• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1078563; said:
Forgive my ignorance, but from where do you get this? Not that I don't believe you, just that I don't recall ever reading Abraham's city of origin.

Not a problem.

Genesis 11
25. And Nahor lived after he had begotten Terah one hundred and nineteen years, and he begot sons and daughters.

26. And Terah lived seventy years, and he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

27. And these are the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran, and Haran begot Lot.

28. And Haran died during the lifetime of Terah his father in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldees.

29. And Abram and Nahor took themselves wives; the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah.

30. And Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31. And Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter in law, the wife of Abram his son, and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees to go to the land of Canaan, and they came as far as Haran and settled there.

32. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1007728; said:
My remark has to do with how it seems that so many times - even after G-d's deliverence of the Commandments - are caught worshiping idols, for example. In one sense, we see a G-d who must be frustrated that he has to keep telling these guys, "Knock it off, I'm serious" by way of prophets. And it makes me wonder, if G-d is so put out by this act, and he's all powerful and all, why doesn't he just fix the problem? Of course, then we get in to concepts of free will and so on. But, that, in turn reduces back to the whole Truth that God created it all to begin with. If He doesn't like Idol worship, why did he make a system where Idol worship would become such a problem? Even today, if you view Christianity in a certain way, idol worship continues with vigor. If G-d is "against" this sort of thing, then isn't it fair to say He's failed in his creation?

So, in order to move past these sorts of quandries, I surmise that the lessons about Idol worship are not so much from G-d - in terms of consequences - so much as they are from men trying to teach other men how to appreciate the glory of G-d. If a man has no choice, as I believe, but to expierence reality and that reality is one expression of G-d, ultimately it matters very little if we're worshiping idols, or coveting our neighbor's things and so on. I suppose I should posit also, and I would hope this would clear up where I'm coming from on some level, I believe G-d is LOVE. I don't know... I understand the point of personal responsibility as social animals... I get that... but, when talking about the infinite nature of G-d, there's a breakdown of consequence that I can't understand.. which of course, makes sense, lest I'd be G-d, right? :lol:


My background is Catholic, so no doubt my understandings of Satan is understood with that backdrop. Though, I've come to reject Satan as anything, really. I mean, wouldn't it be fair to say that giving Satan power via fear, we fear him as some kind of demi-god, at least? If Satan is real, he is still subordinate to G-d, and I have no fear of something which G-d can stop. Of course, concepts of some giant battle of Good and Evil must also thereby ring hollow, as we already know who the winner is... or G-d isn't G-d at all... ironically, should there be any question who wins, we do not have ONE God at all... but two.. of equal potential... and if the "bad one" (Satan) were to win any epic battle at the end times, well... he'd be G-d afterall, and the guy we're calling G-d now not All Powerful and thus we're all worshiping the wrong guy.... it's a loose loose idea, making little sense and carrying no weight with me. Though, I can appreciate it's ability to convince others.

Gotta get home... I'll check back to this thread later....

you seriously need to unwrap your head from the corrupt Roman "heaven and hell" version of the Christianity. the message in the Bible is NOT about heaven and hell. it's about being adopted into the Royal Family. those that aren't adopted into the Family do NOT 'burn in hell for all eternity.' they cease to exist.

but anyway... i'm going to go back and read several pages now...
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1010945; said:
Which OT passages support the notion that a Jewish Messiah would come twice?

the OT is literally strewn with two distinct Messianic types. 1) the stone that the builders rejected. 2) becomes the chief cornerstone. the duality of the Messiah in ubiquitous in the OT. the sacrificial Lamb, and the conquering Lion.

heck, take a look at the zodiac. the whole thing tells the Gospel story.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1077964; said:
Actually, BKB, that is interesting. I'm sure that several tomes will follow.
Darn. Kicked off again.

I was recently reading a theory about the emergence of the deity Yahweh that said Yahweh came to Israel from Edom, only to be accepted into the early Israelite Canaanite pantheon (Baal, Asherah, El, etc.) The author theorizes that El and Yahweh converged, drawing from Ugaritic texts and the similarities between El and Yahweh, Yahweh ultimately absorbing Baal's attributes as well.

I was looking at the early Genesis texts where polytheism is implied "3:22Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

At an archaeological dig at a site "Kuntillet Ajrud" pottery was found that had inscriptions that were translated as "YHWH and his Asherah", which suggests that at that time Yahweh was worshiped with a consort, or as a couple. In any event, not as the only Deity. Asherah was the consort of El, so maybe that reflects the transition and substitution of Yahweh for El as the Supreme being. In any event, perhaps the old testament gives us a glimpse into the earliest beliefs of the ancient polytheistic Israelis.


there has always been two. (not three) the Father and the Firstborn before all Creation, who is the Son.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1078185; said:
I should have been more clear. When I said the only source, I did not mean to dismiss other accounts in terms of what was occurring at that time in the history of civilization, rather I was specifically speaking of the history of the Israelites. As far as I am aware, the writings from other civilizations at the time, which we still have, do not mention what was occurring among the ancient Israelites.

sure they do. both from Egypt, and from Babylon (the vast libraries found at Nineveh, to be specific.)
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;1079018; said:
sure they do. both from Egypt, and from Babylon (the vast libraries found at Nineveh, to be specific.)

