Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Historical evidence for Jesus continued


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1551-1575 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:49:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 8:53:51 PM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
'private' revelation...

There are a few other potentially interesting things in connection with the moon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:50:14 PM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
That I don't fully understand yet.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:51:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 9:23:20 PM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
See response to Hanalah.

Also x-reference song 'The Moon is a Window to Heaven' by Hiroshima.

----------------------
One of the more recent 'revelations that connect in part with the moon, I'm not going to go into detail to explain it, except that we are a dream of God.

Mad Man Moon - Genesis

Was it summer when the river ran dry,
Or was it just another dam.
When the evil of a snowflake in June
Could still be a source of relief.
O how I love you, I once cried long ago,
But I was the one who decided to go.
To search beyond the final crest,
Though I'd heard it said just birds could dwell so high.

So I pretended to have wings for my arms
And took off in the air.
I flew to places which the clouds never see,
Too close to the deserts of sand,
Where a thousand mirages, the shepherds of lies
Forced me to land and take a disguise.
I would welcome a horse's kick to send me back
If I could find a horse not made of sand.

If this desert's all there'll ever be
Then tell me what becomes of me.
A fall of rain?
That must have been another of your dreams,
A dream of mad man moon.

Hey man,
I'm the sand man.
And boy have I news for you;
They're gonna throw you in gaol
And you know they can't fail
'Cos sand is thicker than blood.
But a prison in sand
Is a haven in hell,
For a gaol can give you a goal
[and a] goal can find you a role
On a muddy pitch in Newcastle,
Where it rains so much
You can't wait for a touch
Of sun and sand, sun and sand...

Within the valley of shadowless death
They pray for thunderclouds and rain,
But to the multitude who stand in the rain
Heaven is where the sun shines.
The grass will be greener till the stems turn to brown
And thoughts will fly higher till the earth brings them down.
Forever caught in desert lands one has to learn
To disbelieve the sea.

If this desert's all there'll ever be
Then tell me what becomes of me.
A fall of rain?
That must have been another of your dreams,
A dream of mad man moon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:36:00 PM PDT
Mens Sana says:
The KJV was not my reference. It was a handy diagram of Genesis I cosmology in Norman Gottwalds's The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction with CD-ROM.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 1:46:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 17, 2012 1:49:31 AM PDT
Sarah says:
H Thank you for reposting this information, Sarah.

S You are welcome.

DoC: Sarah, In the review, it refers to the authors, expert scholars in their own right, basing the book off Gesenius' work. For several years, I have used Gesenius' "Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament"...is it the referenced work by him, or some other work?
And, thanks for this recommendation.

S Gesenius' 1833 work is exactly the book (originally in German) that Brown Driver and Briggs used as the core of their work, first edition 1907. My copy of BDB is a 1959 edition. BDB is not infallible. I can see a few mistakes and speculations in it, but still, it is the standard, maybe with a few additional updates, I'm not sure, used by scholars and in university classrooms, as far as I know. There has been additional information since then, but as I understand it not much, since the total ancient Hebrew (including Mishnaic) corpus is still quite small, even with inscriptions and the DDS. (By contrast, Josephus alone probably wrote about as much as length of the whole Bible, maybe more, and his work is only a very tiny fraction of the whole ancient Greek corpus still surviving.)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 10:44:35 AM PDT
J. Green says:
doc bic.... whenever they suspect or spot a Biblical quote
------------------------------------------
Who saw the zombies?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 8:13:50 PM PDT
DoC BiC says:
Mens,
The reference was interesting, thx...judging by the contents there appears to be a broad range of subjects and some very interesting focused topics...how much of the detail is on the CD versus in the book? Is the CD supplementary, or integral to using the book as reference material as well as an educational tool?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 8:18:00 PM PDT
DoC BiC says:
Sarah,
Ordered it, sounds classic enough to keep within arm's reach. Thx!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:04:34 PM PDT
Mens Sana says:
The CD is the entire book, fully cross referenced and fully searchable.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 12:22:55 AM PDT
Sarah says:
You are most welcome, DoC. Enjoy!

