Intention of the gospel writers
Offline I would to know what the intentions of the writers of the gospels and epistles were if this stuff wasnt real than why is it written the way it is.
I dont beileve its true but i cant imagine how people could make this stuff up. Are the books we have know the way they were always written and why are they written the way they are like when jesus does miracles and the priests say he is a devil. Obviously it didnt happen so what was the stories purpose.
Also is the story of lazarus a complete fabrication it has to be people dont come back from the dead so who made it up and when.
Im also suspcious of pauls vision that has to be a fabrication to because if he hated christians then why would he have a visoin of jesus obvioulsy he didnt know what he looked like was paul really making this all up with some self serving purpose in mind.
This stuff really frustrates me because i want to know how these stuff can be made up it doesnt happen today anymore.
Ive also read The Evolutionof god and find it really interested but hard to follow.
Basically I want to know what it looked like say when someone was writting the book of exodus for example how could someone write this if it didnt happen and what was the intention.
Also i realize my writing struture is horrible.
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:The term ruach is used many ways, the breath of god, the spirit of god, god sends an evil spirit of god he sends a lying spirit from god. The personification as Holy Spirit is much later. The Dead Sea SCrolls speak of the Spirit of Truth, Spirit of knowledge. The idea of the holy Spirit ddwelling in the Temple is running amuk , the idea of Shekina. Holy Spirit refers to God's spirit just like you may have a team spirit or a happy spirit.
If I didnt know any better I would say you were defending christians beliefs that the bible is one big smooth text. What I am asking is the same as trying to tell people that jesus is no where absolutely no where in the old testament which is pretty funny for someone who is the creator of the universe and always existed, so same with the holy spirit. It sounds like what you are saying is jesus and the holy spirit and god are different things but they do exist. I thought that the holy spirit not being in the bible was a very powerful blow to christianity you seem to be sayin not. Like when christians say that "let us make man in our image" that is the trinity talking to each other and I would usually say that jesus and the holy spirit are no where to be found in the old testament and that that verse is refering to other gods or possible angels, actually I would like to know the origin of that verse and what it meant? So what was the holy spirit that jesus couldnt do miralces without it. Is that a clue to the fact that jesus never clamied to be god and was just a prophet?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
photosynthesis timeline - http://photobiology.info/History_Timelines/Hist-Photosyn.html
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Hubbard's motivation was simpler - "You wanta make _real_ money, you gotta start a _religion_!" (From http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html)
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Im not concerned about the order of creation events i am talking about actually history compared to the history of israel.
Are the people who came over to america descended from people involved with the construction of the bible or had we already branched off(we as in anyone who is a descenedent of american settlers.)
Wouldnt you say that matthew 12:39-45 proof that jesus was talking about something that was supposed to happen in his or his disciples lifetimes?
If you go back far enough we're all Africans.
But no, I don't think that Americans have any direct connection by descent to the Semitic peoples who wrote the Bible (no matter what the Mormons say).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What the hell is jesus talking about in matthew chapter 24. Who is the they he is refering to.
Also doesnt verse 27 sound ignorant?
Guys, Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man. I have posted this more than once - watch the damn video:
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
My thanks cj. I'll damn well watch the damn video (this is the first I've seen it).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Apologies. I know I have mentioned it at least 3 times, no need to assume everyone has read all of the forum posts I have ever made.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
What does the gravity in
1 Timothy 3:4 mean they didnt know about gravity did they?
Just kidding - My inner smart ass has been with me all day.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You don't need me to confirm your belief. Your had your belief about Christianity long before Lee came around.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Which has nothing to do with the veracity of my statement about your words. The only "implicit statement" is what the church added to the text - you said that much yourself.
Are you retracting your words now? How can you claim to defend the words of your God when you can't keep your words straight?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What were their motivations to fabricate? Please do tell.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
The absurdity of Noah's Ark demonstrated in comical ways. Enjoy these :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CccaGaKOlSI&feature=channel
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The trinity is capable of being understood simply by reading the text. I did not say the church added to the text. The church established a doctrine to defend against heresy. The doctrine was based upon the text not by adding to it.
The church council believed strongly in the scriptures and would have known not to add to them. (Rev. 22:18)
Show me this evidence that the church added to the text and if there was an addition did this addition change the meaning of the text. Were focused on meaning here. Show me the added words that change the meaning of the text.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Through lanuage, we see that the understanding of cosmology from ancient times, gives powerful clues to how ignorant the 'philosophies' were back then.
They had a very 2 dimensional view and understanding of the cosmos. More specifically, they didn't have the perception of depth.