Could you point me to some references that speak of the religious practices of the ancient Israelites? I know these libraries mention them as a nation (like I said King Jehu is found on an Assyrian obelisk), but I am unaware of any of them speaking of the Israelite's religion. If such sources exist, I would love to read more about them.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1078482; said:
Understood. :wink:



1) I'm a Noachide. In short, I am a Gentile who has aligned himself with Israel. I am not required to observe Torah and so forth. My past contains 20+ years of being a Christian.
2) Regarding the Suffering Servant. What I may do is attempt to compile information regarding Isaiah 52-53 and put into a series of posts for sharing. My son was born on the 18th, and that is why I say, "may" at this present time. I'll see what I can do.

Congrats on the new born son, may you be the father of a great nation with a less disfuctional family than Abraham ended up with:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;1079016; said:
the OT is literally strewn with two distinct Messianic types. 1) the stone that the builders rejected. 2) becomes the chief cornerstone. the duality of the Messiah in ubiquitous in the OT. the sacrificial Lamb, and the conquering Lion.

Please feel free to show me anywhere in the Jewish Bible that the Messiah equates to a sacrificial lamb. :)

Then we'll discuss further.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;1079015; said:
you seriously need to unwrap your head from the corrupt Roman "heaven and hell" version of the Christianity. the message in the Bible is NOT about heaven and hell. it's about being adopted into the Royal Family. those that aren't adopted into the Family do NOT 'burn in hell for all eternity.' they cease to exist.

From personal experience, I would posit that this nihilistic consideration is in the minority in Christianity. It certainly isn't held by the RCC, EO, and most protestant denominations.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1079194; said:
Please feel free to show me anywhere in the Jewish Bible that the Messiah equates to a sacrificial lamb. :)

Then we'll discuss further.


I believe the reference is

Isa 53:7?He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth

Now, to which "messiah" this passage refers is another debate. Many scholars believe it refers to Cyrus the Great of Persia.

Cyrus the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0
MuckFich06;1079203; said:
I believe the reference is

Isa 53:7?He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth

Now, to which "messiah" this passage refers is another debate. Many scholars believe it refers to Cyrus the Great of Persia.

Cyrus the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Muck.

What makes you think this is a messianic passage in the first place?
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1079209; said:
Thanks Muck.

What makes you think this is a messianic passage in the first place?

It is well accepted among both Jewish and Christian scholars, clergy, and theologians that this passage is concerning the messiah. This interpretation has been well established dating back to before Jesus. The debate has always been over who is the messianic figure that the passage describes.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;1079015; said:
you seriously need to unwrap your head from the corrupt Roman "heaven and hell" version of the Christianity. the message in the Bible is NOT about heaven and hell. it's about being adopted into the Royal Family. those that aren't adopted into the Family do NOT 'burn in hell for all eternity.' they cease to exist.

but anyway... i'm going to go back and read several pages now...

Ah... they cease to exist. In that case, take every post where I mention hell and insert "cease to exist" Same problems arise.

I guess I'm left guessing about support for the adoption in to the royal family theory. Either G-d created me or He did not. If he did not, he is not the infinite creator He's purported to be and if He is, "adoption" seems a bit peculiar since we're already all in the family. Pairing that, of course, with the idea that Jesus allegedly died for my sins already leaves me with a great deal of wonder why I should care the least bit about any version of Christianity. The typical answer to this is that I have to "accept the gift" for it to apply. If that's the case, then Jesus didn't really die for my sins as it's a conditional gift (and its not purported to be conditional by your average Christian). If it's conditional, then you and your ilk are correct that there is "only one way" to G-d. In which case, we're full circle to the problem of "hell" (now reading "Ceasing to exist") You can have this G-d who would snuff out from existence the greater portion of his creation. I don't want him as I personally find the notion completely objectionable... indeed, contemptuous.

Truly, I'm perfectly comfortable ceasing to exist if my only other option is to submit to such sadism. G-d may be as you describe. But, if He is, I want no part of Him. But, fortunately for me, I do not believe in such a G-d. And, even if I did, this god you describe, would be subordinate to the G-d I talk about.

As I said pages ago, I am at complete peace with G-d (which doesn't mean I don't continue to challege myself regarding His creation and "what it all means"). I'm a good person. I don't need to be saved. It's highly offensive to me for anyone to assume otherwise. You'll note, I've never offered to save anyone. I've never taken the position that my theories on G-d must be adopted or you face ceasing to exist. I try very hard to simply outline what I think, and what I think are problems with what you might think (I don't necessarily mean YOU specifically) so that you might examine your theories more closely as I do when my ideas are well challenged. For me, that's all I'm interested in on this and other religious threads. For me, it's not about right and wrong. But for you, it seems, it most certainly is. Well, again, if it is.... I'll simply cease to be. And that's fine with me.

lvbuckeye;1079016; said:
the OT is literally strewn with two distinct Messianic types. 1) the stone that the builders rejected. 2) becomes the chief cornerstone. the duality of the Messiah in ubiquitous in the OT. the sacrificial Lamb, and the conquering Lion.

heck, take a look at the zodiac. the whole thing tells the Gospel story.

Odd that Jews would fail to recognize their own Savior so completely. Odd also, as Muffler has mentioned before and could surely argue much better than I, that the man Jesus failed to conform to what we should anticipate the Savior be. Indeed, even as a matter of doctrine, the "Messiah" has been understood to Jews as being a MAN, not a god.... and surely not G-d Himself.

I should say, I have no quarrel with Christianity as a belief system that instructs one to consider G-d in their lives. I have no quarrel with the faith being used by believers to feel close to G-d, or to learn, and so on. But, to the extent that the faith requires one to believe that it's Christianity or Ceasing to Be, I find the faith to be particularly intellectually immature.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top