|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted July 30, 2013 12:09 PM |
|
|
Religion will never go away. And I'm not saying this because I'm religious. It's part of being human.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 12:26 PM |
|
|
|
Humans do not possess fixed, never changing essentials except their biological urges. Even if spiritual tendencies is interpreted as default by some anthropologists, my emphasize was on agricultural religions, which, when looked at impartially are no different than many dead religions before them. They are the product of their time and will vanish as times change. The first step, secular laws and norms replacing them already happened. We have no reason at all to expect a different kind of sociological process will apply than the religions before them, on the contrary, we have every reason to assume same will apply.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 12:52 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Humans do not possess fixed, never changing essentials except their biological urges. Even if spiritual tendencies is interpreted as default by some anthropologists, my emphasize was on agricultural religions, which, when looked at impartially are no different than many dead religions before them.
I disagree with you and here is why.
Water is fixed,never changing essential to human body.Every human body consist of it.
Air is fixed,never changing too much essential to human body.
Other never changing TOO MUCH(to extent to not be human anymore)essential is out DNA.
Do you wish me to add other essentials?
Agriculture is our everyday food,which is to this moment changed a bit,but not too much.We eat vegitables,fruits and we won't change these eating habits anytime soon.
I don't see how you see an end,where I see continuation.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 12:57 PM |
|
|
|
Drinking water and breathing air are biological necessities which I already EXCLUDED in my statement. And agricultural production and Agricultural Era and its culture are totally different, separate things. Modern day farmers are not peasants living in villages.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 02:16 PM |
|
|
|
According to Pew, atheism in the US is growing, but I don't know if I'd call the rate "incredibly rapid". I'd call it, "slow but steady".
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 02:49 PM |
|
|
Those studies as as valid as studies from 30 years ago who stated that immigration will create no problems. Christianity will be slowly reduced at local cults, and this started from the point it separated from the state and became a free choice. But religions prevailing over the state will continue to grow, strengthened by the abundant breeding specific to those mentalities. One does not have to be historian to see the obvious: Islam will continue to grow, because this is what it does right now.
Religion, by definition, is contumacious to social progress, and this can be actually observed in the most economical developed muslim countries: as soon as they try to implement a democracy in place, it falls shortly and returns to previous. Today, the straight relation between religion and immigration is stronger than ever, as instead importing fertile moral values, we import downgrades of our secular values.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 03:47 PM |
|
|
Sal said:
Religion, by definition, is contumacious to social progress, and this can be actually observed in the most economical developed muslim countries: as soon as they try to implement a democracy in place, it falls shortly and returns to previous.
Oh, it is contumacious, but it is not immune. Social change never happens overnight, it takes decades. Don't let immigrants reacting to assimilation deceive you, Muslim countries are not immune to change either. Although I agree, their secularization will be later than Western countries (they joined in the process much later), I disagree they wont get there at all. A guy here, who just traveled Iran with a bike wrote on his blog, I've never seen so many atheists in my life, than I've seen in the university of Tahran. When it comes to Arabic countries, most don't even have a proper middle-class yet, so it will take time.
Corribus said:
According to Pew, atheism in the US is growing, but I don't know if I'd call the rate "incredibly rapid". I'd call it, "slow but steady".
US is very interesting that way, you are like an Orwell novel. On one side, there is this intellectual elite, that is among the best within its peers over the world (partly due to the brain drain from other countries) who is vastly atheist and agnostic, publishing enormous amount of scientific and philosophical work... And then you have these puritan masses whose religiosity is no different than a village in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. I just read somewhere that US is the no.1 country in ratio when it comes to people who literally believe angels. Yes, angels, with wings and all... In rest of the modern world, that is something most people would actually laugh their asses off. Obviously you have some problems in education, I mean the Afghans at least have the excuse of poverty. Some years ago, I was talking to a friend about if Islamic countries should be allowed to have nuclear power, I was against the idea, I was telling him that the concept of Jihad and nuclear power put together is not a good idea. He was saying, not allowing it would be hypocrisy, don't let the Americans have it neither then, he kept on saying. I said, that's a little different, I mean they were a secular, modern country, it was a flawed comparison. He smiled and said, "wait till you meet some real American conservatives." I used to think he was exaggerating but now thinking back on the Conan interview Elodin "so proudly" linked, he may have a point in there. How can a country so advanced in elite circles, can be so in contrast with itself when it comes to masses? What is the reason of this puritanism?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 04:45 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:03, 30 Jul 2013.
|
artu said:
He replied mentioning the Greek scriptures, I -just to be sure- researched about those Greek scriptures and it turns out, as I said to him, those were PUT INTO TEXT by secondary "witnesses" after some time passed away also. I linked a book about it written by an expert on New Testament though, since if he was to doubt my expertise on the subject, he'd be very right.
Your book writer is a translator. He is not an expert on exposition of the New Testament and his knowledge of what the NT says is severely lacking or he just enjoys his lies.
Quote:
Now, that's about the time you come in with your crusader mode,
You bash Christianity practically every day of the week. You are a crusader if there ever was one.
Quote:
and please don't get me wrong, I respect a person who stands up for his ideas, but the objection was about the possibility of a third option, which is btw, no matter how you close your ears to it, is considered to be the historical option when history is meant to be a social science.
Nope, I already quoted scholars saying your author's views are not mainsteam and who exposed many lies he told.
Quote:
Take Jesus being "the son of God" for example, only by comparing the four Gospels, he concludes this, (he speaks Hebrew), when Jews said "son of God" they meant that person is loyal to God
Nope. Your author making such a statement shows his utter ignorance of what the Bible teaches. When Jesus refered to God as his Father the Jews took up stones to stone him to death because they recognized he was claiming to be God in human form.
Quote:
John5
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Quote:
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,......
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Peter was the first of the disciples to truly understand that Jesus is God in flesh. That is what Peter meant when he called Jesus the Son of the Living God. He was not saying Jesus was just loyal to God.
Quote:
Matthew 17:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
Quote:
and only in one of the Gospels, which is the latest btw, he is without doubt referred as the literal son of God.
Wrong. I quoted a passage in Matthew that calls him the Son of the Living God Your author is clueless or just knows he can get by with lying to the targets of his books--Dawkinties.
Matthew also says
Quote:
Matthew 1:
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).
Mark only deals with the ministry of Jesus and speaks nothing about his birth. However, in the very first verse of his gospel he calls Jesus the Son of God AND in the verses immediately following, he calls Jesus the LORD (YAHWEH.)
Quote:
Mark 1:
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]
In verse 11 God calls Jesus his Son.
Quote:
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark again has God calling Jesus the Son of God at his transfiguration on the mount.
Quote:
5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)
7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”
And Jesus calls himself the Son [of the Father, aka God] in Mark's gospel.
Quote:
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
In fact, the Sonship plays a very prominent role in the Gospel of Mark.
Quote:
the the “idea of Jesus’ sonship with God forms a crucial theme in Mark”
The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mk 1:1)
And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."(Mk 1:11)
and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroyus? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." (Mk 1:24)
Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, "You are the Son of God!" (Mk 3:11)
and he shouted at the top of his voice, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." (Mk 5:7)
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mk 8:38)
Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son,the Beloved; listen to him!" (Mk 9:7)
He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' (Mk 12:6)
"But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mk 13:32)
He said, "Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want." (Mk 14:36)
But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah,the Son of the Blessed One?" (Mk 14:61)
Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was God's Son!" (Mk 15:39)
Luke too refers to Jesus as the Son of God.
The boy Jesus calls God his Father.
Quote:
Luke 2:
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[f] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Quote:
Luke 3:
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Luke9:
34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen
Luke 10:
21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.
22 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Luke 22:
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:
70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
He replied, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
Luke 24:
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
And there are others.
Quote:
In others, there is not a verse that literally indicates that, and if the man himself declared that, wouldn't all gospels mention it?
See above. I've shown that ALL of the gospel writers called Jesus the Son of God. Your book writer is a liar or ignorant of the Bible.
The gospels all used different terminology, showing different aspects of who Jesus is. I already dealt with how the gospels show Jesus from different angles. Matthew shows him as the Christ, Mark as the Suffering Servant, Luke as the Son of Man, and John as the Son of God. But all of the gospels call him the Son of God.
Quote:
So, what he does is, tie the concept of being the actual son of God to John's theology. And let me remind you, this is done just by comparing the four gospels to each other. You have the right to reject this because of your faith but why do you have to define it as anti-christian lying? It is simply reasoning.
See above. Your author lied in saying only John, of the gospels call Jesus the Son of God. And he is also called the Son of God throughout the remainder of the New Testament.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:00 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Maybe, I was wrong to give agricultural religions centuries to disappear 
Religion to Disappear By 2041 Claims New Study
It is clear that the growth of Atheism or “unaffiliated” people is growing at an incredibly rapid rate in the United States, but it seems that being non-religious is also exploding globally. The UK’s Daily Mail reported an extensive 2010 study that showed unaffiliated individuals as the “third largest global group” behind Christians and Muslims, placing the unaffiliated ahead of Hindus, Buddists, Jews and all other religious affliations.
2041 seems too soon, even to me though.
Oh, you can always dream.
Many Christians refer to themselves as non-religious because they reject the idea of Christianity being a religion. According to the latest PEW/PBS study the vast majority of "non-religious" people are not atheists.
Clicky
Quote:
However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.
With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.
Pentecostal churches are growing nationally and worldwide.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:05, 30 Jul 2013.
|
1- He is not a translator, in my first post linking the book, I also linked his CV. He is a theologian with the specific expertise on NT.
2- I already told you I consider your apologetic sites biased and not impartial. Impartial does not mean "Christianity's all claims can be true" it means impartial to Christianity and treating it like any other religion. Which in your Elodinish dictionary means bashing it.
3- Your quotes from the Bible does not contradict with his interpretation. And personally, I'd take a theologian's (who read the scripts from their original language unlike you and who is using an objective method of historical-criticism) interpretation over your interpretation (which is based on devotion and subjective faith).
4- It really doesn't mean much when you say "he lies." I can do the same, he doesn't. And as I mentioned over and over, he is not some marginal lone wolf, I've been lectured some very similar thesis over here, it's the standard historical approach. This may seem very surprising to you since ALL your links and sources are religious but that's not how real academic research works. I don't need Erchman to tell me that, I already told you it never is long before I read his book.
5- 2041 seems like a very optimistic prediction to me also but I will not debate about who's having the dream, especially with someone who believes in possession of demons and talking to a creature in the sky cures cancer.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:09 PM |
|
|
artu said:
1- He is not a translator, in my first post linking the book, I also linked his CV. He is a theologian with the specific expertise on NT.
2- I already told you I consider your apologetic sites biased and not impartial. Impartial does not mean "Christianity's all claims can be true" it means impartial to Christianity and treating it like any other religion. Which in your Elodinish dictionary means bashing it.
3- Your quotes from the Bible does not contradict with his interpretation. And personally, I'd take a theologian's (who read the scripts from their original language unlike you and who is using an objective method of historical-criticism) interpretation over your interpretation (which is based on devotion and subjective faith).
4- It really doesn't mean much when you say "he lies." I can do the same, he doesn't. And as I mentioned over and over, he is not some marginal lone wolf, I've been lectured some very similar thesis over here, it's the standard historical approach. This may seem very surprising to you since ALL your links and sources are religious but that's not how real academic research works. I don't need Erchman to tell me that, I already told you it never is long before I read his book.
No, he is primarily a translator. A linguist.
And I quoted EVERY gospel calling Jesus the Son of God. I could of course go to the other New Testament books ans show them calling Jesus the Son of God as well. Your author is a liar, a lunatic, or merely ignorant of the New Testament doctrine. Based on his every book bashing Christianity and making false statements I'd have to conclude he is a liar.
The difference between us is I am very familiar with the Bible and believe what I believe because of my study of the Bible.
Whereas you are trying to repeat something someone else said that the Bible says that matches what you want to believe.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:14, 30 Jul 2013.
|
|
Dude, he doesn't say he isn't called the son of God, he says in the historical context that phrase meant something else, and John's gospel took it to a literal level. And that lunatic seems to have written three college textbooks on the subject. Which means he is officially in the curriculum.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:13 PM |
|
|
artu:
Part of the answer is that a lot of people don't really believe what they claim to believe. They don't act as if there were an omnipotent being watching everything they do. If I believed there was a being that once flooded the world for its immorality and has the power to condemn me to eternal suffering, and it was watching me all the time, my behavior would be drastically different. And yet some of these so-called "fundamentalist Christians" don't even give to charity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:20 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:22, 30 Jul 2013.
|
artu said:
Dude, he doesn't say he isn't called the son of God, he says in the historical context that phrase meant something else, and John's gospel took it to a literal level.
Yet Matthew and Luke both say Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and that he is God himself. Mark does not mention the birth of Jesus but from the scripture in Mark that call Jesus Son of God once can see Jesus is divine, not merely loyal to God. In fact in the first four verses of his gospel Mark calls Jesus the Son of God and calls him the LORD (YAHWEH.)
In Matthew Jesus says Jesus has "all authority in heaven and in earth" In Luke Jesus says, "No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
And the Jewish people certainly would not have been trying to stone Jesus for merely saying he was loyal to God. They understood his reference as claiming to be God, and said so in the verses I quoted.
Your author is full of ****.
Quote:
And yet some of these so-called "fundamentalist Christians" don't even give to charity.
Religious people overall give far more to charity than non-religious people according to studies.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:20 PM |
|
|
Why don't some people follow God's commandments but judge others? Because they are hypocrites. There are plenty of those in Romania.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2013 05:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:39, 30 Jul 2013.
|
The Jews may have wanted Jesus dead simply because they thought he was a heretic and his teachings are misguided. Your quotes are again open to interpretation and may I remind you again, they are translations made long after the theology of Jesus being the son of God was established. He studies the original text and he compares them with a horizontal reading.
