U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
23,815 posts, read 10,809,360 times
Reputation: 20850

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
Actually no, they do not denounce anyone. You see, that's the crazy part, they are really quite sane, normal, caring folks. There is a streak of Asperger's that runs through them though.

But for the most part, they are just a normal group of humans. Just as crazy as the rest of us.

Coming from me, the craziest of them all.
No. You misunderstood. I didn't ask if they condemned people. I asked if they condemned a religious act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,914 posts, read 2,954,692 times
Reputation: 2955
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
No. You misunderstood. I didn't ask if they condemned people. I asked if they condemned a religious act.
Aah! Got you. I don't really know. I don't pay too much attention to the religious aspect of their lives. I don't think so. While they might act all religious at times, they also act quite normal most of the time. I am of course thinking of my immediate family. I am pretty sure my ancestral religious family would have but that I am sure is outside of your question. Mmmm ... I wonder?

I remember some years ago my SIL expressed misgivings at the building of a Buddhist temple nearby. I responded by saying that if I had the choice of trusting a Christian for help in time of need or a Buddhist, I would choose a Buddhist. She stopped and thought about that. My view hasn't changed. That is just based on impressions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
23,815 posts, read 10,809,360 times
Reputation: 20850
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
Aah! Got you. I don't really know. I don't pay too much attention to the religious aspect of their lives. I don't think so. While they might act all religious at times, they also act quite normal most of the time. I am of course thinking of my immediate family. I am pretty sure my ancestral religious family would have but that I am sure is outside of your question. Mmmm ... I wonder?

I remember some years ago my SIL expressed misgivings at the building of a Buddhist temple nearby. I responded by saying that if I had the choice of trusting a Christian for help in time of need or a Buddhist, I would choose a Buddhist. She stopped and thought about that. My view hasn't changed. That is just based on impressions.
And it isn't easy. The Thai Buddhist monks that I knew quite well in Colorado (due to tutoring a couple of them in English) liked chatting. One day the topic of Buddhist nuns (mae chee) came up and I said I totally disagreed with the Thai Buddhist prohibition against female monks and even mae chee. I think they were momentarily stunned that a lay person would disagree with something official from the Supreme Sangha, but they got over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:54 PM
 
11,434 posts, read 11,428,939 times
Reputation: 3581
I should think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:55 PM
 
22,306 posts, read 16,981,492 times
Reputation: 9106
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
The problem with these hypotheses, Mike is that none of it can be substantiated by written record. It all relies on church tradition. This thing of the pre-Pauline creed of 1Corinthians 15 is supported entirely by tradition only. In fact, there isn't a single complete copy of anything in the New Testament until roughly 200 CE
It isn't a hypothesis. Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a tradition that goes back to the beginning of the church. A tradition which most scholars believe that he first received from Peter and James when he went to visit them some three years after his conversion. Again, even Richard Carrier recognizes this.
''But the essential elements of the creed (especially verses 3 to 5), even if we have to account for some transmission error (in verses 6 and 7), still dates to the sectís origin. Itís what distinguishes Christianity from any other sect of Judaism. So itís the only thing Peter (Cephas) and the other pillars (James and John) could have been preaching before Paul joined the religion. And Paul joined it within years of its founding (internal evidence in Paulís letters places his conversion before 37 A.D., and he attests in Galatians 1 that he was preaching the Corinthian creed immediately thereupon: OHJ, pp. 139, 516, 536, 558).''

''So the Corinthian Creed, at least verses 3-5, definitely existed and was the central ďgospelĒ Christians were preaching in the early 30s A.D.''

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069

Quote:
"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Irrelevant to my point.


