The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chuwg, as described and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Also, another Hebrew word "Duwr" is not exclusively a word for sphere.

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city.


Additionally,

The root of chûgh (or chuwg) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

• In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"

• In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".

• In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.

In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

Now, I think your statement is 'nit-picky' at best.  I don't mean that in a rude way.  Using parenting as an example, parents do hold information back from their children for a number of reasons.  I'm not saying that parents would in any way be on an equal plane with God Almighty, but in regard to reasoning, maturity, and comprehension information is held back.  And just how important would it be to know that the earth was a sphere back then, it certainly wasn't flat, but that's all man could see in the science of that day. [Science = study of things 'observed'.]  My wondering thought is how can anyone not think that our environment wasn't designed - it is marvelous!  Those who hold to the 'chance' theory are misled.

Today mathematics has proved that coincidence does not play a role in the formation of the coded information within DNA, let alone the DNA molecule made up of millions of base pairs. The probability of the coincidental formation of even a single gene out of the 200,000 genes making up DNA is so low that even the notion of impossible remains weak. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, makes the following statement about this 'impossibility':

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4¹⁰⁰⁰=10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

[Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.]

That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 4¹⁰⁰⁰, in other words, 1 in 10⁶⁰⁰. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 in 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice 'zero' probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chuwg, as described and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Also, another Hebrew word "Duwr" is not exclusively a word for sphere.

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city.


Additionally,

The root of chûgh (or chuwg) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

• In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"

• In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".

• In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.

In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

Now, I think your statement is 'nit-picky' at best.  I don't mean that in a rude way.  Using parenting as an example, parents do hold information back from their children for a number of reasons.  I'm not saying that parents would in any way be on an equal plane with God Almighty, but in regard to reasoning, maturity, and comprehension information is held back.  And just how important would it be to know that the earth was a sphere back then, it certainly wasn't flat, but that's all man could see in the science of that day. [Science = study of things 'observed'.]  My wondering thought is how can anyone not think that our environment wasn't designed - it is marvelous!  Those who hold to the 'chance' theory are misled.

Today mathematics has proved that coincidence does not play a role in the formation of the coded information within DNA, let alone the DNA molecule made up of millions of base pairs. The probability of the coincidental formation of even a single gene out of the 200,000 genes making up DNA is so low that even the notion of impossible remains weak. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, makes the following statement about this 'impossibility':

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4¹⁰⁰⁰=10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

[Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.]

That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 4¹⁰⁰⁰, in other words, 1 in 10⁶⁰⁰. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 in 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice 'zero' probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.

1.So, in spite of the fact that we know more than the writers of the Bible did, we should still accept that they are correct when they claim circle=sphere?

2. How can I think our environment/planet universe is designed? So much of it is inhospitable to us or trying to kill us.

3. Good thing evolution doesn't rely on " 'accident', 'chance', or 'coincidence'.", isn't it?

1. See first sentence about the Hebrew language ...

2. Sounds like you don't like this planet, what's the alternative?  For me, this is a wonderful place.  Yes there are many dangers, but for the most part most of us are far from them because our ancestors found a nice place to live.

3.  Point made about DNA is there can't be chance involved, it was designed.  Evolution is chance.

1.  Because if you are going to quote Bible verses then you need to stay in context with the language at hand.  Just because Hebrew doesn't have a word for sphere, it doesn't mean the writer wasn't trying to communicate sphere with the word that closely resembled it.  This problem exists today in most languages as most do not translate perfectly to English.  For instance, if you were to look up English movie titles in Mexico you will find some hilarity!

2.  God didn't say it was perfect, He said it was 'good'.  Human ingenuity and inventiveness are a credit to Him.  Thankfully people who have these kinds of gifts, whether it be in construction, music, arts, whatever, exist.  Otherwise we would still be walking around in animal skins!

3. You're right, I'm no scientist.  I allow scientists to speak and the math bears out as evidence. 

1.  Well, if you are going to place yourself above language, there's nothing much else to do here.  I challenge you to translate English words ending in "ing" to Spanish.

2.  Mistakes! Good isn't a mistake.  What do you call a mistake on earth?

3.  You are right, the math does not carry a conclusion of a God, even the Hebrew God, but it sure does darken the idea that we came from apes, slimy sludge, or sponges.

"There is a God" Antony Flew

1. So they didn't want to use the perfectly good word they had for a spherical object called a ball? . Did the kids play with square balls? Or are you limiting the language to support your argument?

