You are not logged in.
Not in the the Gnostic way. The Bible speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Word {Jesus}being God and being with God when He created the earth. Jesus is also the reflection of God His Father. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." <BR> <BR>So to say the OT was speaking of someone other than those three, would be polytheismism the way the Gnostics spoke of it.
Offline
Bob, no matter how you try, the further you go back in the history of Christianity, the more clearly you see that there was never a single Christianity. You may see it as many coexisting sects, or you may see it as a diverse church with little dogma. It was only a couple of centuries later that one sect dominated the others and it is for that simple reason that we consider this one to constitute orthodoxy. If Marcion's (or any other) faction had won, Christianity would look different today. I am not advocating Marcionism in any way, but he had a good point. By calling him a heretic you do not disarm his argument that the YHWH of Leviticus or Joshua is as incompatible with the God of Jesus as it was during Marcion's time. At the same time, Marcion took Pauline letters much more seriously than any modern Christian denomination.
Offline
Personally, I don't see the incompatibility. Obedience as an issue being punished more immediately , and childlike followers were more prominent in the OT. You have to admit, that when Moses went up Mount Sinai, the children of Israel truly were children with something akin to ADHD or Attention Deficit Disorder, Eh???
Offline
That's how the story of Moses goes, Bob, however bear in mind that none of it happened in a historical sense - there was in reality no exodus, and it is part of a founding myth. In fact, in the Pentateuch stories not only the Israelites are like kids, their God is also rather immature, compared to the God of Jesus. Which was exactly Marcion's point.
Offline
Marcion strips the current version of the Bible of alot of recognized scripture. Sorry, I believe in an Exodus, not a myth. I'm not prepared to shake my fist at God and label him immature, but each to his own. More chaos is created your may and Marcion's way. Since Moses was the writer about Egypt and the Exodus, I would believe it historically more so, than if someone else 100s of years later had written about it. <BR> <BR>Because God doesn't meet your view or image of God, is not the issue. God is trying to show he created man in His image. With all the personality facets, of love, justice, anger, jealousy, and love for his created beings. He could have destroyed man, and been justified, at the fall in Eden, the fact He did not, gives even more justification for punishment like the flood, the ups and downs of the Israelites in their travel to the Promised land.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">Sorry, I believe in an Exodus, not a myth. I'm not prepared to shake my fist at God</font> <BR> <BR> <BR>maybe the cause of the problem is not God, but His self claimed biographers who seem to been obsessed with self aggrandizement in some of their stories... <BR> <BR>like the Exodus...which may never have happened!!! <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.concentric.net/~Worgar/exodus.htm" target=_top>http://www.concentric.net/~Worgar/exodus.htm</a> <BR> <BR><font color="ff6000">The controversy surrounding the alleged enslavement and exodus is not new. Sources dating back to 400 BCE already contained conflicting accounts of the Israelites' origins and supposed expulsion from Egypt because they were diseased (1). As early as 1100 CE, a church father noticed radical errors in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible or "Old Testament") and concluded that Moses could not have written these accounts (2). Of course, the church, in the fine tradition of Christianity, threatened to kill this man if he did not retract this finding. <BR> <BR>Recently, the archeologists Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (director of historical interpretation, Ename Center for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium) summarized the archeological findings and latest corrections regarding the historical origins of the Jewish nation. <BR> <BR>In their words, <BR>...<i>"The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan"</i> (3). <BR> <BR>Finkelstein and Silberman point out that there is still no evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Moses, and Joshua. There is no evidence that Jewish people existed as an identified people that were enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence that over 600,000 men (plus women and children - the number could have been over a million) had an exodus from Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years. According to the Bible, 38 of these 40 years were actually spent encamped at Kadesh-barnea. This area has been turned upside down for decades, looking for even a tiny piece of pottery from this supposed time. It is not likely that this many people would have lived here this long and not left archeological evidence. <BR> <BR>The archeological evidence contradicts the Biblical theme of Joshua taking control of the Israelites from Moses and conquering Canaan. For example, the Egyptians had a strong presence in Canaan at this time, yet the Biblical accounts make no mention of this. The Biblical themes of the origins of Israel are myths. Like the gospel accounts of the New Testament, they were fabricated in later times and inserted into earlier times as a tool of religious and political propagandists (2, 4, 5). <BR> <BR>One thing is certain. If a god existed, it could not be the god of the Bible or any religion claiming origins from the Bible. Any self-respecting god of average wisdom would not want to be held responsible for inspiring such a collection of myths and ridiculous sayings.</font> <BR> <BR>...in addition, why would any God who wants us to love Him allow Himself to be depicted as the worlds biggest mass killer? <BR> <BR><a href="http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-many-has-god-killed-revised_04.html" target=_top>http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/ho w-many-has-god-killed-revised_04.html</a> <BR> <BR>possible answer? the writers of the stories in their unsophisticated, unscientific ignorance may have used "literary" techniques in their writings, including exaggeration, misdirection, as well as "creative" interpretation. (they made stories up as edutainment for their kids around the campfire)
