Jump to content

Dawkin's Bogus Bible History- Goonerman's Farewell Thr


Goonerman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to deal with the philosophical and scientific issues raised by Dawkins in his book the God Delusion, but stick to the history, as I have done the other issues to death and don't want to repeat myself.

 

As Richard Dawkins' mistakes are elementary I can clear up the issues fairly quickly and without any need for a longgggg post.

 

He says, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, capriciously malevolent bully."

 

For an Atheist this is rather an amusing attack on someone he says does not exist. But he is not accurate.

 

He is Jealous, jealous for the human race to do the right thing, to worship Him the Uncaused Cause rather than the creation, but in fact the Hebrew word is more to do with being Zealous than anything. He is merely asserting His natural rights as King of the Universe.

 

He is far from being petty- a common mistake is to assume for example that He executed people for wearing mixed fabrics, when in fact this was a regulation for wearing comfortable clothes in the desert and forbidding a certain type of uniform for a priesthood for another religion, and was not a law to do with crime and punishment. (Especially as there were only 10 executable crimes, a staggeringly radical thing for any society with capital punishment.)

 

God is not unjust- the Eye for an eye and Tooth for a tooth law was all about making the punishment fit the crime.

 

The whole sacrificial system was designed for the forgiveness of sins, and the promise of the final sacrifice for sins came in Isaiah 53, and God promised to forgive and love thousands of generations of those who obeyed Him, and the Hebrew word 'Chesed', loving kindness, is the characteristic of YHWH.

 

As for the ethnic cleansing, the Canaanites in the main were exiled in Egypt with Israel and came back with Israel as Yahwists too, the Canaanites in the Promised Land were quislings supporting an imperial Egypt and were notorious for sacrificing and sexually abusing children- this was an act of judgement.

 

Misogynistic? Naaaa, you would never have got the compassionate laws for women captured in war, Zelophehad's daughters getting their inheritance, and look at the heroines of the OT- Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Esther.

 

Racist? Israel was to be a light to the Gentiles, and through Abraham and his nation ALL the world would be blessed. When Miriam goofed by criticising Moses for marrying a Kushite woman (a black Sudanese/Ethiopian lady) God struck her with leprosy- targeting her skin for it.

 

Homophobic- it is true that God hates homosexuality and before the crucifixion was an executable offence for defeating the Creation ordinance of reproduction and for the ritual elements in homosexuality.

 

Infanticidal- sure, there is controversy over the death of babies among the Canaanites, but God alone would have the power to say know if a baby could turn out to be like Hitler and form God's point of view there is not death so He Himself brought up any children who died in infancy- which sadly, has been the fate of most humans. Besides, it was infanticide which provoked the judgements in the first place. The pagans around Israel despised the Canaanites too for degenerate practices.

 

There is nothing capricious about the OT God- in fact, He was working on a patient 2000 year plan which led to- Jesus.

 

Dawkins' take on Jesus is weak. He tried to sidestep CS Lewis' trilemma of Lord, Liar or Lunatic. By saying Jesus was merely mistaken. But if He was mistaken, then He was a lunatic, especially in a monotheistic culture.

 

Dawkins makes the cardinal error of saying Paul knows little of Jesus's life. One, Paul paraphrases a lot of Jesus' teaching in his own way all the time, and also, he is dealing with pastoral problems in Gentile churches. Meat sacrificed to idols is not a problem Jesus, sent to the Lost Sheep of the Tribes of Israel, had to face.

 

The accusation of Chinese Whispers in creating copies of copies of copies of the NT is false given that we have a staggering 24000 ancient manuscripts of the NT, the differences amount to less than one thousandth of the text, which leaves the doctrines unharmed and indeed, textual criticism can be used to discern text-types, and many MSS date from the 2nd century.

 

Unlike say Caesar, with 10 MSS dating from around AD 900 at the earliest!

 

Dawkins is wrong in saying that John's Gospel states that Jesus' followers are surprised in discovering Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. In fact, it records debates among Jews, some of whom lie about not knowing where Jesus was from, don't bother to ask Him where He was born, and argue that since the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem this somehow excludes Him due to Him being a Galilean and some pointing out that The Messiah would honour Galilee.

 

Then Dawkins goofs by assuming that Matthew says Jesus' parents lived in Bethlehem all along, and Luke says Nazareth. In fact, Matthew says nothing about where they lived before moving permanently to Nazareth. (Indeed, when matching Luke with Matthew one realises that the Wise Men visited Jesus in NAZARETH!) Dawkins scoffs at the Romans sending Joseph down to Bethlehem to register in his ancestral homeland. Ahem, the Emperor Trajan in AD 104 issued such an order to the Egyptians to do precisely that.

 

Then he says Quirinius did not have a census when Jesus was born as Luke says. Not until AD 6. But then Luke tells us Jesus was born around the 'first' census of Quirinius, and it turns out that since he was besieging the Homanadenses in the Taurus mountains and based in Cilicia, then in the province of Syria as was Judaea, then Quirinius held joint authority in Syria then with the normal governor Saturninus- indeed, a recent find of a coin from 11 BC from Cilicia proves the point. And it agrees with Augustus' once every 14 years imperial census rule- see the Res Gestae.