2. Let's see - 13% of the land is capable of growing food, Humans eat through the same hole we breathe through and have an easily confused epiglottis. the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own. Need I go on? If there is a designer, he does poor work. Are you sure you want to make that claim for your God?

3. Again with the straw man? Evolution does not make that claim (despite what Hovind or Comfort claim).

4. Why does it figure that you'd take the word of a man ravaged by senility who had a book written about him by a lying sack of shit named Roy Varghese?


1. For what it's worth:  http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm

2. Sounds like you would like to live elsewhere.  How about Jupiter or Neptune?  Really, even if you believed God didn't create earth, this is a beautiful planet.  And the construction of the human being is wonderful in my opinion.  BTW, I'd love to live forever without getting old and pick 30 as my age.  However, reality tells me that I don't have a flies chance of making it beyond 100, let alone 70 or 80.  I value life, it is a gift and I had no say in it, yet here I am today.  That's wonderful especially when you consider (in my opinion) the alternative of not existing at all.  For sure, that which is given life, no matter what it is, eventually degrades and dies (or at least goes dormant for awhile).  You don't despise living do you?  I doubt it - haven't met a person yet that isn't thankful for being above ground daily.

3. Evolution claims it can be proven statistically and scientifically - yes?  As you are so quick to ask of a theist, I ask, "where's the proof?"

4. I know nothing about Mr. Varghese, and I certainly wouldn't stoop to what I will term as neanderthal language (not being rude to you, I just don't understand its place and use, doesn't do anything for me except wonder why the person using it can't communicate differently).  I only put the link there in response to the links you shared.

1. I agree with your author that "the Scripture isn't there to attest to the Bible's scientific accuracy".  If you did, we would all be grasshoppers (Isaiah 40:22).  I will not argue that the Bible says that the earth and all its surroundings were made in 6-days - I wasn't there - neither were you.  But I will simply state, there is a creator, and there's a reason why we're here today. I would NOT call a box a square - unless you drew it that way on a piece of paper.

2. I didn't claim that you said the earth wasn't beautiful, just seemed you were a bit upset about it.  That's a problem typing words instead of talking face-to-face.  Don't ever assume I wish you dead - you are dead wrong!  <smile>  How would you have designed the universe and its inhabitants?

3. Not qualified to discuss - I just don't believe it, as you don't believe the creation stance.

4. Accepted.  Not sure what you meant by the second sentence, but know that I'm never trying to be smart, overbearing, a know-it-all, or whatever.  I'm just discussing.  If you met me in person, you would know that immediately.

1.  Can be as easy as the language available at that time.  It's a mute point for me.  There was a point in human history where the King's English reigned supreme, thee's, thy's, and thou,s and interesting words like "leasing".  We don't use them any more.  I guess you can see that I really don't have a problem with the word 'circle.'  The Bible isn't written by God, it is written by men inspired by God.  So, you will find bad advice (in the case of the Book of Job), and other ideas that people spoke that do not line up with orthodoxy.  Oh heck, why didn't they just say planet!

2.  This earth wasn't made expressly for humans to inhabit.  God just told them to take care of it.

3.  Ok!

4.  Ah, ok, I'm back on track - phew!  Opinion about Blaise Pascal (not his wager).

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hesed wrote:

1. Best estimate for the writing of Isaiah is approximately 40-45 years.  Yes, Isaiah 22:18; however, looking at the Greek translation of the Bible (the LXX Septuagint), if the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So, we still end up with a circular object.  IMO, all we can do is guess here.  Could it be because of what people visually saw with their own eyes?  If I look at the moon today, all I see is a circle, same with the sun; however, I can apply other knowledge, knowledge Isaiah might not have had and appears that he did not.  Egyptian literature has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

"The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt."

Additionally, there's a Babylonian world map in the British museum where the earth is seen as a circle.

2. Genesis 1:27,28 and Genesis 2:15 is clear: "27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."  Yes, the word "rule" does carry with it the meaning of dominance.  However, Proverbs 12:10 also tells us that, "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."  So, along with dominance/rule comes responsibility."

4. I may not be understanding you completely.  You have a soul, yes?  Why another step?

1. Is that writing or compilation? It seems strange to take 4 decades to write a book of prophecy that might be meaningful to the people of the time.

