How to fix the family
Replies
-
Secondly, the sin in Sodom and Gamorah is actually not sexual in nature. They were breaking the rules of hospitality. That being said, they were wicked and sinful because they did not bow to God. They had gods and beliefs of their own so God gave them a death sentence.
God told Abraham that He was going to find out how sinful the Sodomites were, and if He found at least 10 good Sodomites, He would spare the city for their sakes. He sent two angels to Lot's house, Abraham's brother, and disguised them as men. The bible states, as I cited earlier, that ALL the men of Sodom came to Lot's house and demanded that he send the visitors out so that they could have sex with them. How is demanding Lot to allow them to gang-rape the visitors NOT a sexual sin?
Because the translation of the word "know" means multiple things and of all it's appearances in the OT there is a very small percentage that have a sexual connotation.
Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
The word "sex" is not in the original text. It is "so we may know them." and the word for know is usually not of a sexual connotation.
Fair enough. It does say "so we may know them" in the King James version, but remember that the translators of that era saw sex as a taboo. The name of the city Sodom is the root word for sodomy, which means "anal sex." Why would that word be derived from the city's name if they were not practicing in sexual deviancy of an anal nature?
Because sodomy is named after the mistranslation of this story.0 -
Alright... at this point, I'm just going to walk away. You guys are just mincing words and splitting hairs.
You are welcome to believe God is evil if that makes you feel better.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.
Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.
Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.
Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.
Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.
Jesus is a descendant of Lot through David's Great-Grandmother Ruth who was the descendant of Lot's son Moab, who was the oldest daughter's child.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.
Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.
Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.
Jesus is a descendant of Lot through David's Great-Grandmother Ruth who was the descendant of Lot's son Moab, who was the oldest daughter's child.
Relationship to Jesus and whatever purpose that Lot's daughters had doesn't change the fact that they sinned by committing incest.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
Is that not the defence put forward by every rapist?
Look, it is common knowledge that it was socially acceptable for women to be treated like the property of their fathers and husbands all they way up until the 19th century. Lot was offering up his property in trade to spare the angels (disguised as men) that God had sent to visit Lot. When Lot did that, the angels ordered Lot to get his family out of the city and proceeded to destroy it with fire.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.
Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.
Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.
Jesus is a descendant of Lot through David's Great-Grandmother Ruth who was the descendant of Lot's son Moab, who was the oldest daughter's child.
Relationship to Jesus and whatever purpose that Lot's daughters had doesn't change the fact that they sinned by committing incest.
Wait....so....it was okay for them to be used as a possible bargaining chip because they were going to sin in the future?0 -
Wait....so....it was okay for them to be used as a possible bargaining chip because they were going to sin in the future?
No... it was okay for them to be used as a bargaining chip because it was socially accepted in that era that women were the property of their father.0 -
Wait....so....it was okay for them to be used as a possible bargaining chip because they were going to sin in the future?
No... it was okay for them to be used as a bargaining chip because it was socially accepted in that era that women were the property of their father.Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
But, in the above you implied it.....0 -
Wait....so....it was okay for them to be used as a possible bargaining chip because they were going to sin in the future?
No... it was okay for them to be used as a bargaining chip because it was socially accepted in that era that women were the property of their father.Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
But, in the above you implied it.....
No... in that instance, I was pointing out that the daughters of Lot brought the socially accepted sinful ways of Sodom out of Sodom.
You took only part of what I said in an attempt to change its context.0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.
Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.
Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.
Here is the entire exchange.....where were you making your point about Sodomite behavior?0 -
Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"
Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.
No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.
And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?
The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.
Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.
Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.
Here is the entire exchange.....where were you making your point about Sodomite behavior?
You're right... I didn't make that point in this exchange... I made it WAAAAAAAY back on page 3...You keep skipping past the point that it was not that God did not prevent these people in the bible from dying, his direct actions or orders led to their death. I do not believe that anyone here is saying that no one should ever die. We just ask that our God not kill us out of sport.
