Is Jesus really the Sun god?

[cardw]

Straight outa Wikipedia again cardw?

Here is a source that sites three different scholars...

Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse

I can post a whole bunch more with a lot more documentation since you're unwilling to even do a little research on your own.

[Pockey]

I can post a whole bunch more with a lot more documentation since you're unwilling to even do a little research on your own.

Please do! Also not just Daniel, but about the 125 prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah that came true.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

No; you didn't answer my question. I asked you something specific about what type of "judgmental" you were referring to.

You asked me "something specific?"

How much more general can you get? LOL

Well; atleast now I know it's not that you won't answer the question; it looks like you can't answer it.

[cardw]

No; you didn't answer my question. I asked you something specific about what type of "judgmental" you were referring to.

Originally Posted By: cardw

You asked me "something specific?"

How much more general can you get? LOL

Well; atleast now I know it's not that you won't answer the question; it looks like you can't answer it.

How can I answer a question about "something specific?" LOL

Ok the answer is 42.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I can post a whole bunch more with a lot more documentation since you're unwilling to even do a little research on your own.

Please do! Also not just Daniel, but about the 125 prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah that came true.

Here is a start.

The first one is from Jewish sources and their understanding of the Old Testament and being able to read the actual Hebrew helps read what they actually refer to.

Refutations of Messianic prophecies by Jewish sources

And here is long list with refutations of not only Messianic prophecies, but many others.

Skeptics annotated Bible prophecies

[John317]

The first one is from Jewish sources and their understanding of the Old Testament and being able to read the actual Hebrew helps read what they actually refer to.

Refutations of Messianic prophecies by Jewish sources

cardw, it's good to see that you accept Jewish sources as authoritative. That's a good start anyway. They believe a lot of good, true things about the Bible.

It's important to remember, though, that there are many SDA Bible scholars who are Jewish and who also read the actual Hebrew.

Two of these are F.C. Gilbert and Jacques B. Doukhan. The latter recently wrote a book called, Secrets of Daniel. It's a good book. Have you read it?

He wrote another scholarly work titled, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study."

There's no sigificant, practical value in being able to read the Hebrew or the Greek today, since there are so many reference works and translations that help the reader get all the information necessary so as to understand the original. I've been studying NT Greek since 1976, and while it is wonderful to know, it isn't necessary in order to understand what the New Testament says. The same may be said of Hebrew and Aramaic.

I'm not denying that there is value in knowing the biblical languages. My point is that in terms of knowing what the text is saying, one can do that by studying about 4 or 5 good translations as well as good commentaries, and two or more lexicons.

[Overaged]

Ok the answer is 42.

You forgot to use your calculator, didn't you?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The first one is from Jewish sources and their understanding of the Old Testament and being able to read the actual Hebrew helps read what they actually refer to.

Refutations of Messianic prophecies by Jewish sources

cardw, it's good to see that you accept Jewish sources as authoritative. That's a good start anyway. They believe a lot of good, true things about the Bible.

It's important to remember, though, that there are many SDA Bible scholars who are Jewish and who also read the actual Hebrew.

Two of these are F.C. Gilbert and Jacques B. Doukhan. The latter recently wrote a book called, Secrets of Daniel. It's good book. Have you read it?

He wrote another scholarly work titled, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study."

There's no sigificant value in being able to read the Hebrew or the Greek today, since there are so many reference works and translations that help the reader get all the information necessary so as to understand the original. I've been studying NT Greek since 1976, and while it is wonderful to know, it isn't necessary in order to understand what the New Testament says. The same may be said of Hebrew and Aramaic.

[John317]

[Pockey]

Here is a start.

The first one is from Jewish sources and their understanding of the Old Testament and being able to read the actual Hebrew helps read what they actually refer to.

Refutations of Messianic prophecies by Jewish sources

And here is long list with refutations of not only Messianic prophecies, but many others.

Skeptics annotated Bible prophecies

I just noticed that website refers to a geocities site as their source. That takes me back to the days of dialup, emailing via unix, and browsing the 'world wide web' on Netscape, and nowadays is delegated to hosting pages with the unfortunate reliability of a Nigerian prince's email.

A typical reply by G. Shapiro in your source is that the verses are "out of context and cannot be understood without the context it is in." Yet fails to convince of any alternative context, other than "it is out of context." :/

The 'Messiah Truth' explanation for one prophecy says "Either "Dr. Luke" saw it fit to change the text in order to create a better fit with other passages in the Gospel of Luke, or Jesus decided to change them in order to proclaim himself as the one appointed for the mission." Ah of course, Jesus Himself changed the text. Now was this before or after He died? No wait, Luke changed the text.