2. In other words, "We're translating the Bible here - if we add what we know now it'll make God look bad."

3. Yes they saw the world as a circle. You'd think that God (who supposedly created a sphere) would want them to have good information. Or was he trying to keep them stupid (and controllable)

4. I believe the concept of the soul was added to give God a special place to hang out and control mind and body. It's an unnecessary step. And no, I don't have a soul (that I know of - that pesky lack of evidence thing again). Add the soul and you leave dualism - so I guess you'd say I favor Descartes over Pascal. Catholic Calvinism makes as much sense as the protestant version.

1.  Writing.  Isaiah is thought to be two books written over a period of time; however, there is some thought that he didn't pen the second half (chapters 41-66).  Most of the events referred to in chapters 1–39 occurred during Isaiah’s ministry (see 6:1; 14:28; 36:1), so these chapters may have been completed not long after 701 BC, the year the Assyrian army was destroyed.  The language in chapters 40–66 changes, although the expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God occurs 12 times in chapters 1–39 and 14 times in chapters 40–66 shows a thread of consistency: Outside Isaiah that phrase appears in the OT only 6 times. There are other striking verbal parallels between these same chapters.

2.  Nah, how can you make God look bad.  Remember, men were inspired, not every word is inspired.  So man wrote down what he understood.

3.  See answer for #2.

4.  No soul, interesting.  Do you have a spirit?  Or do you wrap everything up in "conscience?"

1. Either it's the same author or the guy who wrote the second half researched the style well.

2. I don't need to make God look bad - he does well enough on his own. I thought you had read the Bible.

3. See 2

4. Consciousness tends to sum it up for me - when you don't have a working brain, all that is you tends to go away. Do you separate soul and spirit as Scripture does?

1.  I'm thinking it's the same author too - does that mean we agree on something?!

2. Yes, several times through I have - how about you?  And I teach it as well.

3. Go to loop - I think this thread is done.

4. Yes, I do separate them:  Romans 7:14-25 - I find this at work in me often.  Some days it's an all out war.

1. Sure. Who wrote it doesn't bother me as much as the inaccuracy of what is written.

2. As have I (both read and taught it). Saw too many people claiming to live it while acting contrary to it.

3. Nah, the thread doesn't have to be done. I could spend some time citing scripture on God's lousy activities and you could tell me how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

4. Ah, Paul. Remember the people I talked about in 2? They used Paul to justify that they were living contrary to Scripture. "Jesus got rid of all the Old law when He died on the Cross. The Ten commandments aren't even in force anymore." Later I read some things which confirmed that Paul's mission was to replace Judaism with his mystery cult that made a God out of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Ok!  Btw, age 56 here USA.

2. Yeah, wheat and tares.  We're together for some time ...

3. OK, next?!

4. Yeah, I remember.  Scripture says Jesus didn't get rid of the old law, it says He "fulfilled" it.  Also, not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled.  The Ten Commandments are in force.  Just because a person confesses Jesus Christ doesn't mean they're absolved from the Law.  "Shall we sin more? Certainly Not!"  (Romans 6)  Paul's mission was supposed to be to the Gentiles, he just couldn't keep himself out of Synagogues.  He didn't have to make Jesus out to be a god.  The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said, "Before Abraham, I am", that's why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

1. cool -10 years behind you same place

2. Are they "tares" when they bring Biblical justification?

3. Ok - perhaps you are not the typical Christian that shows up here. What I described is what usually happens.

4. Your statements contradict Romans. For that matter Romans manages to contradict Romans. How can one ask about sinning more when the source for determining sin has been removed - "Where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)"?

As for "Before Abraham was, I am" that's likely a mistranslation - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iam.htm (yes it's a Muslim site but it raises interesting questions)

 

1. Ok! East Coast, you?

2. From what I understand, and I think it aligns with Christian Orthodoxy, a Christian is a sinner.  The only difference between the Christian and the sinner is that the Christian is 'forgiven' under the premise of relationship with Jesus Christ and the Christian is 'justified' by the blood of Christ and therefore is looked upon by God as "just as if I'd" never sinned.  Now, Christians sin!  That's no secret to me or you.  The nice thing is, even though a Christian sins, they can repent by turning away from that sin and asking for forgiveness.  The tares I mentioned are those that are in the 'church' that don't have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore are not considered as a 'saved' individual.  Many will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)  SO, they may look like a Christian, act like a Christian; however, the Lord sees the heart, the Lord knows the person, and that person will be judged not by what they've done, but by relationship.

