| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2007 09:34:45 AM |
| Object: |
Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
John 6:14-15 "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone."
Note 1: They referred to Jesus as "that prophet," as if it were
special.
Note 2: They said He was the prophet "that should come into the
world." This would indicate a prophecy being fulfilled and uniqueness
to Christ.
Note 3: This conclusion led them to want to make Him KING, which
would imply this prophecy said this prophet would be King, which could
ONLY reply to Isaiah 9:6-7 about one also being called God.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Rhomal" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
29 Aug 2007 12:34:11 PM |
|
|
On Aug 29, 10:34 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
John 6:14-15 "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone."
What I find interesting is how current xians can use text that has
been proven to be mistranslated and added to (too force various points
of view where none existed in the original text) to verify their
opinions/beliefs. Thats sort of like myself taking a text, adding/
editing my own parts to it, then pointing to it to prove a point with
the logic 'it says so right here!'
*shrugs* My 2 coppers
-Strauss
www.witchescodex.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
29 Aug 2007 06:16:10 PM |
|
|
"Rhomal" <harlemaximus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188408851.405922.210370@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 10:34 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
John 6:14-15 "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone."
What I find interesting is how current xians can use text that has
been proven to be mistranslated and added to (too force various points
of view where none existed in the original text) to verify their
opinions/beliefs. Thats sort of like myself taking a text, adding/
editing my own parts to it, then pointing to it to prove a point with
the logic 'it says so right here!'
*shrugs* My 2 coppers
God lovers believe what they 'want' to believe - not real facts or evidence.
-Strauss
www.witchescodex.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
30 Aug 2007 12:13:58 PM |
|
|
On 2007-08-30 00:16:10 +0100, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
"Rhomal" <harlemaximus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188408851.405922.210370@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 10:34 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
John 6:14-15 "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone."
What I find interesting is how current xians can use text that has
been proven to be mistranslated and added to (too force various points
of view where none existed in the original text) to verify their
opinions/beliefs. Thats sort of like myself taking a text, adding/
editing my own parts to it, then pointing to it to prove a point with
the logic 'it says so right here!'
*shrugs* My 2 coppers
God lovers believe what they 'want' to believe - not real facts or evidence.
Everybody believes what they want to believe Bill. You especially.
-Strauss
www.witchescodex.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
30 Aug 2007 07:45:54 AM |
|
|
On Aug 29, 6:16 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Rhomal" <harlemaxi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188408851.405922.210370@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 10:34 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
John 6:14-15 "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone."
What I find interesting is how current xians can use text that has
been proven to be mistranslated and added to (too force various points
of view where none existed in the original text) to verify their
opinions/beliefs. Thats sort of like myself taking a text, adding/
editing my own parts to it, then pointing to it to prove a point with
the logic 'it says so right here!'
*shrugs* My 2 coppers
God lovers believe what they 'want' to believe - not real facts or evidence.
-Strauss
www.witchescodex.net
Scripture is evidence...it is a historical source. Or, do you
advocate throwing out EVERYTHING in history books that cannot be
proven with a primary document (most B.C. history would be chucked)?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhomal" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
30 Aug 2007 10:46:45 AM |
|
|
Scripture is evidence...it is a historical source. Or, do you
Actually "evidence" or "historical source" has to be based upon fact
to be credible. The bible is not. It is well written opinion, point of
view, fiction and parables with SOME fact (and some of those 'facts'
exaggerated, built upon or simply mistranslated) thrown in for good
measure. A book that should be taken figuratively, not literally.
Thus, that makes it FAR from a historical end all be all source, as
much as that is a bitter pill to swallow for some.
advocate throwing out EVERYTHING in history books that cannot be
proven with a primary document (most B.C. history would be chucked)?
It is simply NOT fact until proven. There are many THEORIES, and it is
fair to call it such, about the eras of BCE and indeed some have been
proved with archeology hard data/evidence (buried cities, artwork,
jewelry, mummies, weapons, etc). But using ONE source that has been
proven to be just as inaccurate as such (if not more so) as your all
end all be all is foolish and ignorant IMO. And wouldn't hold up to
any kind of true scientific inquiry which requires many sources to
move from theory to fact.
However, with your logic then I have to assume you thus believe in
Atlantis ( Plato wrote about it and has just as much credibility as
the bible by your own logic), UFOs (tons and tons of written sworn
accounts), ghosts (a lot of hard data as well such as pics, sworn
accounts, audio and visual recordings, and so on).
So with that said I am interested in knowing how you reconcile your
belief in the bible with ghosts, Atlantis and UFOs which you must also
see as true?
Strauss
www.witchescodex.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
30 Aug 2007 12:59:26 PM |
|
|
On Aug 30, 10:46 am, Rhomal <harlemaxi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Scripture is evidence...it is a historical source. Or, do you
Actually "evidence" or "historical source" has to be based upon fact
to be credible. The bible is not. It is well written opinion, point of
view, fiction and parables with SOME fact (and some of those 'facts'
exaggerated, built upon or simply mistranslated) thrown in for good
measure. A book that should be taken figuratively, not literally.
Thus, that makes it FAR from a historical end all be all source, as
much as that is a bitter pill to swallow for some.
advocate throwing out EVERYTHING in history books that cannot be
proven with a primary document (most B.C. history would be chucked)?