Quote:
These dates you assign to certain epistles are Bible historians' best guesses as to when the epistles might have originated. But there isn't a single extra-Biblical mention of Jesus or the apostles, including Paul until the 2nd Century. The two sole exceptions from Josephus are mired in controversy. So when you say the apostles were willing to die for their faith, I echo Bart Ehrman: "What source do you use to substantiate this declaration?" In truth, there isn't anything to substantiate the existence of the 12 apostles, period, much less that they were willing to die for their faith.
Actually, Paul's missionary journey's can be dated fairly accurately as can the dating of some of his epistles. It is known that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around AD 55 while in Ephesus. Quoting D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo in their introduction to 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Quite apart from constraints imposed on the dating of these epistles by the need to fit Paul's movements and writings together, there is one fixed point. There is an inscription recording a rescript of the Emperor Claudius to the people of Delphi that mentions Gallio as holding the office of proconsul in Achaia during the period of Claudius's twenty-sixth acclamation is imperator---a period known from other inscriptions to cover the first seven months of A.D. 52. Proconsuls normally began their tour of duty on July 1, which means that Gallio probably ascended to the proconsulship on July 1, 51. However, it is possible that the rescript belongs to the very end of the seven-month period, in which case Gallio may have taken up his duties on July 1, 52. The latter date leaves only one month for the rescript, so the former date is perhaps marginally more likely.

If the Jews made their united attack on Paul (Acts 18:12) fairly early during Gallio's proconsulship, then probably it was in the autumn of A.D. 51. After the case was dismissed, Paul stayed in Corinth for some time (Acts 18:18) and then sailed for Syria, probably in the spring of 52. Paul's two-a-half-year stint in Ephesus would have taken him to the autumn of 55. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians while he was in Ephesus, some time before Pentecost (16:8), probably during his last year---that is, early in 55, with 2 Corinthians being complete within the next year or so. By that time he was in Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:12-13; 7:5;8:1;9:2). Primarily because of the uncertainty over the beginning date of Gallio's proconsulship, all of these dates could be advanced by one year.

An Introduction to the New Testament, D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo,
As for the 12 apostles and their willingness to die, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand which is the fact that your claim that it wasn't until A.D. 70 that a tradition about Jesus dying for our sins developed, is false. As was shown, and as scholars know, Paul passed on in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed or tradition that was original to the beginning of the church.
Quote:
As for Carrier, his acknowledgement of 15:3-5 is strategic. Carrier propounds in his magnum opus "On the Historicity of Jesus" that the Jesus sightings were visions--that Jesus didn't really appear in the flesh, so when you say Carrier "recognizes", you have to fully clarify exactly WHAT he recognizes.
I already told you what Carrier recognizes which is that the tradition or creed that Paul passed on in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (or 3-5 in Carrier's opinion) goes back to the beginning of the church. That should be clear enough.



Quote:
Most scholars concede for expediency's sake that 7 of the 13 Pauline epistles are written by the same man. Most presume that man to be Paul. Many scholars, however argue that it was Apollonius of Tyanna who wrote the epistles. One can see the name Paul in "Apollo":


Apollonius of Tyanna, a Pythagorean philosopher and contemporary of the Jesus Christ of the Gospels. Many agnostic and atheistic scholars as well as other free thinkers believe that some portions of the Gospels of Jesus Christ are actually modeled on the adventures of Apollonius. Quite possibly, due to the lack of historical evidence for Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. Some believe him to have actually been the Jesus Christ.

Others postulate the theory that Paul the Apostle and Apollonius are one and the same. Some scholars argue that Paul of Tarsus a/k/a Paul the Apostle did not exist, and that All of the original writings and teachings attributed to him in the New Testament are the writings and teachings of Apollonius of Tyanna. Other scholars present reasonable arguments that Paul was only a mythical character patterned after Apollonius.
The hypothesis that Apollonius was actually the apostle Paul lends itself much credence upon a brief review of the available facts.

https://enigmose.com/apollonius_is_paul.html

This entire era is mired in controversy, duplicity and outright shenanigans when it comes to church writings. One must take everything coming out of it with more than a grain of salt. One should take an entire saltshaker.
You would appeal to some internet website to argue against the existence of Paul or that he wrote the epistles attributed to him. Again, most scholars accept seven of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul as authentic, and the existence of Paul is confirmed by the early church fathers despite your dismissal of the early church writings as duplicit, meaning deceitful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:57 PM
 
11,434 posts, read 11,428,939 times
Reputation: 3581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn View Post
The basic point of the OP is the God of the Bible wants or likes or needs blood sacrifices.

And that Judeo-Christians are the only group that thinks this...right? In short?
(Let's not forget the Incas and Aztecs and those pesky volcanoes that needed to be stopped.)
Whassup with THAT!?
I mean, ya gotta look at your own religion..it is pretty nuts.
Anyone that has directly exp'd God Himself would know that whole idea is preposterous.

