o! You got a Hebrew grandson now! Pow!], and makes the birth mother into his wet nurse and nanny. (In short, right in the king’s household, there is opposition to the genocide. And genocide is inherently plausible as absolute kings tend to be very corrupt. indeed, event he wonderful monuments and art, from a different perspective, reflect long term exploitation of the peasantry.)
34 –> The rest is history: Moses rises to be a prince of Egypt, mighty in word and deed, but then becomes a murderer and felon in exile on the backside of the desert, for 40 years; when he kills an Egyptian beating up on an Israelite. (It is when the king and those who sought him die, that he returns and becomes the famous liberator; tempered by in effect a life sentence of exile.)
35 –> I have already noted and linked on how the hard hearted response of the King of Egypt sets up a power confrontation between YHWH the liberating Creator-God and the demon-backed magicians and mythological gods of Egypt, listing specific gods [and demons] bested by each plague in turn, culminating in the living god, the Pharaoh.
36 –> In that cultural context, the visible contest was the reflection of a war of the territorial gods — note how in the prophets Satan himself is prince of Tyre, Michael the fighting archangel is prince of Israel, and there are princes of Persia and Greece! [Let us hope the prince of Barbados is one of the good guys!] — and YHWH plainly bests the pantheon of Egypt without breaking a sweat.
37 –> Against that backdrop, genesis is a cosmology that sets the real record straight on origins, and in so doing just happens to lay out a unique ground of existence in the Morally upright Creator God who provides an IS that is an adequate foundation for OUGHT.
38 –> In fact, the ONLY philosophically adequate foundation for ought. “What a coincidence!” [NOT.]
39 –> And, in closing, the record is plain: it is not Egypt — which was on massive record pagan-polytheistic — that preserved consciousness of the living God, but the tradition of covenant from Abraham on, c. 2000 BC. [And before him, going back to Noah and Adam.]
40 –> So, too we can see that the worldview of Egyptian polytheism is not the foundation of the Biblical view, whether OT or NT. Moshe and his revelation of the true God, recorded for posterity, are.
41 –> So also, we should reckon that Egypt’s great contributions to human culture were finally capped off by the translation of the OT into the Gk of the final set of dynasties, and then by the gospel when it came to Egypt in the C1, and was received, whence it was the base for stout men like Athanasius, and where it is preserved among the original Egyptians — the Coptics [who still speak the tongue of the ancients!] — to this day.
__________
So, we have now laid out a framework for the authenticity of the Scriptures, anchored in the resurrection of Jesus, but with ample corroboration and a system for understanding why we can trust the record.
That is important in an ate where just as peter predicted in 65 AD or so, mockers would come, dismissing the testimony of the said scriptures.
But, only to their own self-deception and the misleading of those unwise enough to take them seriously.
“A word to the wise . . . ”
G’day
D
Bat Funk you realise of course that it is just you and GP dat talking… Why bother!
Onlookers:
Quick follow up report.
Name-calling and abuse more generally, while hoping to shut down serious discussion.
So sadly typical of the predicted scoffery of 2 Peter 3.
What should that tell you on the actual balance on the actual merits, and on the motivating spirit at work behind the scoffery?
D
ROK
I reviewed your video and have some simple questions.
Georgie Porgie says he is a doctor.
Do you believe him?
He writes specifically to men and tells them go and find a doctor who will examine you anally and even worse, stick a needle in you and test your blood.
Would you go and get your anal exam just on his say so?
Is he just trying to frighten mankind?
Ok, ok , so a load of other doctors are saying the same thing, even some men and women who are not even doctors.
It might be that they could be right …. or maybe they have been brainwashed by some loonies.
Do you see the parallels between the delivery of the two messages, one taken from divinely inspired writings from God, the other from a medical book prepared by man?
Georgie Porgie has two messsages both involving the fear of God.
One is to go get yourselves anally examined and injection needles stuck in you ….. or else you will die.
The other is believe the Word of God …. or else you will die.
Are both messages the result of scaremongering on his part?
Why believe one and not the other given that they both come from the same messenger?
