Odd Bible Verses

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I've come across a few...well interesting bible verses.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
I've come across a few...well interesting bible verses.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.


This was written before Jesus was a god. That sounds strange - but Jesus wasn't a god until Constantine settled the dispute among his bishops at the Council of Nicea.

You missed the odd next verse also:

Mark 10:19
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Mark mentions a new commandment: Defraud not?

[Yahweh]

1 Corinthians:

14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.



Yes, a terrible shame for you ladies to speak in church.

[Benguin]

My fave;

Exodus 23:19, 34:26 &
Deuteronomy 14:21

Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

Was that a problem? and why exactly?

I must admit I've been sorely tempted to try the dish ever since I read it there ... Anyone tasted this delicacy?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
I've come across a few...well interesting bible verses.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. OK, I'll take a crack at 'em (your friendly neighborhood atheist exegete to the rescue!).

Mark 10:18 appears, in the form transmitted, to reflect either a clumsy/obscure teaching point from Mark (possibly intended to prompt a reflection about the identity of Jesus as the Son of God), or else simply an example of Jesus getting a little testy with his interlocutors. There does seem to be a thread running through Mark of Jesus' criticizing the understanding of the disciples, and this would appear broadly consistent with that.

I'll detour briefly to point out that, to the extent that Triadboy is suggesting that the theology of the divinity of Jesus was a relatively late development in Christianity, he's just wrong. Not that there wasn't considerable resistance to this notion early on, of course (especially from Jewish intellectuals). The non-divinity elements within the Church essentially made their last stand at Nicaea - but the basic idea of Jesus' divinity as part of Christian orthodoxy goes back to the first century, albeit that the Christology continued to be elaborated and refined over time.

Next! On my first reading of your quotation from Proverbs (26:4-5), the interpretation that jumped to mind was an expression of a no-win situation, roughly of the "women - can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em" variety. I think the passage merely evokes the dilemma of arguing with fools: dialogue with them and you risk getting dragged into their foolishness; ignore what they say and they'll claim victory. Actually, this insight has great applicability to the JREF Forum, now that I think about it. Substitute "troll" for "fool".

[Matabiri]

Malachi:

2:1
And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

2:2
If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.

2:3
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

i.e. Worship God, or he'll smear poo on your face.\

Edit to add: The Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) is really handy for this, and now has Quran and Book of Morman versions as well.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'll detour briefly to point out that, to the extent that Triadboy is suggesting that the theology of the divinity of Jesus was a relatively late development in Christianity, he's just wrong.

The Council was so divided that Contantine had to make the final decision! Your apparent interpretation that the early church was on the same page, except for a few roudy misfits - is extremely naive.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

This equates to "don't answer fools at all", with reasons given for each case.

[UserGoogol]

"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
"And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
"And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
"And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

--Genesis 9:20-27

The following from Godhatesfigs.com:

"The next day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find any thing on it: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
"And Jesus answered and said to it, No man eat fruit of you hereafter forever. And his disciples heard it.
--Mark 11:12-14

"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he was hungry.
"And when he saw a fig tree by the road, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
"And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon has the fig tree withered away!"
--Matthew 21:18-20

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy


The Council was so divided that Contantine had to make the final decision! Your apparent interpretation that the early church was on the same page, except for a few roudy misfits - is extremely naive. I haven't had time to visit the library, but the sources I've linked below suggest the following :

1. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ was an established Christian orthodoxy long before Nicaea, which particularly in the Western (Roman) church had remained essentially unbroken.

2. Some of the major criticisms brought against Arianism at the Council had to do with its novelty and its inconsistency with pre-existing Christian tradition.

3. As threatening as the Arian conflict was for the unity of the Church, the Arian faction was a minority.


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Arianism
http://users.aol.com/myjournal/arian2.htm
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/christology.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm


When I can, I'll try to hit the books to see if these sources can be corroborated. But in the meantime, what have you got to the contrary?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
But in the meantime, what have you got to the contrary?

A year before the bishops met at Nicaea, Constantine had tried to legislate an end to "heretical sects", which by one estimate, may have included about half the Christians in the empire.

Beyond Belief Elaine Pagels, p174

The references she gives for this statement are:

Christianizing the Roman Empire, Macmullan
Rise of Christianity, Stark

[triadboy]

Taken from your sources:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
It seems reasonable on these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.
Once again the rat-bastard Church Father Eusebius rears his ugly head.