 

Then he fouls up by saying the Nativity story derives from pagan myths. The Star of Bethlehem actually comes from a prophecy of Balaam in the Book of Numbers. He claims that Luke adapted the birth stories for the Gentiles, as opposed to Matthew's agenda for the Jews, except that Luke's Nativity stories are written in specifically Septuagint Greek and even more blatantly Hebraic, like Mary's Magnificat, an actual Psalm, no less.

 

Then Dawkins hilariously slips up with the genealogies! He scoffs that Matthew has 28 generations from King David to Jesus, and Luke has 40! Wait, one, Luke does it to Adam, not David, and both authors skip generations for space. Matthew shaves it down so he can also create a memorisation, of three double 7s and 14 in Hebrew numerals is DWD, David, which is a clever way of saying, Jesus is doubly perfect three times over and saying, David David David three times over. It's a mnemonic. Plus, why two completely different lines?

 

Dawkins objects that if Jesus is born of a virgin then Joseph's ancestry is not relevant. Ah, but one, Jesus' legal right to the Crown of Israel comes from Joseph who is descended from the ancient royal line, and the other line is Mary and Joseph's line- Mary and Joseph were related thanks to levirate marriage- one of Jesus' ancestors died and his younger brother married the sister-in-law and had children in his brother's name- a fact revealed to Hegesippus in the early 2nd century by Jesus' own family. Who gave him the full genealogy tying up the loose ends.

 

Then Dawkins alleges that a lot of the original true NT books, the Gnostic ones were kicked out by the evangelicals. Of course, his source, Bart Ehrman, conveniently leaves out the crucial evidence of the 2nd century Muratorian Canon! Oh dear, for this confirms the 27 books of the NT as being the right ones, the criterion for canonicity or being proper being that of being a writing of an apostle or an associate of an apostle, of someone who knew Jesus. Bar Luke, but he interviewed many people who did know Jesus.

 

Dawkins also fouls up in thinking the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was an infancy gospel when in fact it is a collection of esoteric sayings of the Gnostic Jesus. Verrrry sloppy research!

 

Then he goofs up by saying the Gospels come from a common source, that of Mark or what Mark was based on, never mind the fact that the Q material so-called does not appear in Mark at all but only in Mathew and Luke, Luke has material unique to himself especially in the middle parts. And John is completely independent.

 

Finally Dawkins then suggests maybe Jesus did not exist. He thinks He probably did, but throws this in as a suggestion. Even though in proper scholarship of all creeds agree that Jesus is a solid historical figure, and Dawkins in saying that most scholars do not consider the Gospels to be in any way reliable fails to do justice to the Quest for the Historical Jesus in any meaningful way. We are certain now, of MUCH if not MOST of Jesus' life, and responsible Atheists would agree actually.

 

Finally, Dawkins fouls up on Jesus' ethics and opinions. He says Jesus was rude to His mother (Woman is a title of respect! Like Lady!), split up families, in violation of Judaism even though sometimes one's principles will have to be divisive sometime in any walk of life, and even though Jesus was stern in His upholding of honouring parents, to the point of Him accusing some Pharisees of not fulfilling their obligations to their parents. He said Jesus repudiated the Sabbath. Excuse me! He called Himself LORD of the Sabbath and said the Sabbath was made for man, and said it was compulsory to do good on the Sabbath, and worshipped in the synagogue in the Sabbath. Dawkins says Jesus was against the Jewish Bible. Nonsense, He said He came to fulfil the Torah, upheld the Ten Commandments, said the Shema was the Greatest Commandment, and said "Search the Scriptures, for they testify of me." He meant the OT. The NT wasn't written yet!

 

Lastly, Dawkins tries to tell us that when Jesus taught, "Love your neighbour," He meant only "Love your fellow Jew." In reality, He taught the Parable of the Good Samaritan, all about acts of kindness overcoming sectarian boundaries.

 

In short, Dawkins, as in the rest of the book, is rather embarrassing, and a better book for Atheists is God and Philosophy by the now ex-atheist Antony Flew. Dawkins doesn't even mention Atheism's best arguments, namely matter and physics being the Uncaused Cause thanks to him believing in infinite regression, to avoid God being the Uncaused Cause, and he doesn't mention the Principle of Falsifiability/Verification. Oh dear!

 

The God Delusion needs rewriting,

methinks! :D

 

Feel free to discuss these matters. I have said all that I want to say and will not write anything more in this thread.

 

Well, with that, I say goodbye. When I came here in 2005 I said I would leave after 1000 posts. That time has come. Now it is time for me to go. Lots to do, places to go, people to meet. I just wish it had have ended on a happier note.

 

Gary, Peter, please remove my membership of this forum.

 

GOOD LUCK TO THE PEOPLE OF WARRINGTON!!! :D

 

[ 14.08.2007, 01:24: Message edited by: Goonerman ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was because I made MIB blink first so hard he decided to leg it. And my intention is never to make people feel forced into leaving or feel persecuted, nor to make people think I am a troublemaker. And with Peter's frustration with long posts and Mary wanting the thread locked, what was I to think but that maybe it was better to bow out? Plus I have catch-up to play on my studies.