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Maybe that last link and post had the content it does because he is an athiest: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>By WAYNE EVERETT ORGAR <BR> <BR>I was born in Rochester, NY in 1952 and was raised in a fundamental evangelical Christian family. Although I was involved in many church activities as a young person, I became an atheist in my mid-twenties. Trumpet playing and a love for jazz occupied my early years. My BA (1974) was from the State University of New York at Fredonia, NY, where I started out as a music major. I changed my major to Psychology with a minor in Philosophy. Later, I earned an MA from the University of Georgia with a major in Rehabilitation Counseling (1983). I also completed a Master of Science in Occupational Therapy from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO (1998). <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
either that or the auhor became an athiest by finding out that what he had been told just is not demonstrably correct. <BR> <BR>then add in the fact that Finklestein he quotes is a Jew...a Bible scholar AND a well known archeologist, and even he says the Old Test tale of Moses and the Exodus just cannot be proven from the evidence. <BR> <BR>who are we to argue????? <BR> <BR>and why genuflect so readily to Moses...wasn't he the absolute first one ever to break all 10 C's at the same time? <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2362.jpg" alt="">
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, you pick this piece, because, there are no other archeological finds to prove the Exodus or it fits your line of reasoning? If Isaiah refers to the Exodus and the Jews salvation, must be a lie and another book bites the dust??? Why not be upfront that there are detractors and others who have "proof" of the event. <BR> <BR>Congradulations on your faith in those that disprove what the Bible states. Maybe you can now take all those that have proof and disprove them for us, eh???? Maybe start with this picture of a chariot at the bottom of the Red Sea: <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2365.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR><a href="http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm" target=_top>http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm</a>
Offline
Bob, <BR> <BR>I don't think you took this picture, so please reveal who did... thanks!
Offline
Read the article, link given and it will state who. You are correct, I am not the researcher that took that picture, but by looking through the article, citation given, you can easily determine who did. Thanks. I try to always give citations and/or links, unlike some on the forum.
Offline
Sorry, Bob, I was only teasing you. I knew it was Ron Wyatt, a self-styled Adventist Indiana Jones, who also "discovered" the following: <BR> <BR>- Noah's Ark <BR>- Anchor stones used by Noah on the Ark <BR>- The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife <BR>- The location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other (3) Cities of the Plain: Zoar, Zeboim and Admah <BR>- Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah <BR>- The Tower of Babel site <BR>- The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea <BR>- The true site of the biblical Mt. Sinai <BR>- The rock at Mt Horeb (the rock Moses struck, and water flowed out) <BR>- The true site of Korah’s earthquake. <BR>- A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's Temple <BR>- The site of the Crucifixion of Jesus <BR>- The Ark of the Covenant (container with the Ten Commandments) <BR>- The original stones of the Ten Commandments (the second set) <BR>- A sample of Christ’s blood, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, directly beneath the Crucifixion site <BR> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt</a> <BR> <BR>Is the warning light beginning to flash? No wonder, Wyatt was a nurse and not a professional archeologist, and the only proof of his findings he ever provided was either his own words, or at best some blurred and probably doctored photos. Which explains why real archeology does not even refer to his findings - it's impossible to evaluate something that only exists in someone's imagination! <BR> <BR>Any wonder even his own church distanced itself from his fidings? No, Wyat simply cannot be taken seriously, and is yet another example of "Lying for Jesus". <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage21.htm" target=_top>http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling /newpage21.htm</a> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/" target=_top>http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/</a> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyattwho.html" target=_top>http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyattwho.html</a> <BR> <BR>I think you owe the users of this forum a big apology...