It is simply NOT fact until proven. There are many THEORIES, and it is
fair to call it such, about the eras of BCE and indeed some have been
proved with archeology hard data/evidence (buried cities, artwork,
jewelry, mummies, weapons, etc). But using ONE source that has been
proven to be just as inaccurate as such (if not more so) as your all
end all be all is foolish and ignorant IMO. And wouldn't hold up to
any kind of true scientific inquiry which requires many sources to
move from theory to fact.
However, with your logic then I have to assume you thus believe in
Atlantis ( Plato wrote about it and has just as much credibility as
the bible by your own logic), UFOs (tons and tons of written sworn
accounts), ghosts (a lot of hard data as well such as pics, sworn
accounts, audio and visual recordings, and so on).
So with that said I am interested in knowing how you reconcile your
belief in the bible with ghosts, Atlantis and UFOs which you must also
see as true?
Strausswww.witchescodex.net
Actually, it has been proven true many times. Even Josephus and other
historians back the events happening. But, you are dodging the
question. Do you think we should throw out every historical document
that doesn't have an original text to be referenced?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhomal" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
31 Aug 2007 02:51:33 PM |
|
|
On Aug 30, 1:59 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:46 am, Rhomal <harlemaxi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Scripture is evidence...it is a historical source. Or, do you
Actually "evidence" or "historical source" has to be based upon fact
to be credible. The bible is not. It is well written opinion, point of
view, fiction and parables with SOME fact (and some of those 'facts'
exaggerated, built upon or simply mistranslated) thrown in for good
measure. A book that should be taken figuratively, not literally.
Thus, that makes it FAR from a historical end all be all source, as
much as that is a bitter pill to swallow for some.
advocate throwing out EVERYTHING in history books that cannot be
proven with a primary document (most B.C. history would be chucked)?
It is simply NOT fact until proven. There are many THEORIES, and it is
fair to call it such, about the eras of BCE and indeed some have been
proved with archeology hard data/evidence (buried cities, artwork,
jewelry, mummies, weapons, etc). But using ONE source that has been
proven to be just as inaccurate as such (if not more so) as your all
end all be all is foolish and ignorant IMO. And wouldn't hold up to
any kind of true scientific inquiry which requires many sources to
move from theory to fact.
However, with your logic then I have to assume you thus believe in
Atlantis ( Plato wrote about it and has just as much credibility as
the bible by your own logic), UFOs (tons and tons of written sworn
accounts), ghosts (a lot of hard data as well such as pics, sworn
accounts, audio and visual recordings, and so on).
So with that said I am interested in knowing how you reconcile your
belief in the bible with ghosts, Atlantis and UFOs which you must also
see as true?
Strausswww.witchescodex.net
Actually, it has been proven true many times. Even Josephus and other
historians back the events happening. But, you are dodging the
question. Do you think we should throw out every historical document
that doesn't have an original text to be referenced?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
What Bob said. I DID reply quite clearly. I am sorry if you have no
defense against your own words. So when you do decide to reply to my
comments I will be happy to do the same.
Speaking of not replying, toy did not answer my inquiry to you. Since
it is clearly documented, by your own, standards, you also believe in
Atlantis, ghosts and UFOs. How do you reconcile that with your faith?
-Strauss
www.witchescodex.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
30 Aug 2007 06:00:28 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, it has been proven true many times. Even Josephus and other
historians back the events happening.
Josephus is not a primary source either, except for certain events in
the Roman War.
But, you are dodging the
question. Do you think we should throw out every historical document
that doesn't have an original text to be referenced?
He answered that question:
<> It is simply NOT fact until proven. There are many THEORIES, and it is
<> fair to call it such, about the eras of BCE and indeed some have been
<> proved with archeology hard data/evidence (buried cities, artwork,
<> jewelry, mummies, weapons, etc). But using ONE source that has been
<> proven to be just as inaccurate as such (if not more so) as your all
<> end all be all is foolish and ignorant IMO. And wouldn't hold up to
<> any kind of true scientific inquiry which requires many sources to
<> move from theory to fact.
Such non primary source can serve as evidence if corroborated by other
INDEPENDENT evidence. There is weak independent evidence for the
existence of someone named "Christ". There is no independent evidence
for the crucifixion, much less the resurrection.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Punjab The Sailor Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Divinity of Christ, part 51 |
29 Aug 2007 11:30:15 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
John 6:14-15 "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone."
Note 1: They referred to Jesus as "that prophet," as if it were
special.
Note 2: They said He was the prophet "that should come into the
world." This would indicate a prophecy being fulfilled and uniqueness
to Christ.
Note 3: This conclusion led them to want to make Him KING, which
would imply this prophecy said this prophet would be King, which could
ONLY reply to Isaiah 9:6-7 about one also being called God.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Consider the source. First century Bedouins with superstitious ideas
and a backward culture. Same people in the Middle East today. Still
backwards.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Divinity of Christ, part 46
Divinity of Christ, part 49
Divinity of Christ, part 56
Divinity of Christ, part 45
Divinity of Christ, part 38
Divinity of Christ, part 44
Divinity of Christ, part 39
Divinity of Christ, part 55
| Divinity of Christ, part 48
Divinity of Christ, part 47
Divinity of Christ, part 54
Divinity of Christ, part 43
Divinity of Christ, part 52
Divinity of Christ, part 53
Divinity of Christ, part 42
|
|
|