 

Peter, my lack of will-power is due to me being incorrigible. Plus I realised I would be missed after all. But, with this short poke over, I will get on with my work. See you in September! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goonerman is SO egotistical that he has to make a 'farewell speach' and SO unstable that he can't even leave the site properly when he clearly says he will (with reasons) AND thinks this was a SHORT POSTING !!! Who asked for the thesis on Dawkins ? I didn't ! He's back - but I'm sticking to what I said. I'll continue to jump in to the odd thread here and there but no more giagantic Goonerman rants. Blink - - - - - - I closed my eyes and walked away in absolute disgust at the religious and racial bigotry. I thought we were all here to sensibly debate our views ??? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so gooner, still thinking that the bible is gods word as set in stone, and ignoring 2000 years of tinkering by people who are in a position to benefit from the changes.

 

so one thing at a time.

 

"There is nothing capricious about the OT God- in fact, He was working on a patient 2000 year plan which led to- Jesus."

so jesus (pronounced he-zues or horus) as I like to call him :wink: was the result of a 2000 YO plan ??? so are you saying that existance began only 4,000 years ago ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, yes :biggrinbounce:

 

As an archaeologist - my point exactly. I'm starting to like Legion - you have a great grasp on reality. Like you I also wonder what God did for the rest of time when not writing the Bible ?

 

Perhaps humankind CAN discover God outside the limited boundaries of the written scriptures found just in The Bible - what a REVELATION - let's throw a party !?! For the academics amoung us the apostle Paul is credited with supporting this view of 'Natural Theology'. Keep those thinking man's postings coming Legion :angelwings:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One final peek without looking at or responding to any other posts is needed as incredibly I forgot to include answers to Richard Dawkins' claim that Jesus never claimed to be God. OK, some quotations from the Gospels. First, Jesus when preaching in the Sermon on the Mount has a haibt of quoting rabbinic tradition "You have heard that it was said," then countering it by saying, "But now I tell you...". led to the statement form the Gospels that, "When Jesus finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, but not as their teacher of the law. Jesus' proclamations on the Jewish law were as if He was the one who devised the Law and gave it to Moses in the first place. Note Jesus' views on the Day of Judgement: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will fo my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord,Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Mt. 7:21-23.) Jesus is presenting Himself as the Judge of all the Earth, something God reserves for Himself in the OT. Again, in Jesus' teach-in on persecution, He makes it clear that He is the Judge and will acknowledge those who acknowledge Him and reject those who disowns Him before His Father in heaven- and on another occasion, in Luke 12 will do so before the angels in heaven. (Obviously two ways of expressing the same thing.) When Jesus says that wisdom is put right by her actions, Jesus is using Wisdom theology to express His being the living Wisdom of God the Father, the literal personified Wisdom of the Father as symbolically represented in Proverbs as Lady Wisdom. The passage which Dawkins twists bizarrely into Jesus 'denying' the Law of Moses (utterly absurd in the light of Mt. 5:17-20, etc.), namely His teaching on the Sabbath, He proclaims Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath. (What He's telling the Pharisees is that He was the one who gave Moses the Fourth Commandment!)

 

Jesus, like anybody else, believed that the Messiah was to be descended from David. Yet He posed a riddle for the Pharisees: "What do you think about the Christ? [Messiah] Whose son his he?" "The son of David," they answered. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,

 

"The Lord said to my Lord:

 

"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."" [see Psalm 110]

 

If then David calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?". (Mt. 22:42-45.)

 

At the Jewish trial of Jesus, Caiaphas puts Jesus under oath.

 

"The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. But I say to all of you: in the future you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard his blasphemy. What do you think? " "He is worthy of death," they answered." (Mt. 26:63b-66.)

 

The Jewish Sanhedrin were in no doubts as to the implications of what Jesus was saying. See Daniel 7:13-14 and Zechariah chapters 12 to 14 and compare this with Jesus' teachings in Matthew chapters 24 and 25 to see what the fuss is about. (And yes, in Matthew 25 Jesus teaches again that He will judge the nations.)

 

In John's Gospel, Jesus' other claims to being God are made clear: "Moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over form death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." (Jn. 5:24-26.)

 

""I tell you the truth, before Abraham, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." (Jn. 8:58-59.) The response shows Jesus' Jewish opponents to be in no doubt as to what He was saying, and the statement "I am", shows that Jesus is claiming to be YHWH (see Exodus 3 and the translators' footnotes on 'I AM WHO I AM' and the meaning of LORD, ie YHWH). The Greek in Jesus' statement is "Ego eimi".

 

"I and the Father are one." (Jn. 10:30) Note the response to this:

 

"Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you want to stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," the Jews replied, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (Jn 10:31-33.)

 

On the night Jesus was betrayed, "Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." If you really knew me, you would know the Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered, "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been with you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father..." (Jn. 14:5-9, and read right through to the end of Jn. 16.)

 

From the REAL Lord's Prayer, the High Priestly prayer of Jesus in the Upper Room as the disciples cleared up before leaving for Gethsemane, on the night He was betrayed. "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (Jn. 17:5) Compare that with Isaiah 42:8: "I am the LORD, that is my name! I will not give my glory to another..."

 

And Thomas' reaction to the Risen Jesus: ""My Lord and my God!"