I mean it. In fact, as a student, I used to sit in the university library for hours, reading page after page of BDB, fascinated by the etymologies.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 9:21:14 PM PDT
Ariex says:
W. Dilbert says: "However wiki correctly used the translation that you are arguing against."

Ariex: Could you clarify? I read the entire article and the gist of it as I read it is that Yahwey is most probably the correct pronunciation, and that Jehovah is artificial. Several sections discuss the views of various scholars, but still, the consensus is that Jehovah is the result of erroneously deriving the name from misuse of the vowel points. The ones who hold to Jehovah as the correct name seem to be apologists rather than scholars of Hebrew.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 9:27:51 PM PDT
Ariex says:
DoC BiC says: "In case you're interested, and can take a few moments away from veiled slandering, there is also a NIV Exhaustive Concordance in the tradition of James Strong, titled "The Strongest"..."

Ariex; In case you can take a few minutes away from your "polite" ad hominem, as I noted previously, Strongs is for Bible study, it was prepared for the faithful, not for linguists. Words like "firmament", as translated correctly, present a problem for the faith, therefore Strongs and other concordances for Bible study carefully tiptoe around problems. I'll stick to the definition in my NIV Exhaustive Concordance by Goodrick and Kohlenberger, which was prepared for linguists, with the correct translations, not the ones with the "warts removed" so as to avoid troubling the faithful.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 9:38:16 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Hanalah says: "So in ancient times they thought the sky was opaque and that they couldn't see the stars through it?"

Ariex: As it says in Genesis, the ancients seemed to think that the stars were quite small and were attached to the inside of the dome, and that sometimes they came loose and fell to earth.

Again, apologies for using the KJV but unless you can tell me that the Hebrew Scriptures read significantly differently, I'll go with it:
Genesis 1:14 And Gd said, Let there be lights IN THE firmament "
Please note, it does not say ABOVE the firmament, but IN as in fastened to.
Genesis 1:17 And Gd set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"
Again, the lights were set (as in setting a stone in a ring) in the firmament, not above it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 9:08:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012 9:12:40 AM PDT
Ants says:
Stong's Conc. 05414: IT COULD ALSO MEAN YIELD/PRODUCE.

1) to give, put, set

a) (Qal)

1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend

2) to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate

3) to make, constitute

b) (Niphal)

1) to be given, be bestowed, be provided, be entrusted to, be granted to, be permitted, be issued, be published, be uttered, be assigned

2) to be set, be put, be made, be inflicted

c) (Hophal)

1) to be given, be bestowed, be given up, be delivered up

2) to be put upon

During the day is there light / elector-magnetic waves present in our atmosphere? does that mean they emanate from it? The bible was not saying that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 9:36:19 AM PDT
J. Green says:
ariex......Ariex; In case you can take a few minutes away from your "polite" ad hominem, as I noted previously, Strongs is for Bible study, it was prepared for the faithful, not for linguists.
--------------------------
He is a liar for jesus for sure.

The sun going out at the good friday was just clouds and the zombies looked like everyone else and were thus unnoticed.
That is his logic.
He really thinks he has it all explained.

Just ignore all the hard parts.

The JW's make the same strong case for jesus coming back in 1914.
No one noticed except a few JW's

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 9:37:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012 9:42:30 AM PDT
Ants says:
So, Ariex, let's just get this straight: You don't believe in the historicity of Jesus but your concordance of choice is the NIV Exhaustive Conc.? Surely you must see how eye opening that is. What is your real position, just anything that's not the truth? Good luck convincing us otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 1:18:39 PM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
"Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 2:41:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012 2:42:06 PM PDT
J. Green says:
Bryan Borich says:
"Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts
---------------------------------------------------------
A metaphor is not a fact,it is a metaphor

Who are you quoting?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 2:49:52 PM PDT
Ariex: God does not ignore anyone. God evidences Himself to every person on the planet in different ways, including you. You either choose to respond to Him or not. As a follower of Jesus, I pray that you accept His most generous offer. It is not an easy road, but it brings much blessing in this life and eternal life, too.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 2:56:55 PM PDT
J. Green says:
Marlene A. Banday says:
Ariex: God does not ignore anyone. God evidences Himself to every person on the planet in different ways, including you. You either choose to respond to Him or not.
--------------------
Who do you think you are speaking for god?

