neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:59 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I'm interested in your words, Fil. Outside links are a wast of time.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 12:30 pm
@neologist,
Blessed are those who live by science rather than faith, for they will be perceived as intellects rather than fools...

Blessed are those who live by observation and analysis rather than blind supposition, for they will not stumble in the dark.

Blessed are the peacemakers who treat women, minorities and LGBT people as equals, for they shall know pure liberty and rational freedom.

Blessed are the people whose brothers and sisters are the world and not some small tribal subset of the population, for their eyes shall be opened to great wonder and the enlightenment of the ages.

Blessed are the scientists who though persecuted by those of faith held strong to the principles of truth, for they shall perceive the portals of space and time.

Blessed are the charitable of heart, for they will know giving beyond measure.

Blessed are the atheists and agnostics who seek no heavenly reward for fulfilling their duty to humanity.

Blessed are those who gave their lives in the service of science, for theirs is the admonition and respect by all that are awakened in life.

Blessed are the meek who live by uncertainty and not by superlatives and force, for the truth will not escape them but lead them to reason.

RR
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 01:29 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Blessed are those who live by science rather than faith, for they will be perceived as intellects rather than fools...
You mean like Becher and his phlogiston theory? Priestly was a believer, I understand.
RexRed wrote:
. . .Blessed are the peacemakers who treat women, minorities and LGBT people as equals, for they shall know pure liberty and rational freedom.
You mean like "Peter (who) opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him(Acts 10: 34,35) . . .
RexRed wrote:
Blessed are the scientists who though persecuted by those of faith held strong to the principles of truth, for they shall perceive the portals of space and time.
Like Galileo? He taught the correlation between his observations and scripture.
RexRed wrote:
. . . Blessed are the atheists and agnostics who seek no heavenly reward for fulfilling their duty to humanity.
Well, many realize a duty to humanity, just as the world is full of decent people. One thing I enjoy about witnessing to atheists is our common understanding of the sins of the clergy and others who twist scripture to meet their own ends..
RexRed wrote:
. . . Blessed are the meek who live by uncertainty and not by superlatives and force, for the truth will not escape them but lead them to reason.
How does that square with
Rex wrote:
those who live by science rather than faith
I am sorry for your pain, Rex.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 09:11 pm
@neologist,
RexRed response is in the color red

neologist wrote:

RexRed wrote:
. . .Blessed are the peacemakers who treat women, minorities and LGBT people as equals, for they shall know pure liberty and rational freedom.
You mean like "Peter (who) opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him(Acts 10: 34,35) . . .

You mean like Jesus who said "go not unto the gentiles but only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" And let's not forget God's "chosen people". I certainly do not find Jews any less of a people than other races. But it is not easy to find respect when many Jews believe they are favorited by some imaginary God... In fact it is purely racist. Good reason to reject the whole stupid book.

RexRed wrote:
Blessed are the scientists who though persecuted by those of faith held strong to the principles of truth, for they shall perceive the portals of space and time.
Like Galileo? He taught the correlation between his observations and scripture.

You mean the same Galileo who was persecuted and tortured by the church 'til he recanted scientific fact? It seem it was either confess his believe in the Bible's God or be murdered by the loving Christians for his stance on science. And your point was? Galileo was not unlike most Christians who profess God out of fear of hell fire and torture... Willing slaves huh?

RexRed wrote:
. . . Blessed are the atheists and agnostics who seek no heavenly reward for fulfilling their duty to humanity.
Well, many realize a duty to humanity, just as the world is full of decent people. One thing I enjoy about witnessing to atheists is our common understanding of the sins of the clergy and others who twist scripture to meet their own ends..

What choice does one have but to twist and wrench the scriptures considering the hodgepodge of pure confusion and ambiguity therein?

RexRed wrote:
. . . Blessed are the meek who live by uncertainty and not by superlatives and force, for the truth will not escape them but lead them to reason.
How does that square with
Rex wrote:
those who live by science rather than faith
I am sorry for your pain, Rex.

Hitler had science with certainty... Science with certainty is not much better than religion with certainty. It is only with uncertainty that reason and discourse are able to flourish. Certainty is at the heart of religious totalitarianism. Yes, religion with uncertainty is faithless, so what?... Change is the only certainty, religion has had to change in the face of such rank and hurtful certainty that it has proven itself foolish and distrusted. Religion is built upon sinking sands while science with its rigorous testing over time becomes solid. The foolish man/woman says, with certainty, there is a God... Science for the most part bases its certainty on repeatable analysis, exacting method and measured observation where religion bases itself on ambiguous text and purely blind and ambiguous faith..