 

A few comments: perhaps the Christians meddled with the manuscripts. No, considering the 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT most of which are NOT fragmentary, as one of the charts prepared by Kurt and Barbara Aland in their book introducing the textual criticism of the New Testament reveals, and the 19000 ancient manuscripts of early translations of the NT, there is no evidence of any tampering with any doctrinal statements.

 

Maybe we Christians misinterpreted what Jesus meant, say some, not least the Muslims. After all, didn't Jesus say,

 

"No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mt. 24:36.)

 

What about Jesus' reactions of surprise to His rejection in Nazareth, His not knowing who touched Him when the bleeding lady tugged the tassels of His prayer shawl and got healed, His surprise at the faith of the Centurion and at the healed Samaritan leper who came back to thank Him when all the other nine, who were proper Jews, did not- "Where are the other nine?" (Lk. 17:11-19)

 

What about His reaction to the Rich Young Ruler? "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No-one is good- except God alone." (Mk. 10:17-18a)

 

Sure He is called the Son of God and not God. Sometimes Jesus refers to the Father as being the only true God.

 

What about these sayings?

 

"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing" (Jn. 5:19a)

 

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (Jn. 5:31)

 

"Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me." (Jn. 7:16)

 

"I do nothing on my own but speak just as the Father has taught me." (Jn. 8:28).

 

"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (Jn. 14:29b)

 

"But the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." (Jn. 14:31)

 

"I pray also for those who believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (Jn. 17:20-21)

 

When the Risen Jesus spoke to Mary Magdalene: "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'." (Jn. 20:17)

 

The unbelievers will say that this shows the Bible contradicts itself. The Muslims, the Unitarians, the modern non-Messianic Jews and the Jehovah's Witnesses, will say this shows that we Trinitarian Christians have misinterpreted our own Scriptures.

 

My answer to the unbelievers is that they are being facile in the extreme. As for the others, the problem lies in that they mistakenly think God is a Monad, whereas we have two solutions for the 'problem' texts which 'disprove' our belief that Jesus claimed to be God. One thing I will say. These texts which appear to be contradictory are proof, in my mind, of how HONESTLY the disciples recorded the original words of Jesus. They are historically authentic. More on that later.

 

The two solutions are: God is a Hypostatic Being and not a Monad. The other is the problem of how, through the Incarnation, God becoming human, how God can draw on His infinite knowledge using a finite human brain in a finite body confined to one point in space and time. If God is a Monad as we are Monads (ie one single indivisible person with one point of consciousness) then my unitarian opponents in the Islamic, Jewish, Unitarian and JW world are right. But in fact the God of the Bible is a Hypostatic Being. The Trinity works like this: God the Father throughout eternity is intelligent and infinitely powerful and wise. His thoughts and His ability to communicate are so powerful that they actually collectively and have done so non-stop throughout eternity formed a separate consciousness within the Father's inner being, and this consciousness of the Father's thoughts, wisdom and communication can think for Himself and answer the Father back and constitute another aspect of the Father, be the same Being as the Father, and the Father in turn can speak to Him. The Father calls Him His Son, and His Son can call Him Father. Since by definition the Son is the literal personified thoughts, words, wisdom of the Father, then He can only say what the Father says, only act in accordance with His Father's will, and do what His Father tells Him to do. He is the summary of all the Father is within His Father's inner Being, and also the very self-expression and outward projection of the Father's very Self. So what the saints and the angels see in Heaven on God's throne when looking at the Father is the Son, who as Paul says is the visible likeness of the invisible God. The Son is totally equal with the Father but voluntarily and by the very functions of the Father which He personifies is subordinate. The Father is first amongsat equals. The Father and the Son throughout eternity non-stop are so full of power and authority in their communication and love and thinking and wisdom that these in turn are personified together in a THIRD consciousness in God's inner Being, who is the living self-expression of everything God is, and who is the Personified Power and Authority of the Father and the Son. This is the Holy Spirit. The Father decided to send His Son to compress Himself infinitely to become a human being, and the Son chose to live purely as a human. His power was that of the Spirit, who created or at least supernaturally created the human body for the Son in Mary's womb- this Son, the Wisdom of the Father, became the man known as Yeshua Ben Yosef, or Ha Notzri, or Ben Dawid, in His lifetime, the man we in English call Jesus Christ.

 

Now take the above and apply it to those verses, and what do we get?

 

"No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mt. 24:36.)

 

Given that Jesus has infinite knowledge expressed only through His finite brain on Earth, His memory is clearly swiss-cheesed, which is exactly what you would expect with a Hypostatic aspect of the Father living as a mere human and not relying on His Godness to 'cheat'. Only the Father has that knowledge from the infinite perspective of the throne of Heaven. The Spirit is irrelevant to this discussion since God is Spirit (and the Father is Spirit) and the Spirit only tells us what the Father and the Son say. The term 'Spirit' is merely a convenient term for the Third member of the Trinity to tell us that this is God but neither the Father nor the Son.

 

Ditto with Jesus' reactions of surprise.