God DOES NOT speak to me.
I am me and god does not speak to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 3:41:14 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
As for Raqia, I'm sticking with the bellydancer hypothesis, even though I got 0-1 feedback for mentioning it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 3:42:37 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
But... it's true!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 5:20:29 PM PDT
Ariex says:
J. Green says: "The sun going out at the good friday was just clouds and the zombies looked like everyone else and were thus unnoticed.
That is his logic.
He really thinks he has it all explained."

Ariex: I think it more proper to say that he thinks his apologists have it all explained.

I am willing to concede that we do not fully understand how the ancients viewed their universe, only that there were different perspectives. Perhaps the nit I've picked here is a metaphor for something they struggled to turn into words, probably to understand at all.

I admit that I feel sympathy for those who need the security of a literal interpretation, the comfort of feeling that God loves them and is watching over them. As we learn more about our universe, our world, ourselves, the advance of knowledge may seem like an advancing army threatening their security, their Bible's authority.

As I read some of the apologetic rationalizations trying to wrench science and history The Torah I cannot help but think the efforts of these writers must, to some extent, cause them to question their own intellectual integrity, due to efforts they must surely recognize as deception.

In regard to "firmament", I find it amusing that a single word can cause so much contention. I suppose that is the way literalists must fight the battle, a word at a time, for to put the words into context would make the "just so" stories, the folk-tale character of the "history" much more obvious, much harder to defend as factual. Even the most hard core fundamentalist must have some little nagging "alarm bell" going off when reading the story of Genesis, but is able to ignore it because his faith will not allow him to question.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 5:36:14 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Ants says: "So, Ariex, let's just get this straight: You don't believe in the historicity of Jesus but your concordance of choice is the NIV Exhaustive Conc.? Surely you must see how eye opening that is. What is your real position, just anything that's not the truth? Good luck convincing us otherwise."

Ariex: How boring. Yet another conservative Christian takes upon himself the task of telling me and everyone else what I think. And gets it wrong.

I lean somewhat towards the probability of a historical Jesus as the seed for the myth that produced Christianity. The detail that causes the lean is James the Just. He was not named a disciple, yet he became the leader of the Jerusalem Christians, with Peter and John Zebedee as "lieutenants" of some sort. When James was killed, a cousin took the helm and the group moved to Pella. This implies a hereditary leadership position, common in the ancient world.

My concordance of choice varies. Strongs for Bible study, and Goodrick and Kohlenberger for linguistics. They also did "The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance", which Doc Bic recommended a few posts back.

I don't see why my stance on the historicity or divinity of Jesus would be of concern when using a scholarly reference to examine the Bible as a social/cultural work. I think you try to make that appear to be a conflict somehow, because I study the Bible but don't believe it. Many of the educators teaching at Christian Seminaries do not believe the Bible is historical, or that Jesus was divine in any way, either.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 6:04:38 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Marlene A. Banday says: "Ariex: God does not ignore anyone. God evidences Himself to every person on the planet in different ways, including you."

Ariex: I'm sure you derive a great deal of comfort from that belief. However, others do not share your opinion, and yours is an opinion, not an established fact, no matter how strong your faith in the belief that it is a fact.

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse: Let's agree to disagree. If you will respect my right to believe what appears true to me, I'll give you the same respect.

At least I do not claim to have knowledge that god does not exist, unlike many theists who claim knowledge that god exists, but cannot support that claim with evidence.

But I should make it clear that I have confidence beyond a reasonable doubt that gods, ALL gods, are/were the invention of human minds.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  54
Total posts:  1664
Initial post:  Mar 18, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 29, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions