Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They didn't sacrifice their children to God, they sacrificed them to false Gods such as moloch, who were the gods of the Canaanites.
Exactly. How is the Hebrew God different than Moloch? If they thought Moloch was a god, and some sort of deity to be worshiping, what do you think they thought about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It's not that complicated if you think about it.
"Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us"
You have given a poor excuse to ignore parts of the Bible.
Keep a look out for the explanation I am going to give Katzpur on the Parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man.
Last edited by herefornow; 05-17-2010 at 07:26 PM..
I've explained in general terms what the concept of Hell consisted of during NT times. There wasn't a lot of pagan thinking in first century Judaism when Christ was preaching. Not any more than had always been influencing Judaism, anyway.
They were, but the people who told them that were also steeped in "pagan" thought. The majority of the theology and ideologies found in the Old and New Testaments are derived from pre-existing non-Judeo-Christian traditions. Like I already said, the concept of the underworld was borrowed from a larger Syro-Palestinian ideological matrix that was itself based on Assyro-Babylonian concepts. The idea of an incorporeal deity is based on Greek ontology. The concept of the devil is largely derivative of Persian dualism. As the Israelites came into contact with their neighbors they absorbed aspects of their worldviews, without exception.
Not really. There is quite a bit of ideological overlap between the two. The majority of Israelite religion, however, derives from a Syro-Palestinian context. The closest analogy is found in the Ugaritic texts, which illuminate many aspects of early Israelite theology and even philology that were a mystery before the 20th century. Psalm 104 is actually based in large part on the Egyptian Hymn to Aten. Archaeologists have discovered hundreds of jar handles in and around Jerusalem dating to the reign of Hezekiah that bear the inscription "to the king." They also bear the Egyptian solar disc or a scarab beetle. Both are symbols of the Egyptian sun deity, clearly viewed during the reign of Hezekiah as Yhwh. Psalm 29 is based on an archaic hymn to Baal, the Syro-Palestinian storm god. Yhwh was conceived of in the earliest Israelite pantheon as a storm god.
I've given you one example. The primary problem is that the author is looking at the whole Bible synchronically. The Bible was not written at one time. It is a collation of almost 1000 of religious literature coming from authors who were writing from dozens of different perspectives. The concept of the afterlife developed a great deal between Genesis and Revelation. While the earliest Israelites didn't believe in a fiery place of eternal torture, Late Second Temple Period Jews and early Christians absolutely did. That covers the composition of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, several of the Psalms, the entire New Testament, and portions of numerous other redacted biblical texts. The author of your article assumes that he can take and early text and impose that ideology on a text from a completely different time and place so that it means the same thing. The texts do not all mean the same thing.
Seems odd, then, that he commands the sacrifice of the firstborn children of all Israelites in Exod 22:29. This was just in keeping with common ideas from the time period. Later they introduced the idea of redeeming the firstborn, but Exodus 22 says nothing of this. There are distinct historical layers in Exodus and in all the books of the Bible.
Jer 7:22 says that God didn't give Israel any commandments about sacrificing when he brought them out of Egypt. The book of Exodus says differently. Which is correct?
Please don't shout. I've explained my position. So far you've not bothered responding to my concerns, you've only asked additional questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd simply address my concerns this time.
Sorry for shouting.
Anyhow, I am guessing you are not Christian? That's fine by me. And, I already know that the Bible contradicts itself; quite a bit, actually.
I believe that the Hebrews were a little confused as to WHAT and WHO they were worshiping much of the time, by the way they were behaving. I think, though, that if you check some of the stories out in the Old Testament, and then match those with the behavior of Yeshua in the New Testament, you can get a better picture of WHO God is and what He is about. At least, that is what I am trying to do.
I believe Exodus 22:29 is NOT talking about literally killing firstborn children, but offering them in SERVICE, just as Samuel's mother did, when he was little. Samuel's mother had been praying for a child for a very long time, and when he was finally born, she offered him to God in SERVICE.
Literally sacrificing children doesn't match up with how God works, in the scheme of things, in my opinion.
Again, I am trying to discern what is pagan and what is not. I believe that Christianity has brought quite a bit of pagan thought into it's thinking and cannot discern the scriptures SPIRITUALLY, just like the Jews of Jesus' time.
That's all.
Last edited by herefornow; 05-17-2010 at 07:38 PM..
I disagree, herefornow. Jesus did speak in parables a lot of the time, but we can find dozens of examples where there is little doubt but that His words were to be understood literally, as not as a parable. I'm curious as to why you think this particular passage is a parable.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say it is a parable. A parable always teaches us a deeper truth and everything mentioned in the parable is symbolic of something else. If you think this is a parable, what do you believe the gulf represents? Who do you believe the rich man represents? And the poor man? Explain in your own words what it was that Jesus was teaching in this parable.
To take ANY of this parable literally would be kind of, well......never mind. I can get into that in another post if you would like.