Are dreads in the Bible? Regrettably, I cannot give you a definitive answer either way. …
(*)=Guru rapper from Gangstarr aka “Gifted Unlimited Rhymes Universal” as a backronym and the less often used “God is Universal, he is the Ruler Universal”
Q. Are there any historical-archaeological discoveries that support the Old Testament accounts?
THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN.
“The [Canaan] conquest provides another example of the search for connections between *biblical* and *historical-archaeological* material. This concerns an event for which there is a *considerable* amount of archaeological evidence, a greater amount of detailed description in the biblical sources, and volumes of diverse opinions and hypotheses by modern scholars.” (31/107- EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Vol II, p. 335) emphasis added.
Basic Answer.
“G. Ernest Wright in ‘The Present State of Biblical Archeology’ gives an excellent evaluation of the trend. Wright points out that archaelogy is causing breakthroughs in the understanding of the Bible, a case in point being the concept of Israelite Conquest of Canaan. the original concept deleted actual combat and considered it a gradual one of “osmosis,” the two cultures being “progressively amalgated.” The excavation of Bethel, Lachish and Debir overthrow such a view, since these sites were DESTROYED furiously at about 1200 B.C. Apparently the farthest thing from the mind of the conquerers was a synthesis of culture. Joshua 10 and 11 was said to be in conflict with Judges 1, but this has been overstated. It is correct to assume that assimilation, though widely practiced, was the rule. Israel was much too nationalistic for such cultural indecisiveness.’ 44/1-15
Lapp continues:
“The arcaeological evidence supports the view that the biblical tradition developed from an actual historical conquest under Joshua in the late thirteenth century B.C.,” 31/111 (Ibid., p.336)
AMARNA TABLETS.
“Archer explains how this discovery has helped clarify the historical picture. The Tell el-Amarna (1887), ancient capital of Egypt (called Akhetaten then). They are from officials of Palestine and Syria who were upset about attacking Habiru ( or ‘Apiru’). They describe a disorganized turmoil among the states there, speak of how many are deserting their allegiance to *Egypt* and ask for military aid to stop the onslaught. One letter from Megiddo lists some of the fallen cities, ALL of which are in the south (region of Arad). This conforms with the Israel conquest pattern. Cities like Gezer, Ashkelon and Lachish are reported fallen.”
“In Joshua these were recorded as among the FIRST taken. Jericho, Beersheba, Bethel and Gibeon are not even head from once. These were the first to fall to Joshua. We many conclude, therefore, that these TABLETS record the Hebrew conquest of Canaan in 1400-1380 from the standpoint of the Canaanites themselves.” 12/164.
J.P. Free evaluates their significance:
“The tablets illuminate and confirm the picture which the Bible gives of Palestine at that time. Canaan in the period of conquest was subject to many local kings, who ruled over individual cities with perhaps their surrounding territory.” 18/136.
Unger quotes one of the tablets:
“Abdi-Hiba, governor of Jerusalem wrote a number of letters to the Pharaoh Akhanton (1387-1366 B.C.) beseeching Egyptian aid against the encroaching Habiru, if the country were to be saved for Egypt.”
‘The Habiru plunder all lands of the King. If archers are here this year, then the lands of the King, the Lord, will remain; but if the archers are not here, then the lands of the king, my Lord, are lost.” [Taken from Samuel Mercer, ‘The Tell el-Amarna Tablets] Toronto 1939), Vol. II, no. 287, lines 56-60.]” 40/146. (Ibid., p.336)
“The 1200 plu B.C. burning levels violate the explicit statement of the narratives that Joshua burned *none* of the cities in their falls except Jericho. Ai and Hazor (cf Joshua 11: 13). So those burning levels may indeed be due to the sea peoples’ invasion or Egyptian campaigns.”
Free further shows how archaeology can be used to double check ancient works.
“Several of the cities indicated as taken by the Israelites have been EXCAVATED, including Jericho, Lachish, Debir, and Hazor: and *evidence* has been found at EACH one indicating destruction about 1400 B.C. or a little later. On other hand, certain cities are indicated as not having been taken, such as Bethshan, Taanach, and Megiddo (Josh. 17:11), and excavation at these sites has shown that they were not taken at this time.” 18/237.