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Arianism
Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria - counterparts to modern universities or seminaries - their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean.


http://users.aol.com/dennish658/journal/intro.htm
On the grand scale of things, this journal will hardly be noticed. But that is OK. God sometimes uses one person to accomplish great and mighty things for him, but he normally accomplishes his purposes through small things done by many people working together. This is my contribution to those smaller things
Biased source - I couldn't get through the introduction.



2. Arianism (denied deity of Christ)

First major threat to the views implicitly held by the church regarding Jesus’ deity
Condemned at Council of Nicea in 325 and subsequent councils as well
Lingers in our day with the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Arius stressed the absolute uniqueness and transcendence of God
Believed Jesus is not an emanation from the Father but a fiat creation out of nothing
Believed Jesus had a beginning: “There was a time when he was not”
Believed Jesus is different in essence from the Father and is liable to change and even sin
Believed the word is similar in nature to the Father (homoiousios) but is not of the same essence as the Father (homoousios)
Biased source - Do you have to have sources that are so 'eat up' with Jesus?


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm
I have NO idea why you included this link.


C'mon ceo, you're better than this!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
[B]I've come across a few...well interesting bible verses.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus is telling us that the level of God's goodness is beyond human ability to attain.


We are being told that sometimes it is better to answer a foolish question with a foolish answer and that sometimes it is not. We are left to decide when either of these rules are applicable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
Taken from your sources:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

Once again the rat-bastard Church Father Eusebius rears his ugly head.What's the point of that observation? Anyhow, to reiterate the key passage from that essay:The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)

It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct.
Originally posted by triadboy
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Arianism

"Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria - counterparts to modern universities or seminaries - their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean."No one's said the contrary, but that doesn't mean that "Jesus was not a God prior to Nicaea". The question is, did Arianism (which seems to have represented the high-water mark of the Jesus-was-not-God view within the Church) ever attain orthodox status or even obtain anything more than a regional majority? And perhaps even more relevant to your dubious thesis, was the idea of Jesus as a non-divine figure common within Christianity in the centuries prior to Arius? I don't see any evidence of it. To continue from the same source:Despite the decision of the Council of Nicaea, Arianism not only survived but flourished for some time. The patronage of members of the imperial family allowed Arian bishops to sit in many sees. Having never converted any sizeable group of the laity, Arianism had died out inside the Empire by the 380s; it was debated and rejected again by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381.
Originally posted by triadboy
http://users.aol.com/dennish658/journal/intro.htm

Biased source - I couldn't get through the introduction.No one asked you to; you inflicted that on yourself. You're citing from the introduction to the essayist's journal, not to the essay I linked on the history of Arianism. I'll link again, for your convenience, to that essay in its full version:

http://users.aol.com/myjournal/arian1.htm

My apologies, by the way - I think I linked earlier just to the overview that didn't include the research bibliography.

The essayist is obviously a Christian. A priori, neither of us has any specific reason to fault his research. If you look at the historical essay again (or perhaps for the first time), let me know which specific historical assertions you're refuting, and why.

At any rate, I told you that these sources were assembled rapidly and offered by me only pending corroboration other sources.
Originally posted by triadboy
Biased source - Do you [i]have to have sources that are so 'eat up' with Jesus?I'm looking for other sources. Meanwhile, if you're going to set about poisoning the well, kindly produce better criteria than the mere fact that an author is a self-professed Christian. Determining bias in historical writing ordinarily involves a fairly careful analysis of the writing itself, which you appear not to have engaged in. In the meantime, specific contrary evidence will help your case more than a blanket rejection of "Christian" sources.
Originally posted by triadboy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm
I have NO idea why you included this link.Let me guess - because it's biased, right? I'll return to that point in a moment.

I included it because it has a decent discussion of the divinity of Jesus as a theological theme in a number of mainstream Christian sources predating Arius: Paul, the non-Pauline epistles, John, the Synoptics, the early martyrs and early Fathers.

It should come as no surprise that the online Catholic Encyclopedia is actually a good source for researching the development of Catholic theology. Its historical discussions tend to be fairly solid and the work of professional scholars rather than amateurs. On these subjects, the Catholic Encyclopedia's main drawback in my experience isn't that it's distorted by bias, it's that the scholarship is 100 years old. Still, it's cited reasonably frequently in some of the more serious discussions on the forum, and I'm not aware of any instance in which a historical position asserted in the Catholic Encyclopedia has been shown to be untenable given the state of late 19th-early 20th century historical research. I dearly wish I could say the same about early 21st-century atheist historical "sources" available online, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

To return to the subject: with respect to Christian tradition, you've asserted that Jesus was not considered divine until Nicaea. In support of this you quote a passage from Elaine Pagels saying "A year before the bishops met at Nicaea, Constantine had tried to legislate an end to 'heretical sects', which by one estimate, may have included about half the Christians in the empire."