Be sorry for the pain biblical preaching causes others and the raping of the earth by rich clannish religiophobes.. I am free from that book of terror, racism and hate and never been happier. I have learned what the God of the Bible is not... First and foremost, the God is the Bible is not a source for morality and virtue... Thus, neither can be the followers thereof nor can his, err, "incarnate" self be...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 12:15 am
@RexRed,
The strew is getting really deep here, Rex. I'll just take this one point:
RexRed wrote:
RexRed response is in the color red
RexRed wrote:
. . .Blessed are the peacemakers who treat women, minorities and LGBT people as equals, for they shall know pure liberty and rational freedom.
I wrote:
You mean like "Peter (who) opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him(Acts 10: 34,35) . . .
RexRed wrote:
You mean like Jesus who said "go not unto the gentiles but only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" And let's not forget God's "chosen people". I certainly do not find Jews any less of a people than other races. But it is not easy to find respect when many Jews believe they are favorited by some imaginary God... In fact it is purely racist. Good reason to reject the whole stupid book.
Once again you show your ignorance of the bible you claim to know so well. True, it was necessary for Jesus to instruct his followers to go first to the house of Israel and avoid Gentiles. This was foretold in Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks. You remember that, don't you? Or did your church fail to teach it? The 70 weeks ended, BTW, with the baptism of Cornelius.

The Jews were chosen only because some group was needed to identify the messiah. As Paul stated in Galatians 3:24 " . . . the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ. . ." Not only did the majority of Jews fail to recognize Jesus, they failed all along to recognize their position in God's purpose.

As for the Jews claiming superiority, it was no accident that Job (a non Jew) was mentioned as the most righteous man of his time. And those nominal christians who believe modern Israel to have some special relation with God could not be further from the truth. Jesus foretold their fall from favor in Matthew 21:43.
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 01:13 am
@neologist,
Once again you twist dates, words and sentence structure to fit your ideas of holiness, then you call me ignorant. Certainty is like a train-wreck...

The 7th Day Adventists were also sure the 70 weeks meant something and used it to predict the end of the world. You know how their use of the 70 weeks turned out.

Also if Jesus was sacrificed as a "lamb of the first year", that means his ministry was only one year and not three, so how do you get 70 weeks out of one year? From beginning to end of his ministry was as the sun's (actually earth's) yearly progression...

Now who is ignorant again?

A lamb whose ministry is longer than a year is, well, a sheep...

Are you saying Jesus' ministry being three years he was a sheep given for Passover and not a lamb?

Numbers 29:36 (KJV)
But ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord: one bullock, one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish:

I can also name many scholars who can harmonize the 4 gospels in one year...
I have also studies these year long harmonies in depth...

Again, so then how does your 70 weeks fit into one year?

Luke 4:18-19
KJV
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Comment:
Right straight out of (supposedly) the lord's mouth...
You don't know the scriptures as well as you expect me to...

No lamb, no Passover...

"For Christ our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed." (I Corinthians 5:7)

"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1: 29).

So it seems you are a stickler on dates that perpetuate pointless 1st century racism but not so much when it comes to saving the sins of the world...

I am not saying his ministry was one or three years, per se, but I am saying there is AGAIN too much ambiguity to know for "certain"...

But, enough ambiguity for you to, with certainty, proclaim me ignorant while you tack erroneous dates to events of your fancy...

RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 01:29 am
@RexRed,
The support of a one-year ministry of Jesus was widely known among the early church fathers. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I 21:146) reported the disciples of Basileides placed the baptism of Jesus in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and the Crucifixion in the sixteenth. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I 3:3) said the Valentinians preached a ministry of one year, and this was based on Jesus' reading from Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth and proclaiming "the favorable year of the Lord." Clement (Stromata I 21:145) affirmed "that He was to preach for a year only is laid down in the Scriptures in the words, `to preach the acceptable year of the Lord He sent Me.'" Origen (De Principiis IV 1:5) originally followed Clement's position. The list goes on to include Tertullian, Lactantius, Filastrius, Gaudentius, Evagrius, Orosius and Ephraem.1
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 05:01 am
@RexRed,
We are not only not on the same page. We may not even be in the same library. Have you forgotten the prophetic day for a year? Seventy weeks would be 490 years. Jesus' ministry was about three and a half years. It started at the beginning of the 70th week. "And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease." (Daniel 9:27) Another half week, or three and a half years until the baptism of Cornelius. Many Jews were in expectation of the Messiah at that time. It's just that they expected a military king.