I actually did reply to this earlier. You sort of missed it because I had replied to Lucky and it moved the thread to another page. Anyway, I'm going to break this down.Also, he wasn't just smiting the wicked. All those Egyptian first born were not wicked.
The Egyptians, as a whole, were oppressing the Israelites. God hates oppression in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, he gives the Hebrews instructions on how to treat slaves. They are only allowed to keep them for a limited amount of time, and then the slave can stay if he chooses to after that time frame has ended. When the Hebrews came to Egypt, they were welcomed as favor to Joseph for saving them from famine, but once Joseph was gone, the subsequent generations forgot that favor. The Pharoah was asked many times to allow the Israelites to leave, but he, and his people, were greedy and wanted to keep the Hebrews and continue to relish in the wealth the Hebrews were creating for them while keeping them in poor conditions and treating them abysmally. The Pharoah refused to let the Israelites leave over and over in spite of whatever his kingdom was subjected to. He was not moved when the water turned to blood. He was not moved when the frogs, gnats, and flies overwhelmed their homes. He was not moved when the livestock got sick or when the people were covered in painful boils. He was not moved when hail destroyed their homes or when locusts came and destroyed all of the crops. After all that, he just continued to oppress the Hebrews.
Have you ever known an addict or an alcoholic? Addicts and alcoholics will continue to do wrong no matter how badly it affects others... over and over and over. When do they finally stop? When they lose something far too precious to make the sacrifice seem worth it. So... that is what God had to do to Pharoah and the Egyptians (because the Egyptians begged Pharoah not to let the Hebrews leave). He had to take the firstborn of Egypt so that they would comply (this also an example of how the relationship between God and humans is like parent and child).
I'd also like to add that in Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, God often reiterates a command to treat foreigners with love and respect because the Hebrews were also once foreigners in Egypt.Not everyone in Sodom or Gomorrah were wicked.
Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.Job's family was not wicked.
The very first chapter of Job talks about how Job's sons would make feasts and have celebrations and Job's daughters would join them, and then Job would have to purify his children. Now, it's not directly stated, but it's pretty easy to deduce that Job's children were having sex with each other which was sinful. So yes, Job's children were wicked, and God punished them for their wickedness, and in the process to test Job's faith. Part of the reason why it is not directly stated that Job's children were sinning and being punished for their sins is because the whole purpose of the book of Job is to demonstrate how God rewards the faithful and not how God punishes the wicked. God knew that losing his children would hurt Job, and He didn't wish to hurt Job. But his children were wicked and were not going to change. So as long as Job proved he had more faith, love, and obedience than his wicked children, then Job was blessed with more children so that he could start over.Not everyone on the planet who died in the Biblical floods were wicked.
Alright... I'm going to quote my bible directly here.
Gen 6:5-6 "The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they though or imagined was consistently and totally evil. So the Lord was sorry he had ever made them and put them on the earth. It broke his heart."
You ever start a project and then somewhere in the process realized that something went terribly wrong and the whole thing was ruined. That's what happened here. Just as with Sodom and Gomorrah, the children were just as corrupted as the parents. I'm sure you are familiar with the expression "a few bad apples ruins the whole bunch."Not every inhabitant of Canaan which were slaughtered in the Israelite invasion/conquest were wicked.
Just like in the previous arguments, it is often mentioned throughout Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy that the Canaanites were sinful, and just as I stated in previous arguments, the children were corrupted as well.
God doesn't like to destroy His creation. It clearly states that way back in Genesis, but just as you proclaim that evil should never be tolerated, God does not tolerate it. For each of those communities, the sinful ways became so commonplace that there wasn't anyway to save anyone from it. That is until Christ. And because it pains God to have to destroy His creation for the sake of evil, that is why He gave His son to die for all the evils of the world so that He would not have to destroy people for the sake of evil ever again.0 -
Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.