Not convinced, try again. But what exactly would you be trying to accomplish by convincing me that the Bible isn't truth?

[John317]

The orders to kill are not hard to find.

I can look them up for you if you want.

Yes, God did order Israelites to kill people.

And God did allow Israelites to take women and children captive and make slaves of them.

But God never gave them permission to rape them or to mistreat their slaves.

Actually, God's laws required Israelites to treat their slaves relatively well compared to other nations. He told Israelites to remember that they also were once slaves and that they were to allow their slaves to rest on the Sabbath.

What evidence do you have that God ordered the people to rape women? I know they did rape women sometimes, but that is not the same as saying God ordered them to do it.

[fccool]

Rape is defined as forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. Rape is not only outside of marriage. Rape can exist within marriage, and especially forced marriage. When one nation takes bunch of virgins captive, which would not have any say and become a "wife"... that would constitute rape.

Perhaps you will make a case that these virgins wanted for their fathers to be killed, and then taken captive as wives and to have intercourse with these men?

[John317]

Are you blaming God for these things happening?

[Pockey]

Rape is defined as forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. Rape is not only outside of marriage. Rape can exist within marriage, and especially forced marriage. When one nation takes bunch of virgins captive, which would not have any say and become a "wife"... that would constitute rape.

Perhaps you will make a case that these virgins wanted for their fathers to be killed, and then taken captive as wives and to have intercourse with these men?

Do you really believe that was God's instruction? To rape?

edit* (didn't realize John asked the same question at the same time)

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Here is a start.

The first one is from Jewish sources and their understanding of the Old Testament and being able to read the actual Hebrew helps read what they actually refer to.

Refutations of Messianic prophecies by Jewish sources

And here is long list with refutations of not only Messianic prophecies, but many others.

Skeptics annotated Bible prophecies

I just noticed that website refers to a geocities site as their source. That takes me back to the days of dialup, emailing via unix, and browsing the 'world wide web' on Netscape, and nowadays is delegated to hosting pages with the unfortunate reliability of a Nigerian prince's email.

A typical reply by G. Shapiro in your source is that the verses are "out of context and cannot be understood without the context it is in." Yet fails to convince of any alternative context, other than "it is out of context." :/

The 'Messiah Truth' explanation for one prophecy says "Either "Dr. Luke" saw it fit to change the text in order to create a better fit with other passages in the Gospel of Luke, or Jesus decided to change them in order to proclaim himself as the one appointed for the mission." Ah of course, Jesus Himself changed the text. Now was this before or after He died? No wait, Luke changed the text.

Not convinced, try again. But what exactly would you be trying to accomplish by convincing me that the Bible isn't truth?

I can't answer that for you. For me, it frees me from all the mental gymnastics it takes to try and make the Bible true. It also frees me from all the shame and fear propagated by this idea that humanity is evil to the core and will be destroyed in the lake of fire unless you jump through a series of complicated hoops that no one seems to exactly know what they are and how they work.

These so called prophecies require you to suspend a lot of disbelief. You can point to the weakest arguments, but there are some slam dunks in there that leave no doubt that these writers were making stuff up.

Christianity is a syncretic collection of many different pagan belief systems blended with mystical and messianic Jewish beliefs. Most Christians don't know that because they haven't really known about it or looked for it.

[Overaged]

I can't answer that for you. For me, it frees me from all the mental gymnastics it takes to try and make the Bible true. It also frees me from all the shame and fear propagated by this idea

You don't seem very free to me...everywhere you go you see fear and shame....atleast, according to your meanderings into anti-christian apologetics as posted on this forum

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The orders to kill are not hard to find.

I can look them up for you if you want.

Yes, God did order Israelites to kill people.

[Overaged]

Quote:

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?

Answer: God.

I see you are getting desperate now and resorting to anti-christian web site materials and "apologetics" to try to "win" here.

You keep saying you are only after "truth" and that you will only accept "evidence;" yet you persist in constantly quoting everything out of context, and giving it meanings that the Bible does not give it.

In those days the poor woman would have been killed if she was found to be pregnant without being married; God was preventing this, and making the man responsible for taking care of the child. This doesn't come close to proving God is "a lunatic" although I would wonder at the intellligence level it takes to keep drumming up this kind of stuff that you know is not true; and that you have not actually studied yourself; but just copied from another web site. I know you keep saying otherwise; but you have failed to provide evidence showing otherwise.

The arguments you are currently resorting to are very common, almost cliche mumbo-jumbo that can be found on many anti-christian web sites, proving their biased, malicious intent.

[Igakusei]

I see you are getting desperate now and resorting to anti-christian web site materials and "apologetics" to try to "win" here.

