WOW! Atheists and the World's Religious Leaders agree on Jesus! Are they wrong?

Originally posted by OldThinker

That's the only three logical outcomes...LIAR, LUNATIC of LORD. There is no room for him being a good guy and all, no room for him being a prophet as every other religion on the face of the earth calls him.

Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards.

Hey OT,

I'm not sure LIAR, LUNATIC or LORD eliminates good guy. Good guys lie. Lunatics aren't necessarily bad to others. Lord, in the almighty sense, perhaps not good or guy as we would readily identify.

I've not met any prophets so I can't say there. There's this guy, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, who claims to be the second coming. Would that make him a prophet? It sure makes him a loon. If they had psyche wards in Biblical times, would they have thrown John the Baptist in one? I'm thinking yes. Now we have psyche wards just not so many prophets. Where's a prophet when you need one? Maybe there's an opening for me there! Just kidding but you know unemployment is on the rise. Gotta keep your options open.

Anyways, this is one of those topics that makes my head spin and so I'll leave with you and me in good humor. Have a great 4th!

Peace, OT!

About the Bible being a collection of 60 books by 40 authors (I'm too lazy to go back and see if that is the exact number you quoted, sorry ), well, technically, of these 40 authors, most lived in basically the same area, and most of the NT ones all lived around the same time.

But more to the point, the average joe doesn't really know if the books are all consistent and fitting and compatible. Because we aren't really reading the original books. We are reading translations, most of which were done by one guy, or a group of people all sitting together, same place same time. It isn't really a surprise that they'd seem like they're all from the same author.

Now about the Liar, Lunatic, Lord trilemma, I'll reiterate what someone said earlier: the fourth option is that Jesus's message was miscommunicated. Perhaps he never said he was God. Perhaps the Bible is a mix of truths and untruths. We can't really know what is correct and what is wrong.

OT,

OK, tomorrow was two days ago, and I'm still waiting for your reply. C'mon! The suspense is killing me!!!! [/sarcasm] But seriously, I am eager to hear your thoughts.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
OT,

OK, tomorrow was two days ago, and I'm still waiting for your reply. C'mon! The suspense is killing me!!!! [/sarcasm] But seriously, I am eager to hear your thoughts.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

JR, Gonna run to dinner...will get back to you tonight....been out of pocket for a while....

OT

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I do agree with the points made at the begining of your OP. I don't deny ....

Point 1- The difference between your analogy and the way the Tenakh and the New Testament were written is that the writers (after the first 5 books, the Pentateuch, which were written by Moses after being passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth) read the books that preceeded their own. If the writers in your analogy were to read the book(s) before theirs before writing their own, they would much more closely resemble each other.

So, is word of mouth and tradition...a catalyst for error? Not really, right?

See: www.biblicaldefense.org...

Excerpt:

THE OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

The Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew and Aramaic. It consists of thirty-nine separate books written at different times and places between 2000BC and 400BC.4 The three main extant Old Testament manuscripts are the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint.5

The Masoretic Text is currently considered the standard Hebrew text.6 It dates back to about 1010AD.7 It contains the entire Old Testament.8 Despite its late date, it is considered the purest Hebrew text. No recent manuscript finds have brought suspicion to the Masoretic text.9 Due to the strict copying techniques of the Masoretes, they have preserved a Hebrew text which essentially duplicates the authoritative texts of Christ's time.10

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to approximately 150-100BC.11 The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament.12 These scrolls were found in 1947 in various caves along the northwest coast of the Dead Sea.13 The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from every Old Testament book except Esther.14

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.15 The Septuagint dates from 250-150BC.16 When the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint are compared, there is essential agreement between them. The few areas of disagreement do not effect the doctrines contained in the Old Testament; the disagreements are mainly copyist errors and variations in spelling.17

LOWER, HIGHER, AND FORM CRITICISM

Lower criticism is the science of discovering the original text on the basis of imperfect copies.18 This can only be done by comparing the existing copies of the passage in question. Lower criticism is essential in the task of producing accurate translations of the Old (and New) Testaments.