G. E. Wright evaluates the evidence in ‘The Present State of Biblical Archaeology”:
“The violent destruction which occurred at such sites as Bethel, Lachish, and Debir during the thirteenth century indicates that we must take seriously the biblical claims for a storming of at least central and southern Palestine with such violence and such contempt for the inhabitants that there was small opportunity or desire for amalgamation on a large scale.” 44/83.
Further, in “The Terminology of the Old Testament Religion,” Wright speaks of the cultural difference:
“Likewise unique in Israel, as compared with Canaan, are the *moral* tone of the religion with its apodictic legal tradition, the conception of covenant relation between God and people, and the cosmological conceptions.” 45/413. (Ibid., p. 338).
NOTE: Onlookers, take careful note, that repeadtedly, the religion, *practices* etc, etc, of the Isrealites, belief in *ONE* God, and a covenant relationship with HIM, to the exclusion of ANY other *false* gods, emphatically repeated, over and over again, throughtout the OT narrative, IS diametrically OPPOSED to the blatant, downright, crass, IDOLATRY, worship of any number of *gods* i.e., Egypt, Canaan, and ALL of the other ancient PAGAN societies. There IS, NOT the slightest connection between Israel’s God, the Only True and living God, and the utter *maze* of FALSE, demonic deities as found in Egypt et al nations of antiquity.
Albright, in ‘From the Stone Age to Christianity,’ points out the character of the Israelites:
“Archaelogical excavation and exploration are throwing increasing light on the character of the earliest Israelite occupation, about 1200 B.C. [The author would place this occupation at 1400 B.C. – middle of Late Bronze age.]. First it is important to note that new inhabitants settled in towns like Bethel and Tell Beir Mir-sim almost immediately after their destruction. The Isrealites were thus far from being characteristic nomads or even seminomads, but were ready to settle down at once and live the life of peasants, tilling the soil and dwelling in stone houses. A second main point is the new Israelite occupation was incomparably more intensive than was the preceding Canaanite one.” 6/212 (Ibid., p. 338)
This is just a brief look at some of the Archaeological discoveries, confirming the Old Testament documents, and their historicity.
More on this a bit later!
@John
You make life so tedious… and I think that you ask some questions which may be important but with the wrong motive.
Now, clearly, you cannot compare what you can confirm with what you cannot confirm. Maybe his competence is medicine, but when it comes to the unknown, he has no competence like everybody else; whether they went to theological college or not.
Then again, there is good reason to be skeptical about medicine, especially when it comes to drug manufacturing; case in point, swine flu. Well he could talk till the cows come home, I will not be taking any vaccinations.
It is recognised that it is fast becoming the norm for the patient to know as much about their condition as the doctor and it is less likely that a doctor can fool their patients.
So we having an economic guru come and tell us about the economy. What is the likelihood that he could tell me anything about the manufacturing process of jam?
Like christians, the medical profession also practices fear-mongering. It is a characteristic of religious societies. Fearmongering went on with swine flu and still going on. It went on with HIV/AIDS causing people real pain and discrimination, until we got to understand it a bit more.
For example, with all the talk of regular check for breast cancer (or cervical cancer; can’t remember which off hand), some information coming to light is suggesting that the regular check ups may be contributing to the condition in healthy persons.
We hear so much about cows milk as youngsters but the day came when it was said that cows milk may be causing health problems in older adults.
So then, why is there the need to use scare tactics? By now people should get the drift, everything in moderation.
@Zoe
You always coming with some far-fetched explanations based on zero probability. You heard the song, “I did it my way” and thought it was about you?
I mean, even the same bible recognise the Jews as nomadic and you trying to prove they were not? So why did god promise them land? Why did god conspire with the Israelites to invade other people’s land? Sent in people to spy, etc?
I am dismissing you as one of the greatest fabricators of this time. As I told you already, anything unique about christianity would be what they added on to the plagiarism… but even monotheism is not unique to christianity as you and your other scholars would like to claim.
All of what you describe above is about a belligerent people. They are the same today trying to kill out the Palestinians… but you obviously speak proudly about it and that tells me the kind of mindset you have developed as a christian. A very wicked state of mind. Keep your christianity.
@ GP, Zoe and Dictionary..
Why is it that anyone who questions the Bible are called scoffers or mockers?
