Is Jesus really the Sun god?

[Bravus]

Exactly.

[John317]

How do I know that? On the basis of what evidence? Taking the sum total of all the evidence available to me, I cannot arrive at that conclusion. Arriving at that conclusion in the face of all the evidence available to me is irrational.

What's strange, Bravus, is that Abraham had far less evidence than you have, yet he trusted God enough to offer his son as a sacrifice and trusted God enough to leave his home without knowing where he was going.

What is the additional evidence you're looking for? What would absolutely convince you that God can be trusted?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I do *not* have to accept or reject it holus bolus. I can recognise it as a human attempt at describing God, coloured by the prejudices and fears of its human authors, and seek to perceive the real God underlying the imperfect account.

How do you distinguish what is truth and what is error in the Bible? Do you pick out what you like and jettison what you dislike?

That is exactly what you do John. The only difference between you and Bravus is you have a different criteria.

What you essentially are saying is that your view is God's view. The way YOU interpret the Bible is God's view. If someone disagrees with you then you say they aren't being Biblical when it's YOUR view.

Bravus is a very intelligent guy. Have you asked yourself why you seem to have the same conflict with everyone who disagrees with you?

Bravus is polite enough to not use the word dishonest, but essentially your unwillingness to look at your own lack of internal consistency is dishonest.

Both Bravus and I are accountable to this same consistency and that is why we can communicate. I clearly understand when I have no basis for a position because Bravus and I are accountable to the same rules.

In religious terms this would be avoiding hypocrisy.

In this dialog alone I have lost count of your use of non sequiturs. You need to learn what these are, otherwise you will never be able to understand the views of those of us who disagree with you.

[cardw]

I was just going to add that Isaiah calls God's destruction of the wicked his "strange act." I personally believe that those that were destroyed had passed the point of no return via committing the unpardonable sin and thus to further contain their influence, had to be destroyed to protect others. I don't doubt God had tears in His eyes when He had to commit His strange act. He may always have tears from this, He remembers everything.

So what unpardonable sin did the children commit?

[Igakusei]

The Abraham and Isaac story is, to me, one of the most terrifying and disturbing stories in the entire Bible. It portrays the sort of blind, evidence-less faith that flies airplanes into buildings to be a good, virtuous thing. Would YOU kill your own son if you had a really strong hunch that God wanted you to do it?

If I can jump in and answer your question, I would trust God if there was any sort of tangible evidence that he intervenes positively in the lives of Christians. The way I've seen Christians rationalize this is a case-study on confirmation bias run wild:

When you get a raise, a promotion, an unexpected gift, find your lost car keys, or any other random positive thing, it tends to get attributed to God taking care of you.

Whenever you get demoted, fired, in a car accident, get sick, or any other random negative thing, it tends to get attributed to God testing you.

I see no quantifiable evidence that Christians fare better than anyone else in these things (hence the question "why do bad things happen to good people?"), and a lot of evidence that there is no significant difference in the fates or fortunes of people based upon the flavor of their beliefs alone. p, as it were, is far greater than 0.05.

[BobRyan]

How about putting those questions in the Lord's hands and saying that you will simply trust Him, because you know that He knows best?

[cardw]

Do you agree, then, with cardw's posts on this thread, and particularly post#479360 in regard to what he said about the Bible?

Originally Posted By: cardw

You don't need to know what Bravus thinks about anything to answer the questions.

I won't tell you what you need to know if you won't tell other people on the Forum what they need to know.

In any case, the question is not for you but for Bravus.

It is not me telling you this. It is logic.

Why does not knowing the views of Bravus prevent you from writing something you already know?

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

How do I know that? On the basis of what evidence? Taking the sum total of all the evidence available to me, I cannot arrive at that conclusion. Arriving at that conclusion in the face of all the evidence available to me is irrational.

What's strange, Bravus, is that Abraham had far less evidence than you have, yet he trusted God enough to offer his son as a sacrifice and trusted God enough to leave his home without knowing where he was going.

What is the additional evidence you're looking for? What would absolutely convince you that God can be trusted?

(I'm ignoring BobRyan's completely unhelpful interjection: unsurprisingly, he once again has managed to completely misunderstand what is going on but proclaim with certainty anyway)

Huh? Abraham had God speak to him directly and tell him what to do. That has never happened to me.

I'd be delighted to see any evidence at all. Igakusei has already mentioned one of the issues.

There are promises that have been made that have, in my experience, *never* been kept. Even once would utterly change my understanding, but a batting average of 0.000 is pretty convincing evidence in itself.

[Bravus]

I should clarify: I do *not* reject the existence of God. I simply don't and am stating that very clearly.

I *do* reject certain *depictions* of God as being incompatible with reason and morality.

This is a key difference, and one some people seem incapable of comprehending.

[John317]

The Abraham and Isaac story is, to me, one of the most terrifying and disturbing stories in the entire Bible. It portrays the sort of blind, evidence-less faith that flies airplanes into buildings to be a good, virtuous thing. Would YOU kill your own son if you had a really strong hunch that God wanted you to do it?