Ah, I remember this. If Lot's children were so corrupted by the wickedness Sodom and Gomorrah (even though it is now argued that there is a mistranslation to the exchange about "knowing" them), then why were the descendents of that sinful reunion allowed to continue into fruitful cultures that even shared lineage with David and Jesus?
btw, part of the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were so vilified in the OT was because the Israelites fought wars with and against them.0 -
Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.
Ah, I remember this. If Lot's children were so corrupted by the wickedness Sodom and Gomorrah (even though it is now argued that there is a mistranslation to the exchange about "knowing" them), then why were the descendents of that sinful reunion allowed to continue into fruitful cultures that even shared lineage with David and Jesus?
Jesus is noted as the only man that ever walked the earth without sin. His existence was to establish a direct relationship between God and mankind. He is an advocate for the sinner. How can he properly advocate for sinners if his entire geneaology were sin-free? After all, David was a sinner too.btw, part of the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were so vilified in the OT was because the Israelites fought wars with and against them.
This isn't even true. Abraham's son, Jacob, was the progenitor of the Israelites. The Israelites were his descendants and they were called that because Jacob's name was changed to Israel. They did not even exist in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.0 -
Not everyone in Sodom or Gomorrah were wicked.
Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.
Im sorry but Lot was righteous? He offered his virgin daughters up to be gang rapped and then slept with them himself. They weren't corrupted by Sodom they were corrupted by a father willing to turn them over to a group of men intent on rape. Also by that logic if the children of Sodom would grow up to be wicked simpley for having wicked parents then we should put to death.children of murders because they grew up with a nut they by default will be a nut.
eta: I saw where you said lots daughters might have wanted it having already been corrupted by Sodom. well then if god was punishing the wicked of Sodom an they were already corrupted why were they spared? how did they manage to stay virgins if they were so corrupt? and last but not least a righteous man would not have sex with his kids no matter how drunk he was.0 -
lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.0
-
Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.
Ah, I remember this. If Lot's children were so corrupted by the wickedness Sodom and Gomorrah (even though it is now argued that there is a mistranslation to the exchange about "knowing" them), then why were the descendents of that sinful reunion allowed to continue into fruitful cultures that even shared lineage with David and Jesus?
Jesus is noted as the only man that ever walked the earth without sin. His existence was to establish a direct relationship between God and mankind. He is an advocate for the sinner. How can he properly advocate for sinners if his entire geneaology were sin-free? After all, David was a sinner too.btw, part of the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were so vilified in the OT was because the Israelites fought wars with and against them.
This isn't even true. Abraham's son, Jacob, was the progenitor of the Israelites. The Israelites were his descendants and they were called that because Jacob's name was changed to Israel. They did not even exist in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus being the only sinless man on earth depends on which gospel you read. There were plenty gospels that were not chosen to be included in the bible that showed Jesus struggling with both his humanity and divinity (ie The Infancy Gospel of Thomas).
As was pointed out above, if Sodom and Gomorrah were so wicked that they had to be purged from creation AND Lot's daughters were corrupted by this wickedness, why were their offspring spared from this purge? Surely they would have continued on with their wickedness.
As far as Jacob being the progenitor of the Israelites, that tribe/tribes existed before Jacob and it was the same people even if they were going by a different name. Abram did battle with and against the kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sorry that I miscalled them Israelites when they were going by a different name at the time.0 -
lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.
Erm...actually there's quite a lot of proof of the existence of both; it's the particular interpretation of the events/actions that can't conclusively be proved, and have to be taken on the basis of faith by those who subscribe to Christianity (and Judaism in the case of the Flood).0 -
I just want to say this, and then I'm walking away from this conversation, mainly because I've just grown weary of it.