 

What about His reaction to the Rich Young Ruler? "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No-one is good- except God alone." (Mk. 10:17-18a)

 

Here Jesus is reacting sharply to the Rich young synagogue ruler flattering Him and bowing to Him. It's an example of challenge-riposte, in which Jesus is saying to him, "Do you realise what you are implying?" Interesting point to note that Jesus shows no consciousness of sin. He tells the crowd, "If you then, though YOU are evil" (Lk. 11:13a), as if He was excluding Himself from being a sinner. Not once in Jn. 17 does Jesus indicate any awareness of having wronged His Father. John the Baptist, who baptised to symbolise the forgiveness of sins to Israel coming to him in repentance to God, was shocked at Jesus coming to him not the other way round, but Jesus said that it should be allowed to be that way for now, so to fulfil all righteousness. Jesus was already looking forward to the Cross when dying in place of sinners. "What about when He was angry in the synagogue and cleared the tables in the Temple? Wasn't that sinning?" No, righteous anger is permissible, as in both cases.

 

"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing" (Jn. 5:19a)

 

A Muslim said to me referring to the above, so Jesus is saying he can do nothing without the Father, so how can he be God? I said that is exactly what you would expect if Jesus and His Father were in fact the same Being. Indeed, the quote was partial by the Muslim, as Jesus actually says immediately afterwards, "...because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Then Jesus goes on to say He judges the world on behalf of His Father, a proof of His Deity. And He said He is to be honoured as the Father is honoured, and if He is not honoured, then the Father is not honoured. Jesus is actually saying the reverse of what the Muslim sceptic claimed to me.

 

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (Jn. 5:31)

 

In Jewish Law two or three witnesses were needed for a testimony in court to be valid. Jesus invokes John the Baptist here, and later on in another instance He says His sole testimony is still valid as the Father can back Him up. See Jn. 5:31-47 and Jn. 8:12-30.

 

"Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me." (Jn. 7:16)

 

Again, since Jesus is the Personified Wisdom and Word of His Father made visible to us in human flesh, this is exactly something God in His human aspect is going to say.

 

"I do nothing on my own but speak just as the Father has taught me." (Jn. 8:28).

 

Ditto with this one.

 

"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (Jn. 14:29b)

 

Jesus is speaking here about giving the disciples the Holy Spirit in His place. He must go to the Father in order to be able to send the Spirit. (Indeed, Jesus says that His disciples will do greater things than He because He goes to the Father.) He says He is going to the Father as He owns all that the Father owns. And this enables Him to send the Holy Spirit. In other words, what Jesus is saying is this. He as a human being confined at any one time to one spot in Israel is inferior to His Father who functions purely as God on the throne of Heaven in eternity. So, He needs to get back to Heaven to sit on His Father's throne in order as God to be able to do what He could not do as a human and send the Holy Spirit- remember that the human Jesus was driven and empowered by the Holy Spirit as part of Jesus' strategy of functioning purely as a human on Earth. You have to read the whole of John 14-16 to get the full picture.

 

"But the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." (Jn. 14:31)

 

Since Jesus is representing His Father as God in human flesh this again is exactly what you would expect. What's He going to do? Rebel? He and His Father are the same Being, after all.

 

"I pray also for those who believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (Jn. 17:20-21)

 

Well, the Muslims say, Jesus prays to His Father. How can He be God? But there are things in John 17 which none of the rest of us would pray, like when He prays for Himself at the start. And the Muslim I was debating with would not discuss John 17's opening passage with me, for he knew, ands even nodded in reluctant acknowledgement, that this was the key to interpreting Jesus' comments in John in context. Anyway, how exactly would the human side of Jesus do in relation to His Father BUT pray to Him???

 

As for the verse above, Muslims and (for the OPPOSITE reason) the Mormons (who regard the Trinity as three separate gods, unlike Trinitarians like me who regard them as aspects of One God), insist that here the Father, Jesus and those who follow Him are all one- in unity, purpose and love. Granted. But this does not explain the other claims Jesus has to oneness with His Father. Jn. 17:5 is hardly applicable to Jesus' followers, as Jesus prays for the share in the Father's glory which they shared before the world began. By contrast, although we are promised if we follow Christ to enjoy the unity of purpose and love which Jesus and His Father have always had, we don't share in God's glory as the Father and Son do, being the one and the same God, but rather, as Jesus prays to His Father, "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." (Jn. 17:24) Take note that no ordinary human would ever pray anything remotely like this.

 

It also explains how the immortal God can physically die on the Cross. Jesus' body died, but not His Spirit. Cue the Resurrection!

 

But let's suppose all this is fiction anyway. We only have the word of the Gospel writers that Jesus claimed to be God.

 

Alas, Jesus' enemies also say that He claimed to be God.

 

His Jewish enemies said this:

 

In the Talmud they declare Jesus to have been proven by elderly Pharisees who debated with Him when they were young, declaring Him to have been found in the Temple archives to be the illegitimate son of an adulteress who had sex with a Roman soldier, who was executed for blasphemy and adultery. Tractate Sanhedrin 43a in the Talmud says that a herald proclaimed that Yeshu the Nazarene was to be executed because "he practised sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry." Looking back on what the Jewish leadership did in condemning Jesus, Rabbi Abbahu in the 4th century said,

 

"If a man tells you:

I am God

he is a liar

I am the Son of Man-

he will regret it;

I will go up to the heavens-

he has said, but he shall not do it."

