See other Religion Articles
Title: Jesus 'Denied He Was Son of God'
Source:
www.timesonline.co.uk
URL Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2125660,00.html
Published: Apr 9, 2006
Author: Maurice Chittenden
Post Date: 2006-04-09 13:57:37 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 221
Comments: 34
April 09, 2006 Jesus 'Denied He Was Son of God' Maurice Chittenden A HOLY war between writers is switching from the High Court to the bookshelves. One of the authors who last week failed to win a plagiarism case against Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has written a new book just in time for Easter to question the very tenets of the Christian faith. Michael Baigent’s The Jesus Papers tries to strip Jesus of his divinity by claiming that he wrote letters to a Jewish court denying that he was the son of God. The book was published in the United States last week on the same day as the first American paperback version of Brown’s novel. The two immediately went head-to-head at bookstore tills with a print run of 150,000 for The Jesus Papers in hardback and one of 5m for the paperback of The Da Vinci Code, dwarfing last year’s 2m-copy release in Britain of Harry Potter’s latest adventure. The Jesus Papers will be published in Britain next month, nine days before the film of The Da Vinci Code, starring Tom Hanks as a Harvard expert on symbolism on the trail of the holy grail. It will hit the cinema screens on May 19. Had last week’s verdict at the High Court in London gone in favour of Baigent and another author, Richard Leigh, it could have led to the film being left in the can and Brown’s book, which has sold 43m copies worldwide, being withdrawn from sale. Baigent and Leigh claimed that Brown had stolen his ideas from their 1982 book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Instead they have been left with a £2m legal bill. (The third co-author, Henry Lincoln, did not take part in the lawsuit.) However, cynics point out that, whatever the outcome of the legal action, the publishers cannot lose. Lee Curtis, an intellectual property lawyer from Pinsent Masons, said: “Given the fact that both books have seen surges in sales because of the publicity of the court case, the real winner in the case is Random House, which publishes both titles.” The publicity surrounding the court case has seen sales of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which had stalled at 3,500 copies a year in Britain, soar to 7,000 copies a week, a 100-fold rise. Similarly, The Da Vinci Code was returned to the bestseller lists with sales of 20,000 copies a week. Baigent, who was not in court for the verdict, said last week that his new book explored how Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judaea, made a secret deal to save Jesus’s life because Christ had called on the Jews to pay their taxes. He added: “All that Rome required was that taxes were paid. Suddenly he couldn’t execute this man but he had to get him out of the way because he wanted peace in Judaea.” The Jesus papers in the book’s title are two scrolls supposedly written in Aramaic and found under a house in the old city of Jerusalem in the 1960s. It is claimed they are letters written to the Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, by Jesus, saying he is not the son of God but is filled with the spirit of God. Baigent also claims he has discovered information about a mysterious document that purports to provide evidence that Jesus was alive in AD45, more than a decade after the accepted date for the crucifixion. The document was supposedly seen by Alfred Lilley, canon at Hereford Cathedral, at a church in Paris in the 1890s but later vanished. Baigent believes it now rests in the Vatican. Biblical scholars were quick to pour scorn on the claims. Pierpaolo Finaldi, editor of the Catholic Truth Society which has sold out first editions of its own books that claim to crack The Da Vinci Code and offer the truth about Jesus, said: “All this seems far more far-fetched than the actual resurrection from the dead.” Canon George Kavoor, principal of Trinity theological college in Bristol, said: “Michael Baigent needs to be a Nobel laureate for his imagination. But these books have created a huge amount of interest in the veracity of the gospels and whether Jesus existed or not.” Margaret Tofalides, a copyright lawyer at the law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said that Baigent and Leigh had probably hoped for a quick settlement to make money rather than have to go down the high risk route of a full-blown trial. “Unfortunately, it’s not an ending they would have written for themselves,” she said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Mind_Virus, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, robin, Zoroaster, BTP Holdings, Arator, Brian S, A K A Stone, Steppenwolf, Bub, mugwort, bluegrass, Bill D Berger, FormerLurker, Uncle Bill, Dakmar, Flintlock, Neil McIver, tom007, aristeides, Burkeman1, Diana, All (#0)
While Baigent & Leigh got caught in a bit of a fraud ("Priory de Scion"), with their "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," they did some great research. They could have ridden a highly profitable horse, in the trail of the "Davinci Code" success. People forget that "The Davinci Code" is a novel! Now, Baigent & Leigh are probably seriously broke, as others paraphrase their research. The internet coverage of their work is quite extensive - you don't need their book. If Hanks does a decent job on keeping the history in context, it's bound to be a fabulous movie! If any material was plagiarized, it was Umberto Eco's "Fucault's Pendulum." Brown does a good mix of Baigent & Leigh; add Eco's style of 'mystery.' If you've read those; Brown comes in a distant second - but he' made the big time; I can't take that away from him.