And, remember, if this were to be taken literally, it would CONTRADICT hundreds of other verses in the Bible! There is NOWHERE in the Bible that would suggest that there is such a place as the Greek Underworld or the pagan punishments of old. I've checked! And, I have been studying my brains out! NOT LITERALLY, of course!
Tell me, before I explain: If you were actually being tormented in a LITERAL FIRE, could you talk? Would you ask for a drop of water for your tongue as the rich man did, or a bucket? Just asking. AND, is it wrong to be rich, and good to be poor, as this seems to teach if taken literally?
Anyway, let's take a look at what all these words in the parable stand for and then I will explain the rest:
Purple and Fine Linen: (I mean, really, why do we care what he is dressed in?? BECAUSE IT MATTERS!) Purple was worn by royalty and Kings, NOT the poor, and was a symbol for power and authority. Fine linen was Cambric, which the PRIESTS WORE, and was part of the interior tabernacle decorations.
Judah: Carrying the ROYAL LINE in Israel. King David and our Savior were both from this line.
5 brothers: Why does this parable mention the number 5? What do 5 brothers have to do with anything? There were 12 tribes, obviously, but Judah's mother had 6 SONS, which means Judah had 5 BROTHERS!
Lazarus: Eliezar (Lazarus), ABRAHAM'S GENTILE SERVANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT! He was supposed to get Abraham's inheritance! WOW! If anybody out there understands how awesome that would have been, SPIRITUALLY and otherwise, you will understand the parable a little better!
Rich Man: Judah.
Gulf: There has been a gulf separating the Gentiles and Jews for 2000 years now. WHO is carrying the oracles of God these days??
Chasm: Judah has been blinded by God Himself, while the Gentiles are carrying the torch. They cannot get to the SPIRITUAL WATERS!
Drop of Water: The "RICH MAN" is asking for Lazarus to dip his FINGER in the spiritual WATER! Judah bound heavy burdens on people and would not lift A FINGER to help them. The Rich Man, JUDAH, is begging a GENTILE DOG for help!
Torment and Anguish: Persecution and anguish (out in the dark, weeping and gnashing of teeth, outside the kingdom for the last 2000 years).
Flame: SORROW, SHAME, PERSECUTION (and, most of the Bible is not speaking of LITERAL fire when it speaks of fire, which is easy to see when studied. It is SPIRITUAL fire! I can put that in another post if you would like)
Abraham's Bosom: A place of extreme closeness to THE FATHER!! A place of GREAT HONOR! Gentiles can NOW be in the tabernacle! It used to be that they were DOGS and could not get in to get the SPIRITUAL food!
Dogs: GENTILES! Not allowed to go into the tabernacle.
Scraps of FOOD: Spiritual scraps of food, just as when the woman asked for Jesus' to give her scraps of food from the table. SPIRITUAL scraps. But, she was a DOG (GENTILE)! Check the scriptures!
Sores: NOT SAVED! Salve, means health. To have salvation means to be made spiritually healthy!
Luke 16:19-31
[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
That Rich Man was Judah, dressed in the FINEST spiritual and literal apparel. WHO was outside the GATE covered in SORES and NOT SAVED LONGING to eat (spiritual food) that fell from the rich man's table??
Remember these things when you read Revelation.
[22] "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
The Jews LOVED to tell everybody who their father was. They were waiting for the kingdom, and they were proud of all that God had given them; NOT thankful, but PROUD! Judah is asking for LAZARUS, of all people, a GENTILE DOG to give just a LITTLE bit of spiritual health to him! The Jews have been in agony for 2000 years, living in outer darkness, cast out of the kingdom.
[25] "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
Abraham is telling Judah (JEWS) that Lazarus (GENTILES), WHO WAS ABRAHAM'S GENTILE SERVANT in the Old Testament, the RIGHTFUL HEIR before Issac was born, IS NOW RECEIVING THE INHERITANCE!
[27] "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
Judah is asking the Gentiles to warn the other tribes, his 5 brothers.
[29] "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
But, the 5 brothers had MOSES AND THE PROPHETS! RIGHT??? YEP!
[30] " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
He, JUDAH, is saying that if someone were to come back from the dead (JESUS) they would listen!!! DID THEY????
[31] "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
The 5 brothers (the tribe of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun) did NOT listen to MOSES AND THE PROPHETS! NO! They were always killing off the prophets in the Old Testament! And they would NOT listen to Moses!
When Jesus rose from the dead, did they care? NOPE! Were they sent off to hell (Gehenna) just like Jesus warned them? Did they lose the kingdom? Were they cast into outer darkness? Yep.
Best I can do. Hope I did not confuse anybody.
I'm going to be gone for the next week, so any replies will be rather short.
Last edited by herefornow; 05-17-2010 at 09:07 PM..