Offline
Another scientist pointed out that Wyatt has not always been accurate but points out that other discoveries have some merit. I think there are other scientists like that on both sides of the creation/evolution discussion. No apology, you say nothing of the chariot wheels. Can you disprove them?? Has someone disproved them? You want to throw out books of the Bible based on your interpretation, while you think Moses was wrong you also would have to through out other OT books that refer to the Exodus salvation of the Jews. You noticably do not discuss this ramification. Hoaxes have been found on the evolutionary side, but I don't see you clamoring for their defrocking as scientists, eh???
Offline
Here is a brief review of Wyatt's claims. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm" target=_top>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-whe els.htm</a> <BR> <BR>Some more interesting comments here where the "chariot wheels" bear an astounding resemblance to bronze steamship wheels. <a href="http://www.danielle-movie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1005" target=_top>http://www.danielle-movie.com/forums/showthread.ph p?t=1005</a>
Offline
Bob, after reading the link that John posted from tentmaker.org I would say that you are being very generous to say that Wyatt has "not always been accurate." Joseph Smith has "not always been accurate" and Benny Hinn has "not always been accurate." But, since they sometimes told the truth, do you propose that we should trust what they have/had to say? <BR> <BR>If you were evaluating a financial analyst who was a liar and a fraud, you wouldn't trust him for guidance for anything at all. It appears to me to be only wishful thinking that causes you to give some level of credibility to this con man.
Offline
Bob, <BR>It's impossible to disprove claims for which no support has been given. Can you disprove that Jospeh Smith found gold tablets? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Wyatt provided nothing at all. One has to extremely naive to believe people like him. <BR> <BR>As for me, I simply read not even what secular scholars have to say about Wyatt, it was sufficient to read what the Christian conservatives say. <BR> <BR>Oh, and of course, anyone who tries to con others deserves to be condemned. Scientist or not, evolutionist or creationist. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Jag on January 03, 2010) <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Jag on January 03, 2010)
Offline
Well, Egypt took care of any further scientific research to prove or disprove the chariot wheel, because of their ban on surfacing any artifacts. <BR> <BR>If Art and JAG wish the kind of reasoning put forth above, then the whole SDA church that started believing in date setting and other such things as the "Shut door", we should throw out the whole church, since they have been false numerous times, and EGW use to be into "holy laughter", right???? <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw69.htm" target=_top>http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw69.htm</a>
Offline
Bob, <BR> <BR>As a minimum, the church should at least have learned that any date setting is wrong. <BR> <BR>But please do not distract. Can you provide ANY proof whatsoever why we should believe Wyatt? Where is the ark of covenant that he found? The blood of Jesus? Noah's ark? 10 commandments tablets? Can you prove they were any more than a figment of his imagination? If we believe Wyatt, does it mean we should believe anyone who says anything exciting without proof? Of should we believe Wyatt because you are giving us your word? <BR> <BR>Are you seriously saying that a blurred photo proves the exodus? <BR> <BR>Evolution is infinitely better established than this, with almost unlimited evidence, and you still seem to have a problem accepting it. <BR> <BR>Would it be wrong to imagine that you easily believe claims that are in agreement with your own preexisting views, while anything that doesn't agree with your views is discarded, no matter how well proven? <BR> <BR>Don't be offended, Bob, but the word to describe this is naivety.