They seem to see the 'sky' as shallow tapestry that the stars were embedded on, or hanging from the fabric of the night sky. Of course they would, they were using the naked eye, and couldn't perceive the depth, as they had no means to triangulate, in order to calculate the geometry.
They thought stars were a tapestry of lights. They did not understanding they were suns in different worlds (galaxies). This is evident, as this is such an underpinning in religion that our planet is not only the central theme, it is mistaken for being the center of the universe. They also didn't know the earth wasn't flat. I doubt they even suspected that it was a flat disc. I doubt they would be foolish enough to commit to describing it's 'perimeter' shape.
Had they known that stars were other suns, from other worlds, they never would have been able to perpetuate the feeling that the earth, and our sun, were not simply drops in the ocean of the the entire universe.
They also lie about where the particles (matter) originated from. They had virtually no concept of matter. They didn't know that virtually all matter heavier than helium, was produced by the sun.
They could never have conceived that the sun was a ball of hydrogen (the 66.6666% component of water), since it's 'on fire'.
If someone told them the sun was made from two thirds of what water is made of, that would be completely illogical to them.
Not to mention they simply had no clue of gravity. By that I mean, the strong gravitational forces from massive objects.
They didn't know about 'black holes' because they could not see them, since light gets sucked into a black hole.
Black holes are so mystical in nature, they would have certainly used that in their 'folklore' somehow. It would have been a powerful 'meme', and means to scare the bejesus out of people.
They didn't understand that the 'sky' universe was always 'night', and that day simply meant that the sun was blinding us to the dark sky, much like sheet lightning blinds us to the dark sky, temporarily.
We need to think like very, very young children, in order to be able to model how they 'saw' the world.
It was very, very infantile level of perception, and understanding.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
If it was based upon the text, wouldn't it have been incontrovertible? There would have been no way for differing interpretations to exist.
Instead, differing interpretations did exist and it came down to a vote (some historians describe it as a literal show of hands). How God was defined to exist came down to "majority rules".
It was added to the Bible because they voted in the epistles written by the Roman pagan Paul of Tarsus. You remember him, right? He created the cult you like to call Christianity.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What about that verse I mentioned 1 Timothy 3:4
Here's a modern translation:
Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
The KJV reads: - One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; It means a manner that deserves or calls forth respect from another not the gravity that causes things like apples to fall,
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Paul created Christianity according to your claims. The Bible shows you are in error.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
A document written by Paul where he makes an unsupported counterclaim shows me nothing. did you really expect Paul to admit that he was starting a religion that desired its followers to be subservient to the Roman empire?
I expect the work of Paul and his converts to contradict me. Unfortunately, history contradicts you.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/origin.htm
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
The bible shows someone is in error?
Surely you jest.
You use incompatible words, interchangeably.
Error would mean that someone is mistaken.
The bible agreeing with it's contents, is no less paradoxical than the liar's paradox.
Point taken away from the theist, and given to the atheist.
An anecdote of someone agreeing with himself?
Point taken away from the theist, and given to the atheist.
2 points given to the atheist.
Keep it up, Einstein...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I know whenever there is something stated in the Bible like if people aren't raised from the dead then everyone who is baptised for someone who has died is wasting their time I immediately am convinced that there is a resurrection.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LzKVilag0k
The christians in this video are absolutely stupid I don't understand how people can funcntion like that.
What do you guys think?
You tell me.
Can you reconcile the 'logic' of those apologetics?
It makes no sense to me, whatsoever.
I didn't understand what you meant by this?
I have been debating with a christian and would like to know what he means here. I told them that the people who died before the old testament didnt have jesus and where did they go and he said that people who followed the law of moses were ok, so know I'll show you the rest of the convo.has he made a good rebutal and also the stuff in isaiah has nothing to do with jesus so what is he talking about?
.About the last statement you are basically saying that jesus christ isnt the only way to heaven and I think even jesus would agree with you in the new testament it was other people including paul who turned jesus into a saviour. -ymalmsteen887
He said this was false and then showed me this verse. What does the old testament verse have to do with this and it seems like he changed his mind to the old testament people did not have a way?
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
The Old Testament said before Jesus came into the world;
Isaiah 49
5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am[a] honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."