You keep saying you are only after "truth" and that you will only accept "evidence;" yet you persist in constantly quoting everything out of context, and giving it meanings that the Bible does not give it.

In those days the poor woman would have been killed if she was found to be pregnant without being married; God was preventing this, and making the man responsible for taking care of the child. This doesn't come close to proving God is "a lunatic" although I would wonder at the intellligence level it takes to keep drumming up this kind of stuff that you know is not true; and that you have not actually studied yourself; but just copied from another web site. I know you keep saying otherwise; but you have failed to provide evidence showing otherwise.

The arguments you are currently resorting to are very common, almost cliche mumbo-jumbo that can be found on many anti-christian web sites, proving their biased, malicious intent.

I bet if you think really hard for a couple minutes, that you can come up with a better solution than making her marry her attacker. I think you're the one resorting to apologetics, here.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Rape is defined as forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. Rape is not only outside of marriage. Rape can exist within marriage, and especially forced marriage. When one nation takes bunch of virgins captive, which would not have any say and become a "wife"... that would constitute rape.

Perhaps you will make a case that these virgins wanted for their fathers to be killed, and then taken captive as wives and to have intercourse with these men?

Do you really believe that was God's instruction? To rape?

edit* (didn't realize John asked the same question at the same time)

Of course not. That's why I don't believe that true God would command wipe out a certain settlement of people, and then take their daughters for wives of grown men who conquered them. Neither he would be disappointed if men spared women in during their savage warfare, simply because they had a different belief system.

It was pretty common in savage tribes all over the world. I think that Israel justified their actions as a command from God before thinking the other way around. But, that poses problem with people who accept Biblical literacy on every level, and they will find reasons why killing all of those people, including women and children, but taking young girls into a forced marriage was just and merciful.

[fccool]

Quote:

In those days the poor woman would have been killed if she was found to be pregnant without being married; God was preventing this, and making the man responsible for taking care of the child. This doesn't come close to proving God is "a lunatic" although I would wonder at the intellligence level it takes to keep drumming up this kind of stuff that you know is not true; and that you have not actually studied yourself; but just copied from another web site. I know you keep saying otherwise; but you have failed to provide evidence showing otherwise.

The arguments you are currently resorting to are very common, almost cliche mumbo-jumbo that can be found on many anti-christian web sites, proving their biased, malicious intent.

In this case, this is a case, this one has little to do with Christianity, but rather with recorded Biblical history of Israel Law.

Basically you are saying that God was willing to make exceptions and work around a terrible savage culture that these people had, but he was not willing to make exceptions for the terrible and savage culture of other nations around Israel at that time.

As "terrible" and "immoral" our global culture is today, we don't stone rape victims today and we certainly don't make them marry their rapists. How is "it was their culture" any justification for the action?

Either way, a reasonable explanations for these laws and "god told us to" is the same explanation I would give for the laws "given by gods" to nations who sacrificed their children. It was a "divine justification" for what they were doing.

[fccool]

Anyone who reads OT objectively would see that the god of Israel is pieced together throughout OT Biblical history, and does not match the God that Christians paint. Consider the following:

Quote:

And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

Why would true God need that? Why would true God be pacified by bunch of severed hanging heads of people?

This is the problem when one takes "forgive and love your enemies" of Christianity and tries to reconcile it with such feats of the OT god and it's savageness that's unbecoming of a mentally stable human being.

My opinion is that OT god was in many ways a form of metaphoric egregore for people to latch on to in their collective thinking. This Character does not match the NT God, which would be closer to Christian understanding of God and the ideals that He underlines.

You simply can't reconcile the two books, just like you can't reconcile the two gods. These are two different gods.

[Overaged]

I bet if you think really hard for a couple minutes, that you can come up with a better solution than making her marry her attacker. I think you're the one resorting to apologetics, here.

There have always been people around such as yourself who have a "better" solution than God. None of their hub bub has convinced me yet. If i thought you were interested; I would get into more explanation here.

[cardw]

In this case, this is a case, this one has little to do with Christianity, but rather with recorded Biblical history of Israel Law.

Basically you are saying that God was willing to make exceptions and work around a terrible savage culture that these people had, but he was not willing to make exceptions for the terrible and savage culture of other nations around Israel at that time.

This is a very good point. I hadn't thought of this angle before.

What is interesting is that Jainism was already in place. This was a peaceful, highly ethical culture that valued life and was already in existence. It would seem that God would want to protect this culture and allow it to flourish as a light unto the nations around them.

[cardw]

Quote:

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Originally Posted By: cardw

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?

Answer: God.

I see you are getting desperate now and resorting to anti-christian web site materials and "apologetics" to try to "win" here.