Aren’t you scoffers and mockers of others beliefs as well?
Can any of you honestly say that you respect other religions and beliefs?
Do any of you have any tolerance of other view points, or is it your way only?
I am certain that Zoe once thought that the RC way was the true way.
… but ROK
Isn’t medicine also about the unknown and miraculous ……..
Here’s an example from Christmas Eve a few days ago.
http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/2436824
Is it possible for a scientist to be a creationist and vice versa?
Is the human intellect not capable of entertaining both perceptions at the same time?
Regarding your comment on breast cancer screening the US did just alter its advice.
From what I understand of what I heard on TV, it was not based on any health implications, just cost considerations.
A cheaper path was recommended.
It was met with a cacaphony of howls from doctors, women’s groups and even individual women who had benefitted from early detection of cancer.
It seems to be tied in more with the current health care reforms taking place in the US.
It is a fact that knowledge changes daily and advice based on that knowledge changes accordingly.
It is also a fact that facts also change daily and understanding changes as a result of new facts.
(This of course begs the question on the previous discarded facts …. were they actually facts in the first place?)
The Bible is constant and all sorts of people, scientists, creationists and the ordinary John and Jane Doe find comfort in and study it ….
…. and not because of fear or fear mongering but because of what they find when they actually take the time to look.
There is more fear preached through peer pressure to keep people away from the Bible than there is to encourage them to read it.
…. and yet people find a way there of their own accord.
There has to be something good in the Bible, … it can’t be all bad?
So, why not try it in moderation and see what you find …… or are shown!!
….’There is more fear preached through peer pressure to keep people away from the Bible than there is to encourage them to read it.’
@John…
You could not have lived in Barbados, far less grew up here in the ’70s.
For that statement alone is utter rubbish. Going to church was MANDATORY for young people in mine and many other districts.
@John
“There is more fear preached through peer pressure to keep people away from the Bible than there is to encourage them to read it.”
Now that statement cannot be a fact. I have never heard anybody say that if you follow christianity that you will end up in a hell fire. What are the fears that are perpetrated against christianity? Please give an example.
@JC……Bless you my sister!
@Dictionary……..Took you mighty long to cut and paste your gibberish.
Man up and post the false, slanderous, accusations that I’ve made.
Like I said before, the ANKH represents LIFE whereas your CROSS, the same cross that ConstantkillingTine used to conquer the world in the name of Christianity …..In Hoc Signo Vinces represents DEATH. Aren’t you and your ilk ashamed to be associated with that?
Another sacred Ancient Afrikan symbol that was descrated by the europeans was the swastika. Examine it carefully and you’d see that it has 4 perfect 90* angles which gives you a perfect CIRCLE…the Circle of Life which the Ancients so honoured and revered. You wanna talk about who copied form whom, you joker?
As for the Israelites conquering Canaan, this is just another glaring example of the beastiality of the european, ashkeNAZIS brutes. They saw a land flowing with ‘milk and honey’ and being greedy, envious, covetous parasitic beasts that they are, they supplanted themselves amongst the Canaanites who were BLACK PEOPLE, and then desecrated and took over their land and wrote it in that Bible that God gave them Canaan..a bunch of f……g thieves and the same shit is continuing today with the blessings of the God of that Bible. We see the same thing still going on today on the continent of Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Australia..and watch the lies that they are continually force-feeding us about Iran. Wherever this maggot- infested-beast goes there is a trail and a stench of blood.
And you think that they could give ME a god to worship. I must be outta my cotton picking mind.
Look at the other thread where your pal tried to disprove evolution with what……more evolution, not even comprehending that Evolution is a part of Creation. But like the Ankh and the Swastika you three won’t understand that, in your segregative mind-set.
So I suggest that you shuffle on over to that dick thread where you really belong?
G’day
Hopi!
Nope, not in the ’70’s …. I went to confirmation classes at the Cathedral in the 60’s a decade earlier.
I think the year was 1967 but could be wrong.
Used to walk down to the Cathedral after school from HC.
Dean Gordon Hazelwood instructed us.
Extremely serious about his Church and beliefs.