3. I'm not...smile.

4. How?  IRT to the resource you provided - of course Islam denies Jesus.  And this resource nicely fits into Jehovah Witness theology, who, too, have added/subtracted from the Bible.  Anyway, just looking at that text and the reaction of those who heard it I think you have no other course but to think that they understood that Jesus was telling them He was before Abraham.  What was before Abraham?  The Flood where everything was destroyed, so since Jesus is saying he eclipses' that event He put Himself on and equal footing with God Almighty - that's why they picked up the stones.  And as are as Him slipping away to avoid death at that moment - it wasn't time yet.  Consistent with how He related Himself to death and when.

1. Indiana - IU Bloomington currently owns me as staff and student

2. This leads to a couple of my problems. Forgiveness in the christian form no longer requires repentance or restitution. If you feel like you got god's forgiveness, that's all you need. The people you screwed over still stay screwed over. It is also infinite in the Christian view - you commit sin, you ask forgiveness and you're clear until the next time you want to commit that sin again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Good to hear.

4. Islam doesn't deny Jesus. They deny Jesus is the son of God. So does Judaism. Jesus would call you a blasphemer if you called him that to his face. the only religion that made Jesus a god is the one Paul built.

To paraphrase Price (if I quoted him accurately, it's accidental), "Trinitarianism is for those people who want to worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be labeled as polytheists."

1. Maryland, retired, but I'm a sleezy contractor.

2. Christians & forgiveness...Christians do need to repent.  Hebrews 6:1 tells us that, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God".  Ephesians 4:31 tells us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."  And, one more, 1 John 1:8-10 says, " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. I am a sinner and I have a carnal mind, I am reminded of it daily as, like Paul describes in Romans 7, I, too, see that at work in me.  I am far from perfect and I do need to forgive, be forgiven, and repent.  Repent meaning do a 180 degree turn around and leave that issue behind.  Yes, it seems as though it's an exercise in hand-washing, but it really is more than that.

3. Glad I'm recognized as different!  Glad you are still here discussing.

4. Sorry, I should have included "is God" in my Islam statement.  "Anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9-11). IRT Trinitarianism...well, it's not something you are going to find as a doctrine espoused by anyone in the Bible; however, you and I both know that it does have roots in certain passages of the NT where all three are present or appear as working on their own, but as one.  I believe there is validity; however, I can't really prove it.  All I can attest to is Him working in me (externally and internally).

Christians need to repent even though:

The verse you cite in Hebrews speaks against it? It says one should press on toward maturity and leave repentance behind.

The verse in Ephesians says to not continue to do those things - where does it say you have to own up to your past misdeeds against others?

The i John passage and Romans 7 seem to support my view of forgiveness? - "forgive me Lord, I can't help it - I have a carnal mind"

---

You also have to remember who wrote the majority of the NT - Paul and his converts. They wanted to deify Jesus and wrote to that effect. Paul wasn't writing about a person in his works.

AE!  Hi.  Well, I can see your point.  We see in the natural, we're blind to the supernatural.  So, the surgeon, yeah, he went and got an education, but that doesn't make him/her a Ben Carson, MD.  Nor does it make him/her a cardiac specialist.  I believe that man can learn anything, but he will always be outdone by another who actually has a gift in a certain area, such as the human heart.  I play at guitar, but I recognize that although I can play it (somewhat) I'll never reach the heights of the Spaniard who plays for pleasure in Plaza Mayor in Madrid or even come close to the musicianship of Michael Hedges.  I'm one of these jack of all trades people (master at none), but I do know people who are musicians, artists, singers, craftsmen, who don't have my skills and I theirs.  Where does the ability for a 6-year old child to play piano at Carnegie Hall come from?  How about Mozart?  Maybe I'm not realizing my capacity to learn, after all the brain is magnificent and under utilized for sure, and maybe I can achieve, but something else is making me tick, pushing me toward something I didn't think I had a talent to do so.  You are intelligent, and from what I gather, have a knack for writing and editing, not only that but also focus on electronics/technology.  I know computers, been in them and around them all my life, but I could never write about them - just fix them.  That was a learned skill; however, I have a knack for fixing electronic things, always had a deep interest in radios and propagation - unlearned, so I decided to follow it.  It took me a long way.  Yes, I had to learn along the way, but it was easy.  So while you and I can expound on the best parts of humanity, and how wonderful it is, I will also say that there's something behind it that we cannot see, but we can acknowledge, and those things given serve man for a purpose.