This is so far from supporting your thesis that Jesus-as-God was not an integral aspect of mainstream Christian orthodoxy before First Nicaea that one could be forgiven for suspecting either that you consciously based that idea on sources you haven't yet revealed, or that you didn't really mean to make the assertion in the first place.

Let's assume for a moment that the Pagels reference is historically correct: at a time just prior to Nicaea, half of all Christians belonged to "heretical sects" (although even Pagels doesn't seem to endorse that theory with real certitude). "Heretical sects" would have included heresies that denied Jesus' humanity in favor of pure divinity, as well as presumably a handful of Christological and non-Christological heresies that had little or nothing to do with the question of Jesus' divinity. So even by the most radical estimate, the number of Christians who did not already accept the divinity of Jesus at a time just prior to Nicaea would have represented less than half of all Christians. (One could have already inferred from the fact that denying the divinity of Jesus was deemed heretical prior to Nicaea that it such a view was at odds with mainstream Christian tradition.)

On a side note, what exactly do you think the pre-Nicene Church thought Jesus was, anyway? It's pretty clear that even Arius, the most successful detractor of Jesus' godhood in the Church's history, thought Jesus was a lot more than just a human prophet or sage. The vision of Jesus that emerges from Arius' preaching is of some kind of unearthly super-angel ranking just below God the Father in the cosmic order, and far above the human race.

Richard McBrien, in Catholicism (1981), writes of the pre-Nicene period:The earliest Christological heresies came from opposite extremes: Docetism and Gnosticism on the right (denying the humanity of Jesus for the sake of the divinity) and Adoptionism on the left (denying the divinity of Jesus for the sake of his humanity). Neither extreme, perhaps because they were so obviously extreme, required any kind of official condemnation such as a general council of the Church might render.Prof. McBrien goes on to discuss a number of notable pre-Nicene Church figures who reiterated the understanding of Jesus' divinity: Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 - ca. 107); Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165); Melito of Sardis (d. ca. 190); Irenaus (ca. 130 - ca. 200); Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 - ca. 215); Tertullian (ca. 160 - ca. 255); and Pope Dionysius (d. 268).

John Murphy, in The General Councils of the Church (1960), notes of 1st Nicaea:In all, there were about 250 bishops present. The traditional number given is 318, but this seems to be a reference more to the 318 servants of Abraham than historical record (cf. Gen. 14:14). ... The bishops grouped into parties, following their own convictions. There was a small but powerful group of 15 or 20 bishops favoring Arius, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia.So we have some scholarly corroboration of my earlier-cited suggestion that even at the height of the movement, Arianism represented at best a small - if vocal, regionally influential and well-connected - theological faction within Christianity.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Radrook
Jesus is telling us that the level of God's goodness is beyond human ability to attain.How did you come to know the intent behind a storied dialogue authored by an anonymous apologist decades after the presumed event? Perhaps it merely reflects some Midrash originating before this 'Jesus' was transmuted into a Messiah by later sect leaders.

[Doctor X]

Oh what the hell . . . one of my favorite religious topics:

Child Sacrifice

Especially popular around Christmas [Stop that!--Ed.]

Exodus 22:28-29 You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me (Levenson).

Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." [From RSV--Ed.]

Jeremiah 19:5-6 They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter.

Levenson comments:

The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

Ezek 20:25-26 I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord (Levenson).

The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better rendering:

Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire."

Isaiah 30:32-33

The voice of YHWH will shatter Assyria;
with his scepter he will strike them down.
Every stroke the YHWH lays on them
with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm.

Topheth has long been prepared;
it has been made ready for the king.
Its fire pit has been made deep and wide,
with an abundance of fire and wood;
the breath of YHWH, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze.

Smith considers this the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. Schmidt agrees that it ". . . clearly implicates YHWH in the child sacrifices performed at the Tophet. . . . If no such connection were intended in the use of this cult language to describe Assyria's total destruction, then one would have expected some disclaimer to that effect."