Abraham did not have a strong hunch that God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham knew God told him as much surely as I know I see the above quote.

Also, you have consider that Abraham knew God personally and had heard His voice for many years before this.

But what is even more terrifying than the story about Isaac is the story about God's Son coming here as a human and dying on the cross.

In the case, of Abraham, God stopped his hand from slaying his beloved son; whereas, in the case of God, there was no one who could keep Christ from being nailed to the cross if humanity would be saved.

[Igakusei]

Abraham did not have a strong hunch that God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham knew God told him as much surely as I know I see the above quote.

Also, you have consider that Abraham knew God personally and had heard His voice for many years before this.

But what is even more terrifying than the story about Isaac is the story about God's Son coming here as a human and dying on the cross.

In the case, of Abraham, God stopped his hand from slaying his beloved son; whereas, in the case of God, there was no one who could keep Christ from being nailed to the cross if humanity would be saved.

Well, for those of us that attribute relationships with God to psychological phenomena, the idea that a conversation with oneself could lead to the murder of their own child is a terrifying prospect. Surely you can understand where I'm coming from, even if you disagree that perceived relationships with God are artifacts of our biology.

[M. T. Cross]

What's strange, Bravus, is that Abraham had far less evidence than you have, yet he trusted God enough to offer his son as a sacrifice and trusted God enough to leave his home without knowing where he was going.

[cardw]

Well, for those of us that attribute relationships with God to psychological phenomena, the idea that a conversation with oneself could lead to the murder of their own child is a terrifying prospect.

[fccool]

Quote:

Well, for those of us that attribute relationships with God to psychological phenomena, the idea that a conversation with oneself could lead to the murder of their own child is a terrifying prospect.

Well, if you take certain recent news stories, that's actually a reality for many people:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html

And that's essentially why this issue is important to discuss and differentiate. Whether it was Satan whispering in her ear, or her own perverted interpretation of Biblical narrative... the result is the same.

So, the bigger question would be, why not believe her? If God indeed required people to kill other people in the past, what would disqualify such possibility today? That's the disconnect that I'm talking about. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell talked about 9-11 as God's punishment for homosexual marriages and depravity, why would we not consider that as a possibility? Why would we not consider a possibility of God punishing Japan with past earthquake for their heathen rejection of Him? Why would that be absolutely out of the question?

You see, if I stand up and say "People of Japan were punished for their sin of rejecting true God and they've had it coming", I would get shock and awe, because it's inconsistent with God's nature and message. Yet, if I stand up and say, "I don't believe that it's consistent with Christian God to order killing of women and children in a rather brutal way", I get "Don't you believe that Bible is true?", thus it needs to be reconciled and defended.

So, the only differentiating factor becomes the dogma that every letter and word of the Bible was inspired by God. It's a difficult issue to wrestle with, if one to consider the history of both OT and NT, and subsequent canonization of both.

Likewise, as John pointed out, the NT writers heavily rely on OT philosophy and, to some extend, theology.

But we have to consider the idea of hidden revelation to a handful of people, who are credited with writing both NT and OT. One has to question as to why that does not happen today, especially when we have utter confusion as far as understanding and interpreting the Bible? Wouldn't the world need the direct pointers from God today more than ever? Why aren't there a modern Moses or Elijah?

In the same breath... why do we consider people who claim such direct revelation today, and gather a substantial following to be false prophets?

Such are the problems of "trust". The question is posed "Abraham trusted God"... well, Abraham had God revealed to Him through rather supernatural means. Do you think he would had the same level of trust by reading a book about God? What if a preacher would come down and say, "Got told me that you have to sacrifice your son today", would he believe and done so?

Such becomes the issue of faith. Should we believe everything that we read in the Bible on bases that certain faith requires it to be so?

[John317]

I should clarify: I do *not* reject the existence of God. I simply don't and am stating that very clearly.

I *do* reject certain *depictions* of God as being incompatible with reason and morality.

This is a key difference, and one some people seem incapable of comprehending.

I comprehend it, Bravus. It is not hard to understand at all. It's very natural.

What it means, though, is that instead of God's Word being your authority, you have made your own human reasoning your supreme authority. You put your human reasoning about the Bible. That is exactly what Eve did-- she accepted her reasoning and desires in place of God's commandment.

If you think about it, I am sure you can see that you are telling God that you will believe Scripture, and obey Him, only if you agree with Him. But is that true obedience-- is that genuine faith?

[Bravus]

Sorry, I'm afraid you don't comprehend it.

[John317]

Check out this amazing discovery about the Bible by the Russian Mathematician and former atheist, Ivan Panin:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/panin2.htm

[John317]

Bravus, it is you who does not comprehend it. All you know is what is "natural" and of the flesh. That is why you are "just hanging on to God," as you've conceded before.

[cardw]

Bravus, it is you who does not comprehend it. All you know is what is "natural" and of the flesh. That is why you are "just hanging on to God," as you've conceded before.

I assure you John. You don't comprehend what Bravus is talking about.