Hey guys I started this thread and it didnt exactly go in the direction I wanted it too which is alright. I noticed a theist and some athesits going back and forth trying to argue for the validty of the writings but this has nothing to do with the thread which is the meaning behind what they wrote. Here is an example and a question. When it is said in the bible that mary was impregnated by the holy spirit is this so that saying was impregnated by god doesnt sound as offensive. Like saying god had sex with mary. If so there are two ways to look at this the godhead is not apart of the theology of the original authors or holy spirit is god and that would still make it that yahweh impregnated someone so he could give birth to himself? What do you guys think of this and I hope this shows more why I started this thread to decipher the minds of the gospel writers.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Can you word that differntly I didnt understand it? Why does god not father himself and I know that the trinity comes later and is not even in the bible.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I know the claim that jesus was god came later I am talking about the fact that it says the holy spirit caused mary to be pregnant. What was the reason for the holy spirit what are its origins and what was it based on since it has nothing to do with the old testament?
Did you listen to what insanity those loons were spouting??
That 'Hell is the most loving thing that god could do, to those who choose to live outside the authority of god"
And that killing babies is morally wrong, despite that the christian god orders that babies be killed, which would make him contradict himself, and therefore, contradict his own claims of being 'perfect'.
That's just the highlights in the first few minutes.
Can you 'make sense of' (reconcile) that logic?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
See thats what I thought tahts why I put it up there I thought you were asking me to make sense of it? I dont know how people like that get around in life. There has to be something we can do to change these peoples minds. Has anyone ever converted someon like lee on this forumto deconvert because if so maybe there is reason in them?
I don't know where you get that idea. There's plenty of people who are not very intelligent.
Go look at a Bell curve, which will show you that (on average) even in well developed 1st world countries, there can be up to 14% of the population that is just above the level that is considered mentally retarded ( 55-70 IQ), and 34% between that, and 'average' (100 IQ) intelligence.
That's almost 50% of the population, of an average 1st world country that's between 'just above retarded', and 'average'.
You can't fix stupid.
They get frustrated, and agitated when they are faced with problems they cannot solve.
They don't want to help themselves 'change'. They just want to be the way they are.
They don't like to listen to 'reason'. It's too difficult for their brain.
I don't think it's in their nature to be very secure. So, I think they would feel too 'outside', and separate from what other people think, and that would make them even more insecure.
That would be too destabilizing for them.
I think they are better to be left with the others.
It would be like babysitting, to try and be there for them all the time.
I wouldn't put up with it.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
This was put into Jesus's mouth by Matthew trying to create a prophecy. The passage originally read in Q and is reflected by Luke 11:
Luke 11:29And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
30For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
He was not in the grave 3 days and three nights. Friday and Saturday night are 2 nights. He was in the grave on Saturday day and supposedly rose on Sunday. 1 3/4 days. Friday noon to Sunday morning. The writers of the new testament were not bothered by rewriting the sources they had before them to suit their purpose. The intention was to make Jesus prophetic and amazing. The change from an early writing to a latter writing again shows an elevation of a teacher toward a divine being... this is a transitional period here.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I also meant posts 232 and 238.
The divine mission of the whole nation of Israel was delivered to Abraham, that is: "In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Actually what you said makes me worry that it is in the old testament. The words holy and spirit or ghost have no real meaning as in what are they. SO holy spirit is a title cause otherwise if god is a spirit than what is a holy spirit isnt god already holy that would be just another name for gods spirit he is a holy spirit. If jesus said that blasphemy was forgivable to god and him then what is it and why did he mentioned it. The old testament said god put a lying spirit on someone I woldnt take that to mean the holy spirit was a lying spirit. Its just like when the gospel said jesus gave up the ghost I thought it meant holy ghost but the same thing is said when joseph or jacob die in the old testament I would take it just means like thier soul. The words holy followed by spirit are not in the old testament as a thing that convicts people of sin and tells them write from worng.
If you are familiar with the star wars trioligies the prequels are very inconsistent with the sequels and its because lucas wanted to add things to the story that were not in the original so you have to use your imagination when wacthing the older ones. So the new testament seems kinda similiar but far more radical.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
If I didnt know any better I would say you were defending christians beliefs that the bible is one big smooth text. What I am asking is the same as trying to tell people that jesus is no where absolutely no where in the old testament which is pretty funny for someone who is the creator of the universe and always existed, so same with the holy spirit. It sounds like what you are saying is jesus and the holy spirit and god are different things but they do exist. I thought that the holy spirit not being in the bible was a very powerful blow to christianity you seem to be sayin not. Like when christians say that "let us make man in our image" that is the trinity talking to each other and I would usually say that jesus and the holy spirit are no where to be found in the old testament and that that verse is refering to other gods or possible angels, actually I would like to know the origin of that verse and what it meant? So what was the holy spirit that jesus couldnt do miralces without it. Is that a clue to the fact that jesus never clamied to be god and was just a prophet?