Once watched him in the 1980’s chase a photographer out of his church in front of a full congregation at a wedding he was conducting because he reckoned the photographer was not behaving in a proper manner …..
… in his Church
…… a heart of gold, … full of fun …
…. and blessed with the gift of healing ….
…. actually saw him do that once too … in 1971!!
Would not have had the opportunity to see that if I hadn’t gone to his confirmation class four years earlier and just stayed out of the system.
The Confirmation class was not all of the students at my level at HC, just a few.
It certainly was not mandatory.
It included some girls from QC and I believe from other schools too.
We were each given a card we had to get signed by the priest everytime we went to church on a Sunday.
It was an attendance record.
I would guess the ’70’s were alot easier.
When I look back at the notes he gave which I still have I notice the Bible readings were in moderation, …..
….. he never told us go and read the whole Bible ….
…. or you will die ……
….. or go to church every Sunday ….
…. or else you will die …..
Mind you we were expected to know his notes, sort of a condensed cathechism, by heart and were tested.
He invariably slipped in a question that wasn’t covered in the notes …. but which could be figured out from the notes … if you knew them well.
Finally the day of Confirmation came, Godfathers and Godmothers present …
….. all dignified and potent ….
…… choir and ministers in full regalia …
… we children decked out in prescribed attire …..
…… scared silly of making a mistake, saying the wrong thing …..
…… and then we all stood up as a group and answered the questions of the Bishop ….
…. or was it the Arch Bishop …..
…. and he Confirmed us into the Anglican Church ….
…. one by one.
Then it was all over.
Can’t remember if Drexel Gomez had been made Bishop of Barbados back then … seem to remember the Arch Bishop of the West Indies came …. could be wrong.
He gave us the refrain that generations of Bishops and Arch Bishops would probably have given repeatedly when delivering the Sacrament of Confirmation and which generations of boys and girls would have received ….
….. and looked the other way!!
“Hope to see you in Church next Sunday”
I watched my nephews and their contemporaries get confirmed in the 90’s at St. George’s Parish Church …. same process …..
….. same refrain from the Bishop ….
…… same result.
The more things change the more they remain the same.
Technician
You could not have lived in Barbados, far less grew up here in the ’70s.
For that statement alone is utter rubbish. Going to church was MANDATORY for young people in mine and many other districts.
++++++++++++++++++++++
…. and you were labeled a sissy if you actually did.
ROK
To a child that is far worse than any hellfire message …..
….. to be viewed by his/her peers as different …..
….. weak ….
……. stupid ……
I did not go to Church regularly in the ’60’s … or the 70’s.
I went when my parents could get me there.
If I can find my attendance card I’ll have a look see how regularly I attended during Confirmation class but I think I had to turn it in.
I can’t say that I ever experienced anyting bad as a result of going to Church when I got there …..
…. but I never …… ever …… ever ….. never ….never ……. ever ….. never ….
…… told any classmate of mine at school about my weekly attendance at Confirmation class …..
….. or having to get a priest sign a card everytime I went to Church on a Sunday.
I entirely missed the hellfire message when I went to Church weakly.
It never had any influence on me going to church …..
…… or not …..
…… mostly not!!
Maybe I should have listened more intently as a child and I would have received the hellfire message you and Technician seem to have received first up.
Maybe it would have had me in church more regularly as a child …..
….. as you and Technician seem to have been …..
….. where you were able to witness first hand the brain washing to which you refer.
Maybe it would have had me in church more regularly as a child …..
….. as you and Technician seem to have been …..
….. where you were able to witness first hand the brain washing to which you refer.
@ John…
Where in my post have I ever said or referred to going to church as brainwashing?
Please show me the post!!
I am asking questions that I have difficulty with, more so to GP than any other because at least he tries to answer rather than be snobbish to me.
Deal with ROK according to his post, deal with Technician according to mine ok.
You must have lived else where or maybe up in the heights or terraces but let me tell you as I said before, In my district and the surrounding ones, church WAS mandatory and no one called you a sissy because we were all there..go figure, even if your parents didnt go …you were there.
….’Maybe I should have listened more intently as a child and I would have received the hellfire message you and Technician seem to have received first up.
@ John…
And what would that hellfire message be?