 

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said,

 

"If the whore's son tells you:

There are two gods,

answer him;

I am the one from the sea- and I am the one from Sinai!....

And if the whore's son tells you,

There are two gods,

answer him;

 

It is not written here (in Deut. 5:4): "Gods spoke to you face to face," but "The Lord" spoke to you face to face on the mountain."

 

As for the pagans, Celsus said, He [Jesus] hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves; he returned full of conceit, because of these powers, and on account of them gave himself the title of God."

 

Lucian of Samosata: In relation to the Christians, "Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws."

 

Jesus was universally acknowledged to have claimed to be God. The first to deny so were the Ebionites, a renegade Jewish-Christian sect who tried to please the Jews and Christians whith this compromise in the 2nd century with a proto-unitarian view of Jesus and ending up pleasing no-one. In fact, Jesus' claim to be God was a turn-off for many Jews and pagans alike. So much for the pagan copycat theories. (See Ronald Nash's book 'The Gospel and the Greeks' and 'The Christians as the Romans Saw Them' by Robert L. Wilken.)

 

Richard Dawkins is completely wrong.

 

And that should be food for thought for the Muslims, JWs and those amongst the Jews and Unitarians who regard Jesus as a genuine prophet of God.

 

Jesus (Yeshua, not Horus :D ) really did claim to be God. In a monotheistic culture.

 

Now I'm finished. :D

 

At last.

 

[ 19.08.2007, 18:13: Message edited by: Goonerman ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And after all that, my 'Gnostic' response is - God can do anything it wants - ANYTHING IT WANTS - so what's the problem taking human form ??? What's the problem God being Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or in us, or in creation etc. etc. etc. ???

 

And 'salvation' is not a matter of theology but one of faith and belief in God - so what does it matter if someone is Muslim, Jehova's Witness, Jewish, or anything else for that matter, as long as they have a relationship (even friendship) with God ???

 

An entire thesis by Goonerman reduced to two essential paragraphs. It's never the words that count but the meaning :angelwings:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoken like a true Gnostic Observer - God IS everywhere :biggrinbounce: Yet another reason the 'official church' tried to wipe us out. Truth is seldom popular with those living in error.

 

Sadly Jesus didn't write the Gospel Of Thomas (it's thought it may be based on interviews with Jesus' mother Mary though) and the Vatican haven't hidden it as it's generally available. You may even be able to find it on the web ?

 

As you say, interesting movie plot - but just a movie :angelwings:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so tell me,

 

1. why is the name (still in use) Jesus pronounced He-Zeus ?

(And I wont even go into greek mythology about zues being king of gods, granted govenance of the sky and possession of his greatest weapon being the Lightening bolt).

 

2. why do we call our religeous day SUNday ?

 

3. why is the holy trinity a parallel to the one in three which makes up the day Father(evening) Son (morning) Holy Ghost (night). 1day in sun worship.

 

4. why is heaven above us...when we all know now what realy is above us (stars and the bigest star in our sky...the god of our sky...in heaven...the sun. hell is below when night falls, (set or satan) is created by SUN SET (set being the egyption god of the night), setan was cast from heaven (ie fell from the sky) (nightfall)) and why does night hapen becouse it falls past the HORIZON (HORUS SUN) as horus defeats set in revenge of the murder of his father by SET ?

 

 

rebukes

you said jesus DID claim to be the "SUN" of god

 

 

 

 

"The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. But I say to all of you: in the future you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard his blasphemy. What do you think? " "He is worthy of death," they answered." (Mt. 26:63b-66.)

and yet a quick google search of mathew 26 it reads.

 

vs 63-64

 

But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

 

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

 

 

to me that says "your" jesus replied "you've already asked once and NO I AM THE SON OF MAN" and that from now on it will be man on the right hand of power, lead by man (which is a prophecy which seems to be very true today.

 

I particularly like the reference to "coming in the clouds of heaven" therefore establishing that the clouds ARE in heaven so Heaven is not a spiritual destination but a physical location visible from the earths surface..

unreachable to humans back then, but very familiar to the 21st century...but surely a true son of god would know better and establish heaven elsewhere ?

 

[ 23.08.2007, 10:57: Message edited by: legion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ealiest hunter gathers were no doubt an ignorant and supersticious lot, and it wouldn't take long before some wily "politicians" amongst them would set themselves up as a shamen; interpreting the world around them, in return for gifts etc. :wink: With the advent of organised agricultural farming and the production of a surplus, this allowed for the creation of a full-time specialist class, to live off this surplus and organise and control society in their own interests - the beginnings of feudalism, based on mysticism and the exploitation of ignorance, with everyone "knowing their place"!. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again, folks. I came in again because some things I noticed when skimming down to post the stuff I had forgotten to include need answering.

MIB- "Goonerman is SO egotistical that he has to make a 'farewell speach' and SO unstable that he can't even leave the site properly when he clearly says he will (with reasons)"

GOONERMAN- This indeed is my final thread, there is nothing more to it than that. I don't know what an ego is. I'm motivated by other things, namely defending God and the Bible against slurs by Dawkins et al. Instability has nothing to do with my return. I declared my intention to leave because Peter was not pleased by the size of the posts, Mary wanted the Paganism thread locked and MIB felt harassed into leaving the forum, none of which I wanted to see happen. However, Peter's disappointment at me wanting to leave, Legion wants me to contribute further, and Steve the Original's comments give me a mandate to return- for a while, at least. Plus there are other, even more important reasons.