You can pick apart the old testament and identify all the events that you think prove your point, and there are lots of them. The OT was written to instill fear into the Hebrews and deter them from sinning. The ancient Hebrews lived in a cold, cruel world, and the customs for obtaining forgiveness then demanded blood and sacrifice (loss of something important to you). God wanted the Hebrews to fear Him, but He also wanted them to love Him. So He made the ultimate sacrifice out of love, the same sacrifice that Abraham was willing to make, to cover the sins of all of humanity. This is the God that Christians worship. Christians are supposed to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ from the new testament, and not the old testament. Sure, there are lots of people that proclaim to be Christians that fail to live their lives the way Christ taught. They judge, ridicule, condemn, and in general, are not tolerant of others. But, they are sinners too. Unfortunately, human beings will never attain perfection. As someone attempting to practice the principles of Jesus Christ's teachings, I have to believe that God will work in their lives to eventually help them to become better Christians.
You can believe what you will, but my God is a God of love, peace, understanding, and forgiveness. I disregard all that was in the old testament because while God may have done some things that were detestable according to modern society's standards, God has forgiven me, and I can forgive Him in turn.0 -
lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.
Erm...actually there's quite a lot of proof of the existence of both; it's the particular interpretation of the events/actions that can't conclusively be proved, and have to be taken on the basis of faith by those who subscribe to Christianity (and Judaism in the case of the Flood).
Actually, there is very little non-biblical evidence of Jesus. Much of it is circumstantial or misconstrued. For example, the term 'Christ' or Messiah in Hebrew was not only applied to Jesus but also to multiple other leaders of Messianic movements. Another is that the term 'Chrestus' was also used to refer to the Greco-Egyptian God Serapis. Serapis was a popular Pagan god amongst the common people of Rome and were often referred to as....Christians.
As far as the flood, they have found geological evidence of a large flood in the region after the Black Sea burst out of the Dardanelles or Hellespont. This event is believed to have been the source of the multitude of world ending floods present in mythologies around the region. I will also state that floods are not present in the mythology of other regions.0 -
I just want to say this, and then I'm walking away from this conversation, mainly because I've just grown weary of it.
You can pick apart the old testament and identify all the events that you think prove your point, and there are lots of them. The OT was written to instill fear into the Hebrews and deter them from sinning. The ancient Hebrews lived in a cold, cruel world, and the customs for obtaining forgiveness then demanded blood and sacrifice (loss of something important to you). God wanted the Hebrews to fear Him, but He also wanted them to love Him. So He made the ultimate sacrifice out of love, the same sacrifice that Abraham was willing to make, to cover the sins of all of humanity. This is the God that Christians worship. Christians are supposed to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ from the new testament, and not the old testament. Sure, there are lots of people that proclaim to be Christians that fail to live their lives the way Christ taught. They judge, ridicule, condemn, and in general, are not tolerant of others. But, they are sinners too. Unfortunately, human beings will never attain perfection. As someone attempting to practice the principles of Jesus Christ's teachings, I have to believe that God will work in their lives to eventually help them to become better Christians.
You can believe what you will, but my God is a God of love, peace, understanding, and forgiveness. I disregard all that was in the old testament because while God may have done some things that were detestable according to modern society's standards, God has forgiven me, and I can forgive Him in turn.
You say that the Old Testament was written to inspire fear. This flies in the face of it being true. If it is not an account of real events, then it puts the entire New Testament into question since the New Testament is built upon prophecy in the Old Testament.
Also, I must ask, if Jesus existed and his teachings of love and respect for each other are true, does his divinity really matter?0 -
lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.
Erm...actually there's quite a lot of proof of the existence of both; it's the particular interpretation of the events/actions that can't conclusively be proved, and have to be taken on the basis of faith by those who subscribe to Christianity (and Judaism in the case of the Flood).
Actually, there is very little non-biblical evidence of Jesus. Much of it is circumstantial or misconstrued. For example, the term 'Christ' or Messiah in Hebrew was not only applied to Jesus but also to multiple other leaders of Messianic movements. Another is that the term 'Chrestus' was also used to refer to the Greco-Egyptian God Serapis. Serapis was a popular Pagan god amongst the common people of Rome and were often referred to as....Christians.