My issues with religion has nothing to do with what the preacher( who happened to be my cousin) said on Sundays.
FYI, I read the Bible (how else would I be able to ask these questions) therefore it begs to reason that I have read Revelation at some time. I must admit it is a scary part of the Bible, Wes Craven and Bram Stoker could never even begin to compare.
Never have I received any hellfire messages,though sometimes I thought my cousin was ready to burst with passion.
Apologies Technician.
@John
I tell you that you make life real tedious. Where did I say that a hell fire message was delivered to children at church? I asked you a simple question, give me an example of fearmongering against christians?
I really don’t know what is all that tripe because neither did you address mine nor Technician’s posts. Like you doting or something.
@John
“There has to be something good in the Bible, … it can’t be all bad?”
Ye shall know them by their fruit
Seek and ye shall find
Knock and it will be opened
Plus nuff more lessons, but that don’t take away from the fact that christ and his god are not the Creator. It does not take away from the fact that the bible is a book of plagiarism. It does not take away from the fact that all these principles came out of Egypt.
Imagine a man commits predial larceny. If he is caught he will be punished. Would the crops he stole be bad? Would not there be public outcry for the act he committed?
You are a serious apologist.
@Dictionary
“It seems ROK has taken to putting up Village Atheist level videos from YouTube instead of taking on the serious challenge of addressing the actual worldview level issues on teh merits.”
Well you are cutting and pasting your over zealous and christian over-sympathetic propaganda, lies and distortions. One thing about the atheists, they are not resorting to lies, deceit and distortions like you, seeking to justify your sins.
Second, you have no world view. According to christianity you cannot even have a world view, because you are stuck with the one they give you. That is more of a pigeon hole than a world view.
@ John..
Accepted.
ROK
Man how you get that photo stick to your handle? Wha it is dat you do…?
@BAFBFP
go to wordpress and get an account
@ ROK,
You men we now have to watch his face too? lol!
@Pat
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Don’t worry, he ain’t brave enough.
Wait a minute Pat, I want ac see me… But you could look to ya kno’…!
@ BAFBFP // December 31, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Re Bat Funk you realise of course that it is just you and GP dat talking…
Correction Sir! We are the oly ones along with Zoe who are saying anything of great significance.
We are certainly not discussing the concept of the second coming of Christ , and posters are indicating the truth of the tenets of 2 Peter 3.
Though scoffed at, I notice that Zoe made a stirling contribution in his post on Bible archaeology . It was laughed to scorn; but how many of you have read anything- anything at all on either Bible archaeology or Eschatology. How then can you discuss these areas.
Then there is an idiot who pontificates on vaccines, despite the fact that the stellar and significant work by first Sabin and Salk resulted in the eradication of small pox.
I am truly amazed at how well and how widely Dictionary has read, and at his ability to argue and articulate the issues. Hopefully some persons in cyberspace will benefit.
@ Technician
You are correct in opining that, as your research indicates ’In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross piece lowered, was adopted “
But by whom was the symbol of the cross originally accepted in this fashion? Certainly not by the church of the first three centuries of its existence who survived great persecution from the Romans.
It is indeed true from a cursory study and searching of the Pauline & Petrine epistles that the early church , prior to its contamination by Constantine found in the “cross” (meaning the adopted Roman method of execution) which was for sure “the symbol of shame and” and turned into “a symbol of rescue and triumph.” So much so that Paul said that he gloried in the cross of Christ!
We can pick nits and strain at gnats and split hairs, but the facts are that very very few have read about the pagan origins of T or Tau or the pagan cross- and they could care less. Millions over the centuries have gloried in the Christ who died on the cross and shed his blood as a ransom price for their sins, and redeemed them from the slave market of sin!
I do not find that Dictionary uses the red herrings soaked in biblical jargon to confuse (or impress) the discussion. I find that he is very well read. He obviously knows his Bible better than all of you- as he is able to RIGHTLY DIVIDE it when he uses it as the weapon it is stated to be in Hebrews 4:12 and Ephesians 6:13-17)
You ask If the Greek text never had the words cross or crucify, where or when were these words added?
The answer in simple Techie IN THE VERSIONS PIT OUT BY THE RC’s FOLLOWING JEROMES TRANSLATION CALLED THE LATIN VIULGATE.