I remember that one. Worth a re-read.
"Debunking 'Caveman' conspiracy theories since 2002" I'm reading Da Vinci Code now. I'll have to get Fucault's Pendulum next.
I think it's a fair guess that having people believe he was the son of God was low on his list of priorities regarding the message he was trying to teach, which was mainly how to be civilized human beings (and I not talking "civilized" like the Romans!). The Old Testament tries to teach civility in a few places, but fails miserably most of the time with examples of violence and corruption even among its "heroes". Even God violates (or tells men to violate) his own rules for civilized behavior. If Jesus WAS trying to tell people he was God (or son of) I think this was more of an attempt to redeem a corrupt and ineffective god more than an attempt to redeem mankind. That last part we have to do ourselves. National Geographic Channel (if you have digital cable/satellite) is going to be airing "Gospel of Judas" tonight. Should be interesting.
For 2,000 years the Scriptures have shown that Christ referred to Himself as the Son of God, as did his followers the Christians. Then in 1960 someone (let me guess, a Jew) trumps up something that refutes all these Scriptures (and more), and claim that instead He agreed with His enemies in the Sanhedrin who ended up crucifying Him. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; John 1:32 - God's Spirit descends upon Jesus and the Father declares Jesus to be His Son. Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself. Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said...but I say to you.." Matt. 21:3; Luke 19:31,34 - Jesus calls himself "Lord." "The Lord has need of them." Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70 - Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God. Matt. 28:20 - Jesus said He is with us always, even unto the end of the world. Only God is omnipresent. Mark 14:36 - Jesus calls God "Abba," Aramaic for daddy, which was an absolutely unprecedented address to God and demonstrates Jesus' unique intimacy with the Father. Luke 1:11 - Mary accepts Elizabeth's declaration "the Mother of my Lord" = the Mother of my God (Elizabeth used the word "Adonai" which means "Lord God"). John 6:68-69 - Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God who has the words of eternal life. Acts 2:36 - God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ - Acts 4:24 - Sovereign Lord who made heaven and earth. This means Jesus is God. Heb. 1:6 - when God brings His first-born into the world, let all the angels of God worship Him. Only God is worshiped. Heb. 1:8 - God calls the Son "God." But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne Oh God is forever and ever." Heb. 1:9 - God calls the Son "God." "Therefore, God, Thy God has anointed Thee." Heb. 1:10 - God calls the Son "Lord." "And thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning and the heavens are your work." Heb. 13:12 - Paul says Jesus sanctifies the people with His blood - 1 Thess. 5:23 - the God of peace sanctifies the people.
”We have room but for one flag... We have room but for one language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyality to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt
Most excellent post robin. Thanks for standing up for the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Recall in the gospels Jesus asked, "Who do you say I am?". Jesus told them He was the Son of God. Of "the adulterous generation" who spoke against God in Jesus day, Jesus said that they would be given on the sign of Jonah in the belly if the whale for three days, a reference to Christ's coming resurrection after his crucifixion and three days in the tomb. I notice the article shows an attempt to not only attack Christ's deity as Son of God, but also makes an indirect attempt to attack his resurrection by falsely claiming that a document purports that Jesus Christ was walking the earth in 45 AD 12 years after his crucifixion and resurrection and after He ascended into Heaven. He is Risen!! Thank you God for sending your Son Jesus Christ to save us for eternity.
Please see reply #6. Thank God for Jesus Christ!
Thank you God for sending your Son Jesus Christ to save us for eternity. Hallelujah! He lives, Christ the Redeemer. And do we need redemption more than ever, Amen.
”We have room but for one flag... We have room but for one language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyality to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt
The whole article is BS, revisionist "historical Jesus" crap, designed to weaken the faith of the sheeple. Don't take that comment in anyway to imply I'm swallowing the cosmic banana offered up by the rapture monkeys. Palm Sunday bump.