MIB- "AND thinks this was a SHORT POSTING !!!"

GOONERMAN: Oh well, that's the price for forgetting to edit that reference to the no need to do longgggg posts out of the post, and me forgetting that Richard Dawkins had written even more lightweight claptrap on the Bible needing to be refuted than I had realised! In other words, Dawkins had written even more garbage than I had first thought!

MIB- "Who asked for the thesis on Dawkins ? I didn't !"

GOONERMAN: This statement is bizarre given that the original post is a critique of a nutjob atheist who writes rubbish about the Bible and God. And it isn't a thesis.

MIB- "no more giagantic Goonerman rants"

GOONERMAN: Once again, you aren't a mod so you have not the right to tell me what to put in and not to put in. Plus, I don't rant.

MIB- "I closed my eyes and walked away in absolute disgust at the religious and racial bigotry."

GOONERMAN- How can you know if there was any religious and racial bigotry if you blinked, closed your eyes, and walked away? I see Obbs is parading his usual pantomime logic. Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn't! (Which explains Peter's question as to what sensible debates are there?)

PETER: observer was the poster(before you joined) who introduced Dawkins (if my memory serves me correctly, and G'man has finally got round to responding.

 

GOONERMAN: This is partly true, though I am criticising points which Dawkinius makes which Obbs hasn't. The scientific and philosophical aspects will be dealt with in the book review section probably some time in October, by which time hopefully I'll finally have had the time to have finished the God Delusion.

LEGION: so gooner, still thinking that the bible is gods word as set in stone, and ignoring 2000 years of tinkering by people who are in a position to benefit from the changes.

GOONERMAN: You're ignoring the manuscript evidence. Also, all these other gospels contradict the original four and were not written in the 1st century and were not authored by the apostles or their associates.

LEGION: so jesus (pronounced he-zues or horus) as I like to call him was the result of a 2000 YO plan ??? so are you saying that existance began only 4,000 years ago ?

GOONERMAN: First, as I have said, further down the thread, Jesus is the English version of the Latin Iesvs, which comes from the Greek Iesous, which comes from His actual Aramaic name Yeshua, which is from the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which comes directly into English as Joshua. It means YHWH Saves. And YHWH is a combination of all th tenses of the Hebrew verb which in English means TO BE. I AM THAT I AM or I AM WHO I AM or I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE as God calls Himself to Moses in Exodus 3 is in Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. I am = Ehyeh. Therefore, Legion, Jesus' name has NOTHING to do with Horus. The 2000 year-old plan of Salvation was implemented by God when He called Abraham and climaxed with Jesus' crucifixion. God was saving souls indeed before Abraham, but the systematic plan of building a religion and culture which would be used by God as a sprinboard for the saving of the world was first begun in around 2000 BC with Abraham. Jesus' death on the Cross was the climax of it. So all souls saved by God before Jesus' death looked forward to the Cross, the rest of us who are saved look back on the Cross. The Cross was the culmination of that process, and the Scriptures were inspired by God through His prophets to explain that process of God working in history to save the human race from itself.

For more details on Horus, please scroll down to near the bottom of this article:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html

Please feel free to read the rest of the article as well.

MIB:Like you I also wonder what God did for the rest of time when not writing the Bible ?

GOONERMAN: Implementing the plan of salvation and planning it in accordance with what is said in the Scriptures. Saving souls.

MIB: Perhaps humankind CAN discover God outside the limited boundaries of the written scriptures found just in The Bible - what a REVELATION - let's throw a party !?! For the academics amoung us the apostle Paul is credited with supporting this view of 'Natural Theology'.

GOONERMAN: Natural Theology is still subordinate to the Bible. Natural Theology is merely general revelation, the Bible special revelation. Plus, it's amusing hearing a so-called Gnostic appealing to God through nature! As if! Anyway, all Natural Theology does is prove the existence of God and give clues about His divine nature, enough to point to the three great monotheistic religions at least. The irony is, Natural theology attacks paganism!

First, see my reply to Evil Sid using Natural Theology here:

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/scripts/bulletin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001326;p=7

And, back to the source:

"What may be known about God is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have ben clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts in sexual immorality for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator- who is for ever praised, Amen." Romans 1:19-25. Most of Paul's statement on Natural Theology. Note it isn't at all sympathetic towards paganism.

To discern between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and to examine critically all the heretical varieties claiming to be Christianity- this needs to explore special revelation through means of history and theology. That means trying to work out was Jesus real, did He really rise from the dead, is the New Testament the true supplement to the Old, is the Bible as was originally written, are the Qu'ran's claims correct, including, funny enough, Jesus either claiming to be God or not.

PETER: TWO days later when I found the end.

G'man, You said September. Are we not to believe what you say?

GOONERMAN: I forgot to put in the stuff to answer Dawkins' claim that Jesus never claimed to be God. An honest mistake. Plus some things needed answering.

