Wild biblical stories that demand answers - Whoppers, what say ye? (bible, quote)

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by Rafius

'Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor'.

...and no. Your Jesus was NOT directing that only to the rich man.

From that verse you can't know for sure it was not directed only to that individual. You can only assume it was. Jesus also knew he would not comply, showing his religion was not important to him.

It is illogical for Christians to sell all of our possessions and give to the poor. For one thing that would not solve the poverty problem. Look at the trillions our government has spent trying to eliminate poverty and it continues to get worse, not better. Also Jesus said "you will always have the poor among you.

Also we would not be able to provide for our family and God said through Paul "those who do not provide for their own...has denied teh faith and is worse than a non-believer.

Also, If I sell all I have others will have to take care of me.

God gives us money for 4 basic reasons:

1. So we can provide for our family.
2. So we will not be a burden on others.
3. So we can pass on some to our children so they will not be a burden on others
4. So we can help; those who are in need.

[whoppers]

Omega, do you have anything substantive to say, or are you just going to say "nuh uh" to everything? How are you adding to this conversation in a meaningful and convincing way? I know you're a new forum member, but do recall this IS a forum. Not a pulpit.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Omega, in short, and I say this WITHOUT malice or scorn, but my friend, you are profoundly clueless on much of this.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

The Jews were not Canaanites.

Wrong. All archaeological evidence shows that they were indigenous.

Abraham was a pagan Chaldean.

Abraham is a mythical individual, one the the main casts that play role of giving the Hebrews a history. And although portrayed as a Chadean by the translation in the Septuagint, that translation is suspect. Today they would be know as Marsh Arabs. Yeah, that place that is subject to floods.

The Persians did not influence the Jews. Their belief in one God was established long before the Persians became a people.

Actually, they did.

The early Hebrews did not worship the same gods as part of their religion. Now at various times the Hebrews did backslide and worship other god, but that was not part of their original theology.

Actually, they did. Why would they not? They were Canaanites who stopped eating pork, that's it.

Good could h ave use a singular noun, but that is not what he wanted to teach us. The use of Elohim was deliberate and verifies "US" and "OUR<" in Gen 1:26.

He did it to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

I can't offer any Biblical evidence that Judaism was originally monotheistic, but Ex 20:3, You shall have no other gods before me, certainly validates it would be from then on.

And neither can anyone else. The non-biblical historical and archaeological evidence does show they were polytheists. So are christian if you think about it. Why else was this clumsy attempt at a trinity, to combine three into one, promulgated, and then to take care of all the minor deities, angels and demons were invented. Heck, we even have major archangels, and minor guardian ones. What is THAT all about?

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by whoppers

A quick note on the word elohim (ʾĕlōhîm), taken from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible:

I. The usual word for 'god' in the Hebrew Bible is ʾĕlōhîm, a plural formation
of ʾĕlōah, the latter being an expanded form
of the Common Semitic noun ʾil (see: Eloah).
The term ʾĕlōhîm occurs some 2570 times in
the Hebrew Bible, with a variety of meanings.
In such expressions as "all the gods of
Egypt" (Exod 12: 12) it refers to a plurality
of deities - without there being a clear distinction
between these gods and their images.
Far more frequent is the use of the
plural with reference to a single being:
Chemosh is the ʾĕlōhîm of Moab (I Kgs
II :33); the plural here is a plural of excellence
or of majesty (Joaon/Muraoka §
136d). Though having the generic sense of
'god', the term is also used in an absolute
sense ('the god'. e.g. Gen 5:22) whence it
developed the function of a proper name
('God'): when an Israelite suppliant says his
soul thirsts for ʾĕlōhîm he is not referring to
just any god but to Yahweh the god of
Israel (Ps 42:3). Since the Israelite concept
of divinity included all praeternatural
beings, also lower deities (in modern usage
referred to as 'spirits', 'angels', 'demons',
'semi-gods', and the like) may be called
ʾĕlōhîm. Thus the teraphim (Gen 31:
30.32), anonymous heavenly beings (Ps 8:6;
LXX CiyyEA.Ol), and the spirits of the dead
(I Sam 28: 13) are referred to as 'gods'. A
metaphorical use of the term - metaphorical
from our point of view - occurs when it is
applied to living human beings, such as
Moses (Exod 4: 16; 7: I) and the king (Ps
45:7).
(Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible - DDD: "God I", Karel van der Toorn, 1999 Brill, 2nd ed.)

There is not evidence that Elohim is a majestic plural. That is an invention of those who try to deny the Trinity.

When a Hebrew says his soul thirst for God, he is saying his soul thirst for Elohim. If God wanted him to say "my soul thirst for Jehovah" that is how other verse would read.

The Israelite concept of divinity did not include all praeternatural beings. They knew that the deities other nations worshiped were not Gods because God told them not to worship them.

The teraphim were not heavenly beings. They were household idols of beings that were not God's

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Omega, do you have anything substantive to say, or are you just going to say "nuh uh" to everything? How are you adding to this conversation in a meaningful and convincing way? I know you're a new forum member, but do recall this IS a forum. Not a pulpit.