I have the same problem communicating with you on the most basic levels of consistent thinking.

You always revert to these unilateral announcements and call them the thoughts of god. It's your thinking, not god's.

[cardw]

Check out this amazing discovery about the Bible by the Russian Mathematician and former atheist, Ivan Panin:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/panin2.htm

Using Panin's method we find that Edgar Allen Poe must have been inspired by god and we should include his work in the Bible.

Numerical Proof that Edgar Allen Poe is inspired by god

If you look further in the site you can even get a program in C that will analyze any text and generate Panin Patterns making any text proof of Divine inspiration.

John this is just another example of your lack of analysis. You so readily accept myths without using simple tools to gather sufficient evidence.

Once you decide something is true you don't hold yourself accountable to any rational system of checks and balances.

That's why you will never comprehend what Bravus is talking about.

[cardw]

What it means, though, is that instead of God's Word being your authority, you have made your own human reasoning your supreme authority. You put your human reasoning about the Bible. That is exactly what Eve did-- she accepted her reasoning and desires in place of God's commandment.

John, you are making your human lack of reasoning your authority.

[fccool]

Check out this amazing discovery about the Bible by the Russian Mathematician and former atheist, Ivan Panin:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/panin2.htm

John,

You will generally find what you are looking for . The key phrase on the site is "toyed with numbers".

If you understand the entire subject of numerology and "theomatics", then you will likewise understand how and why. But, if you simply looking for "proof" to validate your faith, than any silly methods will do.

But, prior to talking about this subject we have to remember that:

1) Ancient occult movement was always obsessed with numerology and astrology. The further you look into antiquity, the more "magic of numbers" you will find. It was actually quite widespread in ancient middle east, stemming from mysticism of Sumer, and then eventually evolving in a dozens of occult movements that Judaism borrows from quite heavily.

2) Gematria is actually a Hebrew occult discipline, which revolves around assigning numerical values to prayers, poems, and scripture.

So, these people took word calculations in writing quite seriously. In fact, that's how they were trained to verify authenticity of certain "sacred" texts. They counted everything. They counted everything during the copying and writing.

3) It's no wonder that these number calculations work when you apply the original systems to them.

4) How do we know that 13 is unlucky number... That 18 is a lucky number. That 111 is a "magic number" and etc? The answer is, these numbers were known to exist as such and dated waaaay back, and the obvious possibility would be that ancient texts of sacred religion or occult movements would be written with such patterns in mind.

In conclusion, using Hebrew numerology as a proof of existence of God, and divine origin of the Bible is a circular reasoning. The only thing that it actually proves is existence of Hebrew numerology :)

[phkrause]

GP, you know what's interesting about all this evidence stuff, about the Bible, God, Jesus, etc.? Some of you sound a lot like King Herod when questioning Jesus! You do remember what he asked Jesus to do, to prove who he was? Now I'm not judging anyone so don't get me wrong, I'm just seeing a pattern here. He also wanted to see evidence did he not? And what did Jesus say to him? And did he do what Herod wanted?

[Igakusei]

GP, you know what's interesting about all this evidence stuff, about the Bible, God, Jesus, etc.? Some of you sound a lot like King Herod when questioning Jesus! You do remember what he asked Jesus to do, to prove who he was? Now I'm not judging anyone so don't get me wrong, I'm just seeing a pattern here. He also wanted to see evidence did he not? And what did Jesus say to him? And did he do what Herod wanted?

Do you think that we should not seek justification for our beliefs? Without seeking evidence to verify that what we are taught to believe is likely to be true, we are just relying on luck that we were born into the right religion.

Would you provide this same advice to Muslims, or would you suggest that they demand evidence and look for truth outside the framework of their religion?

[fccool]

As far as Gematria reference of proof from numerology, I believe I've posted my concerns with such approach:

John,

If you understand the entire subject of numerology and "theomatics", then you will likewise understand how and why. But, if you simply looking for "proof" to validate your faith, than any silly methods will do.

But, prior to talking about this subject we have to remember that:

1) Ancient occult movement was always obsessed with numerology and astrology. The further you look into antiquity, the more "magic of numbers" you will find. It was actually quite widespread in ancient middle east, stemming from mysticism of Sumer, and then eventually evolving in a dozens of occult movements that Judaism borrows from quite heavily.

2) Gematria is actually a Hebrew occult discipline, which revolves around assigning numerical values to prayers, poems, and scripture.

So, these people took word calculations in writing quite seriously. In fact, that's how they were trained to verify authenticity of certain "sacred" texts. They counted everything. They counted everything during the copying and writing.

3) It's no wonder that these number calculations work when you apply the original systems to them.

4) How do we know that 13 is unlucky number... That 18 is a lucky number. That 111 is a "magic number" and etc? The answer is, these numbers were known to exist as such and dated waaaay back, and the obvious possibility would be that ancient texts of sacred religion or occult movements would be written with such patterns in mind.

In conclusion, using Hebrew numerology as a proof of existence of God, and divine origin of the Bible is a circular reasoning. The only thing that it actually proves is existence of Hebrew numerology :)