If you still don't get it, I can offer more details.


0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 05:17 am
@RexRed,
Jesus ministry spanned the dates of four passovers. (John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; and 13:1).
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 10:40 am
@neologist,
But aren't we far afield of the OP
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 10:50 am
@dalehileman,
Sometimes I get drawn off on tangents
With Rex, any hint of the authenticity of the Bible creates panic
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 11:31 am
@neologist,
I have to admit that the redundant Passovers are a rub. At least one Passover can be legitimately explained away and should be done so anyway.. How could Jesus be the sacrificial lamb and be celebrating Passover with the disciples too? The other Passover needs to be simply, err, scratched from the text> Just as you scratch the scripture saying his ministry was only one year... A greater offence... In the one year synopsis, I would rather overlook redundant Passovers than Jesus being a sheep for the slaughter... Isn't that typical of the ambiguity and more likely of editors who tried to embellish the text with over clarification? Once again it supports my ambiguity assessment and so according to you, Jesus was the Passover sheep...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 11:40 am
@RexRed,
Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. Obviously the yearling requirement must be symbolic. When you consider all of the things attendant to his life and sacrifice. . .
Just one example: Jesus provided a corresponding ransom for Adam, a full grown, fully intelligent man. Hardly a yearling. Not simply born yesterday as Frank and many preachers would have you believe.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 11:45 am
@neologist,
How could Jesus be a ransom for Adam if he was a God-man and pre-existed Adams's existence? Adam was not in most beliefs a God-man he was a human or man. One human sins and a God-man pays for it? Should your father pay for your sins? Once again ambiguity...
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 11:50 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
How could Jesus be the sacrificial lamb and be celebrating Passover with the disciples too?


Wouldn't one refer to such an action as traditional of the Jewish people celebrating the Jewish exodus from Egypt? Jesus was a Jew, brought up in the culture....it's quite understandable he would celebrate Passover, a major Jewish holiday among his fellow Jews.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 12:00 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
I don't think you get what is being said here, in all due respect...

Jesus WAS (without certainty) the Passover lamb... Palm Sunday they selected the lamb. On the day of slaughter they crucified the lamb... So... How could he have been sitting and eating Passover dinner with the disciples days earlier? And why are there not three day and three nights between good Friday and Easter Sunday? And, was the Sabbath really on a Sunday?
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 12:19 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:

Jesus WAS (without certainty) the Passover lamb... Palm Sunday they selected the lamb. On the day of slaughter they crucified the lamb... So... How could he have been sitting and eating Passover dinner with the disciples days earlier? And why are there not three day and three nights between good Friday and Easter Sunday? And was the Sabbath on Sunday?


In theory, he was the sacrificial lamb, but the "Last Supper" with his Disciples took place on the eve of Passover. When did "Palm Sunday" come to be known as Palm Sunday? Wasn't it after Jesus' death, many years afterwards when Christianity came into its own? Palm Sunday is so called when Jesus first entered Jerusalem on a donkey but Jesus wasn't that important at the time to have a day named for him. And Palm Sunday wasn't recognized as such until many years after Jesus' death.

Look, RexRed, I think you are one smart individual and am delighted with your posts....trust me, I learn so much; however, since no one writing about Jesus lived during his life time how can one be certain of anything that occurred?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 12:56 pm
Who burned the libraries of Alexandria and Ephesus? Notice how ONE book takes preeminence years later...? Many years later, how many books did Constantine destroy?
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 01:11 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Who burned the libraries of Alexandria and Ephesus?


Ah! Interesting indeed. I'm curious to know what these Libraries had to say regarding the prophet, Jesus, who was at that time just one of many prophets who were prophesied as the coming Messiah which were a part of the oracular prophecies.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 01:13 pm
The puzzle piece missing is maybe there was a happenstance 'holiday' that occurred on maybe Wednesday (the last supper) that particular year that took preeminence over the usual Sabbath that week. Then that Sabbath was Passover too. Passover was on Saturday... Local feasts usually took preeminence over the usual Sabbath.
 

Related Topics

Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
believe in god! - Question by roammer
The existence of God - Question by jwagner
Are Gods Judgments righteous? - Discussion by Smileyrius
What did God do on Day 8? - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
What do you think about world? - Question by Joona
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does God Exist?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 07:56:15