MIB: And after all that, my 'Gnostic' response is - God can do anything it wants - ANYTHING IT WANTS - so what's the problem taking human form ??? What's the problem God being Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or in us, or in creation etc. etc. etc. ???

 

And 'salvation' is not a matter of theology but one of faith and belief in God - so what does it matter if someone is Muslim, Jehova's Witness, Jewish, or anything else for that matter, as long as they have a relationship (even friendship) with God ???

 

An entire thesis by Goonerman reduced to two essential paragraphs. It's never the words that count but the meaning

GOONERMAN: Yes, God can do what He wants. True faith and belief in God is what Theology is all about- Theology is simply a word about God.

EAGLE: A final peek? A touch long wasn't it?

 

G'man, are you making a sharp exit because a worthy opponent has shown himself?

 

GOONERMAN: Because originally I thought I was causing bother, because I am busy with studies, getting off the internet for a while has helped my sleep no end, and I thought what's the point if MIB feels harassed and wants to leave? Besides, before the kerfuffle making me wish to retreat, I said in the Paganism threads these words:

This is the moment I've been waiting for. I ENJOY debating with opponents. And anyway, MIB is NOT in my opinion a worthy opponent!

Then I was shocked to see MIB retreating. Then I thought, well, if that is the case and all maybe I have outstayed my welcome.

Peter, the same things could be said about MIB's return. But that would be wrong. So I will change what I've said once again. This time I'll not return. Until October rather than September. The next month or so is going to be HECTIC. Everything's flying at me in my non-internet life at once and I need to leave the net altogether until I return from my trip to New York. See you on 9 OCTOBER. This is one I am going to STICK TO. What happened is that I forgot to put in the stuff about Jesus claiming to be God versus Dawkins' claim, and I knew I had to respond to some of the things I glimpsed when pasting the last stuff on.

So, some last points to make before the hectic whirlwind take me away from here.

(And by the way, Peter, it's God Himself, through my conscience, not through any audible voice, who told me to get back this weekend to respond to this stuff on His orders. I've no choice in the matter. Orders are orders. My brother and I had a good chat about this. I'm sorry I offered to leave in the first place. I'll not be fixing a date for returning or going again after I return in October- though this thread will STILL be my final thread on this forum.)

LEGION:"why is the name (still in use) Jesus pronounced He-Zeus ?

(And I wont even go into greek mythology about zues being king of gods, granted govenance of the sky and possession of his greatest weapon being the Lightening bolt)."

GOONERMAN: The pronunciation is explained above. It's just a funny foreign pronunication we English speakers make of 'Yeshua'. Zeus or Jupiter was the son of Saturn, the sun of Uranus, the son of the Titans, from the original god Cheops, born from the chaos. YHWH in the Bible created the Universe, time and space from nothing. No relation. YHWH is the Uncaused Casue and has no source as He IS the Source.

LEGION: why do we call our religeous day SUNday

GOONERMAN: Blame Constantine.

LEGION: why is the holy trinity a parallel to the one in three which makes up the day Father(evening) Son (morning) Holy Ghost (night). 1day in sun worship.

 

GOONERMAN: Irrelevant nonsense. Considering the Holy Trinity eternally co-exists! God has always been Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously. Modalism- God is the Father then becomes the Son then the Holy Spirit- is false.

LEGION: why is heaven above us...when we all know now what realy is above us (stars and the bigest star in our sky...the god of our sky...in heaven...the sun. hell is below when night falls, (set or satan) is created by SUN SET (set being the egyption god of the night), setan was cast from heaven (ie fell from the sky) (nightfall)) and why does night hapen becouse it falls past the HORIZON (HORUS SUN) as horus defeats set in revenge of the murder of his father by SET ?

 

GOONERMAN: Heaven and Hell are spiritual dimensions in Eternity, nothing to do with the sky or underground!

LEGION: rebukes

you said jesus DID claim to be the "SUN" of god

 

GOONERMAN: The SON, NOT the Sun! Plus: "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." Rev. 22:5. Jesus is eternal. The Sun is not. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Mt. 24:35.

LEGION: to me that says "your" jesus replied "you've already asked once and NO I AM THE SON OF MAN" and that from now on it will be man on the right hand of power, lead by man (which is a prophecy which seems to be very true today.

 

I particularly like the reference to "coming in the clouds of heaven" therefore establishing that the clouds ARE in heaven so Heaven is not a spiritual destination but a physical location visible from the earths surface..

unreachable to humans back then, but very familiar to the 21st century...but surely a true son of god would know better and establish heaven elsewhere ?

 

GOONERMAN: The clouds are not H2O clouds but the glow of God's Shekinah Glory, His Presence. But I don't have the time to explain this one. Yet. See you in October.

Peter, my words can be trusted. As you will see. At the end of the day, what's happening to me at the moment is being influenced by things quite separate from this forum. I'm looking forward to the next round, actually. I'm glad MIB is back, Steve the Original liked the Paganism thread and saw no need to close it. But alas I have so little free time in this week to come that even my OU and TEFL studies are going to have to be done in my work breaks, my lunches and on the bus! And I have a sneaky feeling my life is going to be hectic from this point onwards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...