--J.D.

References:

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300065116/qid=1080646921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841619/qid=1087214495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0920779-1461501?v=glance&s=books). Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Smith M. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080283972X/qid=1086774305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3411020-6434368?v=glance&s=books). 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
How did you come to know the intent behind a storied dialogue authored by an anonymous apologist decades after the presumed event? Perhaps it merely reflects some Midrash originating before this 'Jesus' was transmuted into a Messiah by later sect leaders.

What makes you assume that the intent of clearly spoken English in the Bible is unknowable?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Doctor X

Oh what the hell . . . one of my favorite religious topics:

Child Sacrifice

Especially popular around Christmas [Stop that!--Ed.]Mmm ... Sounds like lamb chops to me!

[scribble]

Oh man, I can't believe none of you called out my favorite gem (although a lot of my second-favorites I see mentioned...)


Exodus, 33:20ish

God says to Moses, "Thou canst not see my face: For there shall no man see me, and live."

"there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:"

"And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:"

"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

Yup. God mooned Moses right before he gave him the law. It's there in the Bible.

[Doctor X]

. . . clearly spoken English in the Bible. . . .

None of the Bible is in English, "clearly spoken" or not.

FYI. . . .

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X


None of the Bible is in English, "clearly spoken" or not.

FYI. . . .

--J.D.

You read the Bible in the original languages?

[Doctor X]

What are the "original languages?"

--J.D.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
[B]Mark 10:18 appears, in the form transmitted, to reflect either a clumsy/obscure teaching point from Mark (possibly intended to prompt a reflection about the identity of Jesus as the Son of God), or else simply an example of Jesus getting a little testy with his interlocutors. There does seem to be a thread running through Mark of Jesus' criticizing the understanding of the disciples, and this would appear broadly consistent with that.


So jesus lied? This is fun.

[sackett]

"Give wine unto him that be heavy of heart, and strong drink unto him that be ready to perish; that he may drink, and forget his woe."

Proverbs 11.1, as I recall. Being raised within earshot of militant teetotalers, I always liked that one.

BTW: As long as we're citing the Bible in English, can't we stick to the King James version? These latter-day "modern English" translations are -so- washed-out.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas



So jesus lied? This is fun. How so?

[iain]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
How so? Maybe people get a little carried away with a literal interpretation of the Bible which seems to be the fashion amongst the more hard line Christians. The judaic tradition, if I remember correctly, tends to put a lot more emphasis on the bible as a teaching tool, a repository of wisdom and often a non-literal interpretation (e.g. of prophecies). It may be unfair to suggest "Jesus lied" as that may be putting an interpretation on the text which the author did not intend. (Then again...maybe not).

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
How so?


Well, jesus said he was not good, so either he lied or he wasn't the son of god. I find your lack of thinking about your faith disturbing.

[bug_girl]

speaking of original languages....my great grandfather was a minister, and had this wonderful volume of bible translations. Each page was a verse, with the KJV version in english, then greek, then Hebrew, then some other english version, in four columns so you could compare translations.
Right there i learned things weren't absolute :)

Somewhere in the old testament there is a verse about "bring the unbelievers before me and slay them" that got quoted to me a lot when i was teaching evolution. Also had a couple of fundies write notes on course evaluations with the versions about women not speaking and being in positions of authority.
sigh.

[scribble]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas



Well, jesus said he was not good, so either he lied or he wasn't the son of god. I find your lack of thinking about your faith disturbing.

Do your Bible studies lead you to believe Jesus said most of the things attributed to him?

[scribble]

Originally posted by bug_girl
speaking of original languages....my great grandfather was a minister, and had this wonderful volume of bible translations. Each page was a verse, with the KJV version in english, then greek, then Hebrew, then some other english version, in four columns so you could compare translations.


Sounds like a concordance.

Here's an online Bible... with a decent Hebrew/Greek concordance built in.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Well, jesus said he was not good, so either he lied or he wasn't the son of god. I find your lack of thinking about your faith disturbing. In that passage Jesus did not state that he was not good. You simply inferred it from his question. Obviously, Jesus makes only one declaratory statement in that verse: there is none good but one, i.e. God.

I speculated that this may have been intended to identify Jesus with God, rather than to create the impression of a gulf between them.

You also seem to have inferred that I am a "person of faith", despite the fact that I indicated reasonably clearly in this very thread (as well as many other places) that I'm an atheist.