And I don’t think that Dictionary meant that the cross was nonsense, or that answering questions about the cross is nonsense, I understand hi to be saying that posters had written nonsense or erroneous things about the ”cross of Christ.” And he was correct in this opinion.
The bias is so strong that some folk are not willing to learn anything. I guess you guys were surprised to know that we have read all about this. Its basic CHURCH HISTORY! You may not have heard it in your Anglican church or the other established churches in Barbados. But in humble gathering all over Barbados are many well educated persons who have defected from the established churches and are studying the Bible in living rooms and here and there; and actually know about these things, and can separate the truth from the error; the gold from the dross.
Hopi:
I see your:
Like I said before, the ANKH represents LIFE whereas your CROSS, the same cross that ConstantkillingTine used to conquer the world in the name of Christianity …..In Hoc Signo Vinces represents DEATH. Aren’t you and your ilk ashamed to be associated with that?
Classic strawman-based slander.
And just what we expect from Someone who got his worst defeat just when he thought he had scored his greatest victory.
But then came the triumphant cry “IT IS FINISHED!”
And all hell shook, and still shakes before that cross that brought us hard-bought salvation, forgiveness, liberation and healing; leading to transformation of life.
For millions across twenty centuries — and even you if you will but receive!
So, let’s round off for the old year with a video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAB41b3gNU0&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Lyrics of hope and life:
THE OLD RUGGED CROSS
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame;
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.Refrain
So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,
Has a wondrous attraction for me;
For the dear Lamb of God left His glory above
To bear it to dark Calvary.In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
A wondrous beauty I see,
For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
To pardon and sanctify me.To the old rugged cross I will ever be true;
Its shame and reproach gladly bear;
Then He’ll call me some day to my home far away,
Where His glory forever I’ll share.
AMEN!
D
PS: On the morrow, let’s deal with the theology, and the power of the amazing and spiritually transforming prophecy in Is 52:13 – 53:12.
Crusoe
Re Zoe, you note ‘“You automatically assume that if someone is not a ‘Christian’ then you are sinful!” “Not only unfair and unjust, but downright arrogant and honestly, this assertion is rabidly insane.”
Well, Crusoe, that’s YOUR arrogant, self-righteous, secular humanistic, worldview re what the Word of God states’
But Crusoe SINCE ALL MEN ARE INDEED SINNERS according to the Word of God, and since the Bible condemns sinners (especially in John’s Gospel in chapters 3 &5 (Jesus speaking) and in 1 John 5, I am not sure that you are quite correct to say Zoe or anyone is either arrogant or rabidly insane. LOL
I don’t think that Zoe or Dictionary or I are attempting attempt to force our views on others. I think we are declaring our views on the basis of the Word of God that we sincerely believe. ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL THE OTHER POSTERS ARE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR VIEW ON OTHERS ALSO? Or is it only the men from the Bat Cave (Zoe, Dictionary and I) that are trying so to do , by your suggestions.
Does your edict that “You have a right to your beliefs, others to theirs” apply equally to us too?
Zoe quoted Romans 1:16 correctly. That is what the Bible teaches. It has nothing to do with your anti-Semitism. LOL . That is what the Bible teaches in Romans 1:16.
Any Bible preacher can condemn sin and sinners on the basis of what the scripture teaches about sin and sinners , in the knowledge that as he points his index finger at the sinner in his audience that he points his other FOUR FINGERS BACK AT HIM SELF!
In case you didn’t know friend the scriptures clearly teaches in John 3:18 and 36 that ALL sinners are CONDEMNED ALREADY!
Now if you don’t take the Bible serious, that’s OK by me too. That’s your choice. I wont condemn you BUT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS THAT YOU ARE CONDEMNED ALREADY!
PPS: Let’s not forget Heinrich Heine’s prophecy of 1831, on the price Germany would pay for despising that old cross:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …
The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …
… Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …
At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in farthest Africa will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.
There is a terrible price to be paid for apostasy and reversion to the old demon-backed gods, Hopi. So, as we cross into the Year of Our Lord two thousand and ten, let us think on the choice of the two ways before our region as this thread so starkly shows.