Anyhow, I am guessing you are not Christian? That's fine by me. And, I already know that the Bible contradicts itself; quite a bit, actually.
No, I am a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow
I believe that the Hebrews were a little confused as to WHAT and WHO they were worshiping much of the time, by the way they were behaving. I think, though, that if you check some of the stories out in the Old Testament, and then match those with the behavior of Yeshua in the New Testament, you can get a better picture of WHO God is and what He is about. At least, that is what I am trying to do.
I believe Exodus 22:29 is NOT talking about literally killing firstborn children, but offering them in SERVICE, just as Samuel's mother did, when he was little. Samuel's mother had been praying for a child for a very long time, and when he was finally born, she offered him to God in SERVICE.
But it says in the next verse to do the exact same thing with their flocks and cattle as they were to do with their firstborn. You're rationalizing the text away from a conclusion you've a priori rejected. The text is very clear. There's no reason to try to change what it says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow
Literally sacrificing children doesn't match up with how God works, in the scheme of things, in my opinion.
But how God works doesn't match up with itself in the Bible. One text says God is not a man that he should repent. Another text says God repented. One text says he is the source of all good and evil. Another says only good. One text says he is above human emotion, another says he is wildly jealous. The simple fact is that the Bible represents a series of vastly disparate ideologies spread across a great deal of time and space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow
Again, I am trying to discern what is pagan and what is not. I believe that Christianity has brought quite a bit of pagan thought into it's thinking and cannot discern the scriptures SPIRITUALLY, just like the Jews of Jesus' time.
That's all.
If you want to determine what is and is not pagan then you have to know what pagan is. I don't think you really want to dedicate the time necessary to studying not only Jewish history, religion, and literature, but also Syro-Palestinian, Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, Greek, and Roman history, religion and literature. What you're doing is trying to filter out sections of the Bible that don't agree with your presuppositions and label them as pagan. That's not a particularly helpful exercise, since all it does is confirm what you already assume to be true.
But it says in the next verse to do the exact same thing with their flocks and cattle as they were to do with their firstborn. You're rationalizing the text away from a conclusion you've a priori rejected. The text is very clear. There's no reason to try to change what it says.
But how God works doesn't match up with itself in the Bible. One text says God is not a man that he should repent. Another text says God repented. One text says he is the source of all good and evil. Another says only good. One text says he is above human emotion, another says he is wildly jealous. The simple fact is that the Bible represents a series of vastly disparate ideologies spread across a great deal of time and space.
If you want to determine what is and is not pagan then you have to know what pagan is. I don't think you really want to dedicate the time necessary to studying not only Jewish history, religion, and literature, but also Syro-Palestinian, Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, Greek, and Roman history, religion and literature. What you're doing is trying to filter out sections of the
Bible that don't agree with your presuppositions and label them as pagan. That's not a particularly helpful exercise, since all it does is confirm what you
already assume to be true.
Hi Daniel,
Sorry about my assumption that you were not Christian.
I have already been studying the history of pagan thought in old civilizations, but I have a LOT more studying to do. This is something that I am VERY passionate about, and I have only recently started my investigation.
Anyhow, you made some good points, and I believe I have some great replies. Unfortunately, I will be gone for about a week, and I would have to type anything I wanted to say from my phone. That is not a pleasant task, so I'm afraid you will have to wait until next week for another round.
Sorry about my assumption that you were not Christian.
That's fine. I know I don't across as a traditional Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow
I have already been studying the history of pagan thought in old civilizations, but I have a LOT more studying to do. This is something that I am VERY passionate about, and I have only recently started my investigation.
Anyhow, you made some good points, and I believe I have some great replies. Unfortunately, I will be gone for about a week, and I would have to type anything I wanted to say from my phone. That is not a pleasant task, so I'm afraid you will have to wait until next week for another round.
It's funny, how people don't bother reading posts even from the same page. It results in a lot of repetition. Here, I copy/pasted it for you:
Aionios = without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be 2) without beginning 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting Synonym : See Definition 5801 eternal 59, of eternal 4, an eternal 2, ages 1, began 1, eternally 1, of an eternal 1, the ages began
If the Bible says sinners lose eternal life, then logic and common sense dictates you lose it for eternity. You can't lose eternal life temporarily, or it wouldn't be eternal.
I Finn,
I don't know if your last conclusion is correct. Losing eternal life does not in any way imply that there will be no future opportunity to regain it.
Exactly. How is the Hebrew God different than Moloch? If they thought Moloch was a god, and some sort of deity to be worshiping, what do you think they thought about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
I am becoming convinced you are on a mission to tarnish the credibility of the Bible, so I don't think there is much more to say.
I Finn,
I don't know if your last conclusion is correct. Losing eternal life does not in any way imply that there will be no future opportunity to regain it.
My 2c anyway,
blessings,
brian
Maybe they should rename it "temporary eternal life". LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