Making two unjustified textual inferences in the space of a two-line post is an indication that you are not reading carefully or not thinking carefully. Try reading carefully, and if that doesn't fix the problem we'll know it's the other one.

[scribble]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I speculated that this may have been intended to identify Jesus with God, rather than to create the impression of a gulf between them.


You're putting the cart before the horse. It's being argued that Jesus wasn't identified with God until well after his death - which is exactly what this was supposed to help show. Just claiming the opposite isn't much of an argument.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by scribble


You're putting the cart before the horse. It's being argued that Jesus wasn't identified with God until well after his death - which is exactly what this was supposed to help show. Just claiming the opposite isn't much of an argument. On the contrary, the notion that Jesus wasn't identified with God until after his death was not raised (by triadboy) until after bewareofdogmas, in his/her initial post, raised a question about the interpretation of Mark 10:18 - and also after I had substantially composed my proffered explanation for the passage, which I am now re-explaining.

Triadboy's explanation of the passage, which depends on the notion of Jesus as God postdating the Gospels, is suspect for the other reasons I raised in my arguments addressing his post.

These are two separate strains within the discussion, however. I am currently (re)addressing bewareofdogmas' posts, which do not (so far as I can tell) involve triadboy's arguments.

[triadboy]

Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

If Jesus doesn't know the day or the hour - then surely he is not God.

[Doctor X]

Did he not state he would return before his audience's generation would die?

How rude!

--J.D.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy

If Jesus doesn't know the day or the hour - then surely he is not God. This is kind of surprising to find in the Bible. I wonder what Christians make of it. However, if one is willing to consider at all the theoretical possibility that someone could be both human and divine, then doesn't seem necessarily true that Jesus' ignorance of "the day or the hour" is logically incompatible with his divine nature. The Jesus of the Gospels does act as though he possesses supernatural knowledge, but not as though he is absolutely omniscient (which would, frankly, make it practically impossible to have anything resembling a human experience on earth). Perhaps the author of Matthew thought that for the Son to take on a human nature in addition to his divine one meant assuming some limitations on the absolute knowledge that would nevertheless persist in the Father.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
However, if one is willing to consider at all the theoretical possibility that someone could be both human and divine, then doesn't seem necessarily true that Jesus' ignorance of "the day or the hour" is logically incompatible with his divine nature.

That's a hell of a theory! :) So he would be a Hu-God. (Which reminds me - Hu is the name of God in the religion of light and sound - Eckankar.)

The Jesus of the Gospels does act as though he possesses supernatural knowledge, but not as though he is absolutely omniscient...

Reminds me of Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton,....

Perhaps the author of Matthew thought that for the Son to take on a human nature in addition to his divine one meant assuming some limitations on the absolute knowledge that would nevertheless persist in the Father.

Perhaps the god-nature of Jesus was not a consideration. In a monotheistic society - how does one explain a god 'up there' AND down here?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
That's a hell of a theory! :) So he would be a Hu-God. (Which reminds me - Hu is the name of God in the religion of light and sound - Eckankar.)But they do believe Jesus was a kind of Hu-God, right? Dual nature and all that?
Originally posted by triadboy
Reminds me of Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton,....LOL!
Originally posted by triadboy
Perhaps the god-nature of Jesus was not a consideration. In a monotheistic society - how does one explain a god 'up there' AND down here? Well, with a great deal of difficulty, misunderstandings, trial-and-error, and offended sensibilities - if the early history of Christianity is any indication.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Well, with a great deal of difficulty, misunderstandings, trial-and-error, and offended sensibilities - if the early history of Christianity is any indication.

Well said.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
[B]On the contrary, the notion that Jesus wasn't identified with God until after his death was not raised (by triadboy) until after bewareofdogmas, in his/her initial post, raised a question about the interpretation of Mark 10:18 - and also after I had substantially composed my proffered explanation for the passage, which I am now re-explaining.


Methinks you need to look at the top of the thread again. Triadboy post #2. As to my mistake yesterday of you being a person of faith; you post a lot of apologetics. I thought you were a liberal Catholic or something; sorry.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas



Methinks you need to look at the top of the thread again. Triadboy post #2.I was referring to that post. As I said, it comes after your initial query about Mark 10:18, and also did not appear until I had substantially composed my response (which I did offline and posted a little later, but without realizing that in the meantime Triadboy had responded).

[jimmygun]

Don't know the particular book or verse but my favourite is...

"Jesus swept."