Ha, as IF this Being beyond imagination would EVER desire or need this. *eyeroll*
What a bunch of malarkey we have been fed...I think Thrill is saying, 'Wake up from this delusion."
I could be wrong.

(For those that do not know me, you have never known a person
that adores God and knows Him more than me....He is Magnificence beyond your wildest dreams...and ps?
Never wanted any blood sacrifices.)

Quote:
I think Thrill is saying, 'Wake up from this delusion."
I could be wrong.
You're not wrong, Miss Hepburn. But I am stretching it beyond the point of being a delusion. I'm saying the Bible itself is so contradictory on whether or not God demands a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin that fundamentalists like Mike and Finn Jabar and Ozzy and...well, you know the motley crew...don't know if they're coming or going when it comes to what to believe the Bible has to say about blood atonement.


I've already noted several exceptions to this business that God requires blood in order to sate his thirst for justice. To recap:


God forgave David for committing the sin of adultery. Under Mosaic law David should have been stoned, king or no king.


But God gave David a free pass.


Yet the Bible says God is not a respecter of person.


Yet how much favoritism does one need to see in order to conclude that indeed God did play favorites in letting David go without being stoned while he demanded millions of other to be stoned???


And if David can commit adultery and go scot-free then why can't I, or you, or Mike or anybody?


Then I pointed out the Prodigal Son parable which didn't require a blood sacrifice. Instead the Father who represented God simply forgave his son his sin.


Another monkey wrench in this blood atonement thing is that in Isaiah 53:10 the verse (if one is going to assume it is speaking of Jesus) uses many words instead of "bruised"


"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him..."


But other translations have the adjective "make him ill..."
Also "crush him by disease"
Then there's "make him sick..."


Which is it? Was Jesus struck by disease? Cancer? Malaria, TB? Was he ill with nausea, migraine headaches, tummy-ache? Was he sick with anemia from all that blood loss?


You see how words get bandied about, and they all mean something different. The church finally settled on the word, "bruised" because it could most readily be associated by pagans with crucifixion, scourging, crown of thorns, the whole nine yards. The christian language is nothing if exacting in what it's trying to get initiates to believe what it wants them to believe.


But there is yet another verse in the Bible which again demonstrates God doesn't necessarily need blood to appease his wrath. That is Hebrews 9:22


"In fact, the law requires that >>>NEARLY<<< everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."


Well, if it's NEARLY everything, then it is not quite everything. What, then, are the exceptions that God glosses over in requiring blood to being able to forgive????


These amply demonstrate that God does NOT require blood without exception to be able to forgive. And if God doesn't need blood for these exceptions then we don't need Jesus in every sin we commit to earn God's forgiveness.

Make sense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
23,815 posts, read 10,809,360 times
Reputation: 20850
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I should think so.
Well...lay people don't usually criticize anything about Buddhism...at least not in Thailand. But I think these particular monks have realized that while they may be Thai and in a Thai temple...that temple is located in American where people have more of a tendency to speak their mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:03 PM
 
22,306 posts, read 16,981,492 times
Reputation: 9106
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
You're not wrong, Miss Hepburn. But I am stretching it beyond the point of being a delusion. I'm saying the Bible itself is so contradictory on whether or not God demands a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin that fundamentalists like Mike and Finn Jabar and Ozzy and...well, you know the motley crew...don't know if they're coming or going when it comes to what to believe the Bible has to say about blood atonement.
Do not presume to know what I understand or don't understand about the issue of sacrifices or anything else. I understand the Bible far better than you ever will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:09 PM
 
11,434 posts, read 11,428,939 times
Reputation: 3581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Do not presume to know what I understand or don't understand about the issue of sacrifices or anything else. I understand the Bible far better than you ever will.
Well, then don't sit there tooting your horn. Respond to my assertions that God doesn't need blood sacrifices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:10 PM
 
Location: US
28,249 posts, read 15,307,331 times
Reputation: 1789
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
God is not some human judge-He is God, holy and above all creation.

Godís justice must be satisfied. It was, through Christ.

Jesus was not a mere man, He is God in flesh.

Isaiah 53 prophesied Jesusí redemptive work. In the NT, that passage was referred back to in Matthew 8:14-17; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; 1 Peter 2:19-25; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21.
Then if he is G-d he sacrificed nothing...And Isaiah 53 prophecies no such thing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top