@GP
“prior to its contamination by Constantine found in the “cross” (meaning the adopted Roman method of execution) which was for sure “the symbol of shame and” and turned into “a symbol of rescue and triumph.””
Talk about slander and lies. Christians turned the cross into a symbol of rescue and triumph? What a joke. The idea behind using it to crucify people was to put it to shame from its glory, in the first place. Like what Hitler did to the swastika.
You know, it would seem to me that racism started with christianity. I cannot find another source older that the Jews, where a race of people identified themselves as some special people and all other people are the scum of the earth. Certainly, racism started with the idea that if you are not a Jew, you are a gentile.
I have not been able to find another race of people that did this before the Jews. Hitler being a Jew, took racism to the extreme. This is what you are following? I would not be surprised if someday history absolves Hitler from the massacre of the Jews. Just look and see what is happening with the Palestinians. I expect that someday both the Israelites and the USA (as well as Europe) will held to pay reparations to the Palestinians.
I also expect that someday, the USA will pay for its invasion of the Middle East and the theft of the oil from there.
@GP
“There is a terrible price to be paid for apostasy and reversion to the old demon-backed gods…”
Of course you don’t realise that your god is but on of the self same demon-backed gods. You only have to look at the terror with which he reigned in your said same plagiarism.
John made a comment earlier about the fear which men had of the gods of the ancients. Well your god was no different and you know why? Because it is a plagiarism of what went before.
By the time of the so-called life of Abraham, the gods had long left the earth. So all this talk about god appearing, etc. could only have happened in the time of the ancients.
I leave you to do some homework because you bright. The time when the gods left the earth is known and it was thousands of years before your story starts. Find out for yourself and stop making a fool of yourself with this foolishness, merely professing and wishing the worse for those who are not of your faith. The only people that will go in a hellfire are those who believe that it exists.
Technician
Re @ GP, Zoe and Dictionary..
Why is it that anyone who questions the Bible are called scoffers or mockers?
Aren’t you scoffers and mockers of others beliefs as well?
Can any of you honestly say that you respect other religions and beliefs?
Do any of you have any tolerance of other view points, or is it your way only?
I am certain that Zoe once thought that the RC way was the true way.
Techie there is tolerance of other view points and there is scoffing or mocking. I am sure that you can perceive the difference.
There is asking questions by sincere seekers in order to KNOW OR BETTER UNDERSTAND, and there are the irritating comments by some that think they know because they understand a nugget of truth partially. There are also the out and out scoffers and mockers. You are an intelligent man. I am sure that you can tell the difference. So does God.
And BTW the word of God calls scoffers SCOFFERS in 2 Peter 3. If I did not believe the Bible before, I would have to believe it now, on the basis of the fulfillment of that prophecy alone.
Maybe Zoe once thought that the RC way was the true way., just as I was an ardent Anglican of the Anglicans, and just as Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees! (c.f Philippians 3) But having been arrested or apprehended by Christ as Paul describes in Phil 3::13, we have seen things differently, and we seek to share that view.
Despite our different approaches, we are lumped together as one and treated like dirt……..from the Bat Cave even! LOL
Can you say that others tolerate our view? Now we don’t expect folk to (as the Bible teaches);but the truth is most folk on BU don’t respect or tolerate our views. And whether you know it or not, or respect us our not, in 2008 we have taught much Bible on BU and at a very high level.
It is written IRON SHARPENS IRON. That is what the scoffers and mockers have done to us this year. I am amazed at the pertinent and poignant responses that the Spirit of God brings to me. And even more amazed at the doctrinal truths that Zoe brings, and the depth and breadth of the information that Dictionary brings to the table also.
Techie if I was to take some folk wh o post here seriously, I might get annoyed as Zoe seems to do at times. But generally I ignore idiots who clearly don’t understand or are just plain stupid and wicked and ignorant.
At which period of time(s) were the Jews nomadic?
Why did God promise them land? And when did he promise them land? Were they a people when God promised them land?
Why did God send the Israelites to invade Canaan?
Since when has there been a nation or people called Palestinians.
Was the land now occupied by Israel occupied by anyone prior to 1948? And by whom? Was it not an inhabitable deserted desert?
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.