As far as the flood, they have found geological evidence of a large flood in the region after the Black Sea burst out of the Dardanelles or Hellespont. This event is believed to have been the source of the multitude of world ending floods present in mythologies around the region. I will also state that floods are not present in the mythology of other regions.
My understanding is that there is significant evidence (including but not limited to geological re. the flood), to support both as actual historical happenings/people, though it's impossible, or at least highly improbable, to 'prove' that the biblical stories happened as described. I'm aware of the various potentials for confusion re. Christus/Messiahs/Serapis etc, but will try to find some material I can point you to online, which you may find interesting, as my information is predominantly from various academic libraries outwith the USA eg. not necessarily published online.0 -
I came here to post something about why Paul told women to keep their heads covered in church, but ran across two or three other points touched on in this funny and irreverently-written page on the history of the New Testament canon: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/014838.html#014838Let’s see: other fun books. There’s The Adventures of Superboy [strike that] The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This one didn’t even come close to making it into the bible. It consists of three sets of three miracles and three lessons, and has the child Jesus throwing one of His little friends off the roof of His house then raising him from the dead (among other astounding things).
And:[Athanasius's] criteria for selecting books for the Old Testament were these: Since he didn’t read Hebrew, they had to come from the Septuagint (a bunch of Hebrew religious writing that had been translated into Greek by seventy scholars, hence its name). The books he selected were those that either a) included the genealogy of Jesus, or b) contained prophecies that were fulfilled in the New Testament.
So when you hear someone say that the New Testament must be true because of all the prophecies from the Old Testament that are fulfilled in it, the answer is, “Well, yeah.”
This the part I was going to mention about women in church was this:Speaking of tours of Heaven and Hell, there’s the Book of Enoch. This is in the Old Testament of the Ethiopian Church, but didn’t make it into Athanasius’s list. (Since Ethiopia didn’t belong to the Empire they didn’t care.) Enoch himself gets about one line in Genesis. But it’s in the Book of Enoch, all about his adventures after being taken up to Heaven by the angel Uriel and told the secret history, that we get the story of the Watcher Angels. Angels, as I’m sure everyone knows, get all turned on when they see human women’s hair and they go on and seduce and boink those women. The women then have children who turn out to be man-eating giants (don’t you hate when that happens?) Which is where the “giants in the earth” come from in Genesis (right before the story of the Flood). Didn’t make the cut because it doesn’t include the genealogy of Jesus or any New Testament prophecies but this story, the Book of Enoch, would have been known to Paul and he’d have no way of knowing that it would be left out of orthodox scripture a few centuries later; that’s why he admonishes women in church to cover their hair, because angels hang out around churches and you don’t want them to pull out the flowers and chocolates, do you?
But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. … Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthians 11:5-10
Granted, the danger of angels being sexually attracted to uncovered women in church is not the only reason Paul gives in 1 Corinthians, but it's one of them and an illustration of how silly it is to apply his strictures in our culture without understanding where they come from. As I recall, the canonical New Testament also refers to the Book of Enoch in Jude's epistle. All the more reason to think that Jude's condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah's "turning after alien flesh" is concerned with sex between humans and angels, not human homosexuality.0 -
And for what it's worth. Ezekiel 16:49, 50:Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.…"0
-
There is plenty of geological evidence of various local floods. There is zero geological evidence of a world-wide flood as described in Genesis.0
-
There is plenty of geological evidence of various local floods. There is zero geological evidence of a world-wide flood as described in Genesis.
This is pretty much what I was saying while also stating the the breach of the Hellespont was a particularly catastrophic episode.
Thank you for your other replies. I always enjoy the amount of research you do.0 -
I love this:You can believe what you will, but my God is a God of love, peace, understanding, and forgiveness. I disregard all that was in the old testament because while God may have done some things that were detestable according to modern society's standards, God has forgiven me, and I can forgive Him in turn.
Thanks for that, UsedtobeHusky!0 -
...
*edited to retract0