Always a pleasure talking with you.  Hey, put in a good word down there, I want to see "The Hobbit" produced!!! 

1. Christianity is not made up of cannibals and/or vampires and some might think.  This song, as well as others are not espousing a hunger for blood, it's a remark of thankfulness and praise for the shedding of that blood for sin.  As in the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt where the Angel of Death 'passed over' those homes where the door post and lintel were covered in the blood of a spotless (no defects) lamb, so those that believe in Jesus Christ today are covered by the blood of a spotless lamb led to the slaughter (Isaiah 53).  He's not on the cross, He's not in the grave, He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and one day, He'll return.  That is the promise of Christianity.

3. So Luke, in the first chapter is espousing Paul's religion when he plays back the meeting between Gabriel and Mary saying, "the holy Child shall be called the Son of God" and Matthew, too, when he replays the Angel of the Lord saying to Joseph, "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:   The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us".  And Mark, quoting Peter's response to the question of Jesus, "Who do you say I am?", "You are the Christ" and John - "You are the Holy One of God" and to Martha prior to the raising of Lazarus, ""Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."  The only people recorded in the Bible judging this belief as blasphemy were the scribes, pharisees, and sadducees.

3. God gets acknowledgment, man works, and anyone here worth their salt works hard.  No, Jesus did not lose His Godhood at that moment.  It was a human response to knowledge of what He knew what was about to happen.  He was separated from God at the cross and He acknowledged the separation when He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The separation (as brief as it was) had to occur as God separates Himself from sin, and the sin of the entire world was upon His Son when He was on the cross. The High Priest Caiaphas recognized that when he was quoted to say that, "that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people."

1. Didn't accuse you of such - just remarked.  It depends on what church and how you were brought up.  Christianity is saying that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  He doesn't have to open a vein, His blood has already been shed

2. They attacked Jesus because He made Himself out to be God (as they understood God to be).  False prophets were to be stoned according to Jewish Law.

3. The scapegoat was used to confess the sins of the people transferring their blame upon it, then the goat was set free into the wilderness where God would choose not to remember their sins no more.  Christ was not the Scapegoat, but it was symbolic of His act.  Jesus is the sacrificial Pesach Lamb.  He was led outside the camp (Jerusalem) and slaughtered.  His blood, like the Pesach's lamb, can be applied to anyone professing belief.

1. Well, I'm not sure what church(es) you might be referring to.  The one that I have been part to has sang about the blood of Christ maybe 10 times in 20 years.  And the songs are more about the power and cleansing.  It's not that people are ghoulish or thirsty, it's more of an exclamation and thanksgiving to the blood shed that day.

2. I don't agree with you.  Too many statements made by Him about His relationship to the Father, and what was recorded does not show Him denying that He is from God.  The Jews understood.  If they blew Him off, he would have never been accused of blasphemy.

3. Right!  No temple, no sacrifice - so the Jews have a problem atoning for sin under the Levitical Law.  The Catholic belief (Transubstantiation) takes a lot of faith in my opinion.  They have taken a couple of Scriptures to make their case that is difficult especially in light of Him saying, "Do this in remembrance of me."

2a.  Your argument only holds because early manuscripts have not been found.  I find this argument weak.  For me, Paul's writings follow the Gospels, not vice versa.  Yes, Jesus and His Apostles were Jewish.  Jesus spoke against the white-washed walled religiousity of Judaism.

2b. Christian martyr's died for something they believed true.  I agree with your statements about misguided beliefs (Jonestown comes to mind).

3a. I don't remember claiming that from the times of Abraham Jews were blood thirsty.  They were following a law concerning sin - that's all.  The Bible clearly shows that God set that law in action.

3b. Good researchers...I find it interesting the amount of credibility given to Nostradomus.  Yes, Gospel writers probably did have access to OT writings.  What did OT writers have access to?

3c. Well, that's it isn't it.  The NT proclaims Jesus Christ, 100% man, 100% God, lived sinless, died for the sins of the world, and defeated death.  Man could never accomplish such a feat.  If I could, I would, but I know I can't, can't even measure up - all I can do is bow down.

For what good is head knowledge if the 18" connection to the heart is severed.  I, as well as others, were not convinced because of what the Bible says, we were convinced through experience, then knowledge.