If have quoted verse to support what I believe and I have offered my opinions. It seems like that is all you do. Why is yours substantive and mine are not? I have been in various forums for many years and not one has ever said my posts were not substantive. I think you make such a foolish accusation because the refute what you say.

If you don't think mine are, you have a simple solution---ignore mine. That will give me a free shot at what you post.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

From that verse you can't know for sure it was not directed only to that individual. You can only assume it was.

...and you can't be sure of the contrary. You can only assume that it was mean't for only one person.. Of course, you want it to apply only to the rich man because you don't want it to apply to you. It is ludicrous to assume that whenever you man-god was 'teaching' something, it was only meant for the particular person that he was addressing at the time.

It is illogical for Christians to sell all of our possessions and give to the poor.

Whether it is 'illogical' or not is irrelevant. It is what you were told to do by your man god and you are not doing it. There are many other verses where your man god told you to get rid of your money and you have ignored them.

"You cannot serve God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24)
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.” (Matthew 6:19)
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

For one thing that would not solve the poverty problem. Look at the trillions our government has spent trying to eliminate poverty and it continues to get worse, not better. Also Jesus said "you will always have the poor among you.

It's not saying that you will solve poverty. It's saying that...if you want to be 'perfect' (Christ-like) you should sell your possessions, give the money to someone that needs it and follow him (Jesus). You are quick enough to heed your Bible on what (you think) it says about gays. Why don't you heed what it says about giving your money away?

Also we would not be able to provide for our family and God said through Paul "those who do not provide for their own...has denied teh faith and is worse than a non-believer.

Also, If I sell all I have others will have to take care of me.

Why do you need to provide for your family or have someone take care of you? Don't you trust your Bible when it says that God will provide for your every need?

Matt 31
‘Do not worry, then, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall we wear?”
32
For after all these things the nations seek, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
34
Do not worry, then, about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry for itself. Sufficient for the day
its own trouble.’

God gives us money for 4 basic reasons:

1. So we can provide for our family.
2. So we will not be a burden on others.
3. So we can pass on some to our children so they will not be a burden on others
4. So we can help; those who are in need.

...and to do those things, do you need a big house, cars, TVs and electrical equipment, computers. holidays, IPads, IPhones, laptops and other luxury goods? No you don't but I bet you have them all. Why don't you keep just enough money to survive and give the rest away?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Thus the teraphim (Gen 31:30.32),
anonymous heavenly beings (Ps 8:6; LXX CiyyEA.Ol),
and the spirits of the dead (I Sam 28: 13) are referred to as 'gods'.
A metaphorical use of the term - metaphorical
from our point of view - occurs when it is
applied to living human beings, such as
Moses (Exod 4: 16; 7: I) and the king (Ps
45:7).
(Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible - DDD: "God I", Karel van der Toorn, 1999 Brill, 2nd ed.)

Originally Posted by omega2xx

The teraphim were not heavenly beings. They were household idols of beings that were not God's

Nobody every said they were.

When you can demonstrate that you understand how a COMMA works ("The comma is used in many contexts and languages, mainly for separating parts of a sentence such as clauses, and items in lists, particularly when there are three or more items listed."), maybe we can have a conversation that doesn't involve you misunderstanding a simple dictionary entry. As it is, it seems rather pointless.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

If you don't think mine are, you have a simple solution---ignore mine. That will give me a free shot at what you post.

Shoot away. You can attempt to critique dictionary entries AFTER you learn how to read them. (P.S. - the Bible calls teraphim "gods", or ʾĕlōhîm.)

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Wrong. All archaeological evidence shows that they were indigenous.

Then post the evidence so we can all evaluate it.

Abraham is a mythical individual, one the the main casts that play role of giving the Hebrews a history. And although portrayed as a Chadean by the translation in the Septuagint, that translation is suspect. Today they would be know as Marsh Arabs. Yeah, that place that is subject to floods.

Talk is cheap, post the evidence.

Actually, they did. Why would they not? They were Canaanites who stopped eating pork, that's it.

Talk is cheap;, post the evidience


>>And neither can anyone else. The non-biblical historical and archaeological evidence does show they were polytheists. <<

Abraham started out as a pagan, but when God called him, he gave up all of his other gods.


So are christian if you think about it. Why else was this clumsy attempt at a trinity, to combine three into one, promulgated, and then to take care of all the minor deities, angels and demons were invented. Heck, we even have major archangels, and minor guardian ones. What is THAT all about?[/quote]I have thought about and for anyone who understands the doctrine of the Trinity the KNOWS it is not polytheistic.

Again, post your evidence that angels and demons were invented and the there no archangels.

God gives His children guarding angels because He love us.

You have a lot of opinions, to bad yoou have no evidence for them.

If you want to believe somethng for which you have no evidence, be my guest, but it seems very foolish to me. To each his own.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

Omega, in short, and I say this WITHOUT malice or scorn, but my friend, you are profoundly clueless on much of this.

I am open minded, show me where I am clueless or are you just blowing smoke?