Offline
"naivety"? <BR> <BR>or <a href="http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html" target="_blank">...willfull ignorance...</a> <BR> <BR>(note: the above is a LINK!!! it may be clicked to take you to a web site which shows how geology disproves creationism. My bet? many folks, including Bob will NOT go there. against his religion. doesn't want to know the facts. mof, doesn't NEED to know the facts. with enuf HOPE....why would anybody want to know facts...which might undermine HOPE.) <BR> <BR>ie, if the evidence and facts disagree with preconceived beliefs, they must be disregarded. <BR> <BR>It doesn't necessarily mean that those who do this are "ignorant" in the sense we use the word today, but they ARE IGNORING what they don't want to know. <BR> <BR>But eventually, the need to understand may motivate even nice people like Elin Woods to take out a driver and take out the driver to emphasize the fact that the facts are the facts, in fact. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.tigerwoodscheated.com/" target=_top>http://www.tigerwoodscheated.com/</a> <BR>ps: notice the rear glass in shreds....while the accident with the tree was in the front!!!! <BR> <BR>Could that be like why I'm unhappy over having been cheated out of my youth by having been spoon feed such wonderful, believable ignorance? and maybe that forms part of my motivation to help others avoid the shock of finding out the facts? <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2406.jpg" alt="">}
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
The two of you need to openly look at Evolution and their own hoaxes, composite skulls put together by hucksters. I have said all along that microevolution is a proven fact. But Macroevolution has never been proved and I ask both of you to indisputably prove it. <BR> <BR>I could care less about Ron Wyatt, not trying to start a fan club, as you guys are for all evolutionists. If someone says they have the answer to origins and hides the answer in equations only select scientists can understand, I raise questions, while some accept the "naive" answers on this forum and thread. <BR> <BR>As I have said before, my word, JAG's, or John's are not that important, but the TRUE scientist, be they creationists or evolutionists. The trend toward humanism ought to concern those who have hope of an afterlife as promised in the Bible. If the Bible is no longer your guide to salvation, what is your purpose debating here, to take us all down with you??
Offline
John, any of your links that automatically state millions and billions of years old for life, I take with a grain of salt, look at the discovery and see if the time stated is subjective, due to the subjectivity of the dating systems, give or take millions of years. For you to state your links have the facts and any apologist source have no answers takes away from your credentials as a scientist. Where proclaimed discoveries are stored or hidden, are valid questions, but not to declare them a fraud until a reasonable time passes, and any other researchers with that researcher are given opportunity to produce what was found. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on January 05, 2010)
Offline
Bob, you said: <BR> <BR><b><font color="0000ff">If the Bible is no longer your guide to salvation, what is your purpose debating here, to take us all down with you?? </font></b> <BR> <BR>The Bible was written to guide us to salvation; it was never intended as a scientific textbook. Where do you get the idea that it was written to inform us today of the latest science? <BR> <BR>God gave us our intellect (along with many that are brighter) so we would study and learn more, not that all our knowledge and learning should be limited by the Bible. If so, why go to school or get advanced education if it can all be learned from the Bible? Is the Bible ever intended to be a complete encyclopedia on all known subjects? What gives anyone the authority to make that deduction? Did you learn that in your studies in school--that the Bible was the total answer to every possible question?
Offline
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." Ian Rand
Offline
Come on guys, if you want to dedicate your life solely to the study of the latest medicine with no interest in the afterlife, you get no argument from me that you don't turn soley to the Bible, if at all. But if you want answers about the Plan of Salvation and the anecdotal stories from beginning to end, the Bible is essential. <BR> <BR>To deny the Exodus without reasonable evidence to do so, places you prejudice against the Bible. I am not ready to take that step. <BR> <BR>John, as far as your suggestion that you have given me final answers on any subject are interesting but far fetched.
Offline
Bob, <BR> <BR>I doubt the historicity of Exodus, true. But I do not do it "without reasonable evidence". On the contrary. There is absolutely no evidence to support it, nothing (except Ron Wyatt's photo, of course!). Despite the fact that modern archeaology can trace an overnight nomads' camp thousands of years old. How come those millions of Israelites wondered in the wilderness for 40 years and left behind not a single broken bowl, campfire or burial site? Well, probably because it was not a historical event. When you consider that the exodus story was first written about half a millennium after it supposedly happened, you will get things in perspective and realise how much the story would have changed when it was still passed down orally. It was only after being written down centuries later that it became fixed and more or less unchangeable. <BR> <BR>This is not prejudice against the Bible, it's just realising how it was written, and that it is not a scientific textbook as much as it is not a history textbook. This in no way diminishes the significance of the exodus story on a theological, non-literal level.
Offline