Higher criticism, on the other hand, deals with ascertaining the authorship, date, and integrity of each biblical book.19 Higher criticism has been abused by liberal scholars who refuse to accept the evidence for the traditional Jewish and Christian view concerning the authorship, date, and integrity of the books of the Bible. This is due, in part, to the common antisupernaturalistic bias held by liberal scholars.20 This bias rejects the possibility of revelation from God, predictive prophecies, and miracles.

Form criticism seeks to find the oral traditions that supposedly lie behind the written documents.21 This view is highly subjective; it is often dependent upon the imagination of the scholar.

These are RELIABLE...in my book...and 1500 hundreds..over a very large area, to me, would be a great opportunity for error...yet we see none?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts



point2 - valid, point...interesting, tell me more...

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


You missed the point. Delete the portion in parentheses (just background as to who wrote them and when). I am neither supporting nor denying the accuracy of how they were passed along.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
.......I will admit that he definitely belongs in the Religious ‘Hall of Fame', but I do not believe in his divinity ....

JR, status quo?

Never would have believed it....

OT

reply to post by JaxonRoberts



ok....what's the main pt?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


Which part? The question of who wrote the Gospels and such, or my Alien/Human hybrid hypothesis?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Which part? The question of who wrote the Gospels and such, or my Alien/Human hybrid hypothesis?

Both....I'm interested....

= = = = = =

Also please see: www.equip.org...

M-A-P-S have helped me....Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, Statistics
tell me all I need to know....

Originally posted by OldThinker
Point 1 - Remember Back to the Future and the Delorian (sp?) Imagine if you were Micheal J Fox and someone asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of them...to live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
The difference between your analogy and the way the Tenakh and the New Testament were written is that the writers...read the books that preceeded their own. If the writers in your analogy were to read the book(s) before theirs before writing their own, they would much more closely resemble each other.

Does this clear up my point?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
......or my Alien/Human hybrid hypothesis?

This really is Biblical to OT....

See: bible.org...

Excerpt:

According to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12).

My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.87 The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.

The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).

We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.

When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).

In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds88 so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.

The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33:

There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.89

This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by OldThinker
Point 1 - Remember Back to the Future and the Delorian (sp?) Imagine if you were Micheal J Fox and someone asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of them...to live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
The difference between your analogy and the way the Tenakh and the New Testament were written is that the writers...read the books that preceeded their own. If the writers in your analogy were to read the book(s) before theirs before writing their own, they would much more closely resemble each other.

Does this clear up my point?

I dunno...are you are assuming librarians (sp?

with organized REFERENCE sections...???

reply to post by OldThinker


Did you really think we were going to change each others minds? It's called 'Faith' for a reason! Did make me smile though! We may not agree, but you and AshleyD are definitely my favorite 'Bible thumpers', and I mean that genuinely! You still don't stand much of a chance of converting this old 'Heathen' back to the fold! LOL!

Never did get to dinner....g2g....


I'll be back....

OT

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Did you really think we were going to change each others minds? It's called 'Faith' for a reason! Did make me smile though! We may not agree, but you and AshleyD are definitely my favorite 'Bible thumpers', and I mean that genuinely! You still don't stand much of a chance of converting this old 'Heathen' back to the fold! LOL!

the last 4 words in your post are the key!!!!!! not the lol.....:shk:


Thanks for the props...OT hungry....

reply to post by OldThinker


Just that the authors of the various books of the Bible had read and were familiar with the books that preceded theirs. As faithful followers, they continued the story along. In your DeLorian analogy, this is not the case.

I have no proof one way or another on the authenticity of whether or not the books were written by those who are credited for them, but many others have suggested this, so I was just adding that as a possibility. The Council of Nicea stands on it's own as a possibility of Biblical editing (New Testament only). Gimme a few to get back to you about the ET angle, if you would be so kind.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
.......I will admit that he definitely belongs in the Religious ‘Hall of Fame', but I do not believe in his divinity ....

JR, status quo?

Never would have believed it....

OT

Further inspiration for OT's thinking....

More:

In his famous book Mere Christianity, Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

OT, your-not-so-status-quo-old dude...


add link: www.greatcom.org...



[edit on 8-7-2009 by OldThinker]

Ran down to lobby, ordered a pizza, back...still hungry and waitin':bnghd:

OT