Now, we have two persons here, Erhman says that this historical approach does not necessarily mean you should lose your faith, it is just analyzing the texts in their historical perspective and understanding them according to what they were meant to be in their own time. The other one says he's a lying, lunatic bashing Christianity. Not so hard to guess who's the objective eye.
@mvass:
I guess your answer to me was about the question on US puritanism. It can explain declaration of faith itself but not the puritanism in specific. I'm looking for something more sociological here.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 31, 2013 12:43 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Part of the answer is that a lot of people don't really believe what they claim to believe.
That, or they don't practice what they preach.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 31, 2013 01:26 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:27, 31 Jul 2013.
|
artu said:
The Jews may have wanted Jesus dead simply because they thought he was a heretic and his teachings are misguided.
In the verses I quoted the people specifically stated they wanted to stone Jesus because he claimed to be God. I'll requote one of those passages here and bolden the relevant verse.
Quote:
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,......
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Your book writer can lie all he wants to but the truth is there in black and white for those who have not stopped up their ears and shut their eyes tight. A person can say they don't believe the Bible but they can't **honestly** claim that Jesus did not claim to be divine.
Quote:
Your quotes are again open to interpretation
No, "you, a mere man, claim to be God" can't be interpreted a thousand different ways. Let's look at another passage I quoted.
Quote:
Matthew 1:
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).
Matthew states an angel said Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus is "God with us." That can't be intrepreted a thousand different ways. Honestly.
Let's look at Luke
Quote:
Luke 1:
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High....
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
NOW, this passage says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that that is why he is called Son of God. NOT because "he is loyal to God" as your book writer so falsely claims.
Let's look at the next chapter that gives an account of angels announcing the birth of Jesus.
Quote:
Luke 2:
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
Now, we see the angel of the Lord [YAHWEH] said Jesus is the Lord. YAHWEH.
We'll look at one more passage that I quoted, this one from Mark
Quote:
Mark 1
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus here is called the Son of God and the LORD [YAHWEH.] John the Baptist was the "one calling in the wilderness." This specifically references a prophecy out of Isaiah.
All of these verses agree with the rest of the New Testament that Jesus is God manifesting himself as a man.
Your book writer is promoting lies.
Quote:
and may I remind you again, they are translations made long after the theology of Jesus being the son of God was established. He studies the original text and he compares them with a horizontal reading.
Nope. The earliest confession of the Christian faith was "Jesus is LORD [YAHWEH.] That is still the confession of Christian faith. Anyone who does not believe Jesus is the LORD [YAHWEH] is not a Christian.
I have proven your book writer to by either a liar or ignorant of the Bible. Again, based on his many books attacking Christianity my conclusion is he is a liar hawking his wares to those who wish to hear lies.
Quote:
Now, we have two persons here, Erhman says that this historical approach does not necessarily mean you should lose your faith, it is just analyzing the texts in their historical perspective and understanding them according to what they were meant to be in their own time. The other one says he's a lying, lunatic bashing Christianity. Not so hard to guess who's the objective eye.
Erhman's "approach" has nothing to do with being "historical."
I've quoted scholars saying Erhman is lying. I've quoted the Bible that clearly states Jesus is divine and claimed to be divine.
The anti-Christian selling lies for gain is the one not objective.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 31, 2013 06:17 PM |
|
|
|
The broken record mode again... Let's repeat it again so it becomes even truer. He lies, he's a liar, he lies lies lies, evil man, evil lying man, what a liar, he lieeees. Oh, I feel so faithful and full of love again. That lying liberal lunatic, he lies lies lies.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 31, 2013 09:44 PM |
|
|
artu said:
The broken record mode again... Let's repeat it again so it becomes even truer. He lies, he's a liar, he lies lies lies, evil man, evil lying man, what a liar, he lieeees. Oh, I feel so faithful and full of love again. That lying liberal lunatic, he lies lies lies.
You quoted what Erhman said the Bible says. I quoted what the Bible actually says. Your position is based on what Erhman says and you are unable to defend his position. My position is based on my 40 years of studying the Bible and I was able to state what I believe, why I believe it, and quote relevant Bible passages to show Erhman is wrong about what he claims the Bible says.
In light of the fact that Erhman is a "professional Christian basher" (all of his books bash Christianity,) I can rationally conclude he is a liar and not merely ignorant of what the Bible says.
@fred79
I have not watched Robertson or any other tele-evangelist in many years. It seems perhaps in his later years dementia is setting it and he should consider retiring. I think he is in his 80s now.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