I don't find it tempting to deny that there is an attack on the religious institutions - with a single and obvious exception, of course. We aren't allowed to say bad things about the "Chosen."
Jesus himself unabashed claimed His divinity.. the book of John repeatedly reveals Jesus as the Living God.. no question not up for debate.. Jesus was there at the creation.. Jesus was and is and is to come.. He is God incarnate and is sitting at the righthand of the Father..
Indeed there is Jesus-bashing going on, along with attempts to discredit his character; he was a homosexual, he got married and had children, his real father was Joseph not God, etc. Atheist types often hate religion, instead of just accepting that many people are religious they want to do all they can to destroy it, and too often the people who practice it.
You're entitled to think whatever in the hell you want to but you're so full of shit. And ignorant as well. Is this condition by choice or misfortune?
Straight out of the damn communist manifesto. It is SO obvious, what moron would believe it. [Oppps dumb question..look how many were suckered by the Chimpster in chief!]
Sad!
#2. To: SKYDRIFTER (#1)
Umberto Eco's "Fucault's Pendulum."
:: Awoken Research Group :: 4um's 'ARG List' ::
#3. To: SKYDRIFTER (#1)
#4. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
#5. To: Mind_Virus, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, Zipporah (#0)
#6. To: robin (#5)
#7. To: Uncle Bill (#6)
#8. To: OKCSubmariner (#6)
He is Risen!!
#9. To: SKYDRIFTER, Robin (#1)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#10. To: robin. Believers here (#8)
#11. To: Flintlock (#9)
#12. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
#13. To: SKYDRIFTER, Mind_Virus (#1)
#14. To: PnbC (#4)
If Jesus WAS trying to tell people he was God (or son of) I think this was more of an attempt to redeem a corrupt and ineffective god more than an attempt to redeem mankind. That last part we have to do ourselves.
#15. To: Flintlock (#9)
revisionist "historical Jesus" crap, designed to weaken the faith of the sheeple.
#16. To: fatidic (#14)
By choice I suppose. I wouldn't want to be as rude and arrogant as you.
#17. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
I just saw a special on the gospel of Judas. Yes, you read that right, the GOSPEL OF JUDAS. As I watched this historical account about the whole Judas angle, it suddenly became a propaganda piece in favor of the Jews, citing that Judas was a Jew, and that Judas is some Aramaic variant of Jew, and that for centuries Judas, Judaism, and anti-semitism are all constructs of the White Anglican Church, and the Non-Jew believers. It was at this point that I realized this new-found Gospel Of Judas, is a cog in the machine that is supposed to turn Christianity on its head. In all honesty, I've been pretty set in my ideologies ever since I started to think for myself. I believe that all religions are being used to bring about a cataclysm. They're all being constructed and deconstructed in order to keep people off balance, and keep them from coming together to wipe out the true scourge of the world, the elites. The elites want to create a situation where the world comes to an end in a hellish apocalypse, where man is killing his fellow human beings in the name of false gods, corporations, and the depopulation agenda. But hey... What do I know right?
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#18. To: PnbC (#16)
Now that we've traded insults, welcome to 4um. Perhaps we'll find points of ageement on other issues, or not. Is your bad impression of the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible based on personal experience with Him, or on unpleasant experiences with people calling themselves 'Christians'?
I wouldn't want to be as rude and arrogant as you.
#19. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#17)
The elites want to create a situation where the world comes to an end in a hellish apocalypse, where man is killing his fellow human beings in the name of false gods, corporations, and the depopulation agenda. You have described the misuse of religion very well. Now what about the pure principles and gods that each represent? You can find true and big differences in the beings that are worshipped and the goals and principles for living accordingly, and some few instances of people actually living according to the teachings of their respective religions. Big differences, diametric oppositions, etc. and in some instances overlap. Taking the best of the best, for me there is no contest, i want to be like St. Francis, Mother Theresa, Deitick Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis, Andrew Murray and George Mueller, to name but a few. Anything can and will be misused by those seeking power and control and i'm so distressed by the delusional and anti-Christ condition of American's churches, by in large. Very distressed indeed.
I believe that all religions are being used to bring about a cataclysm...
#20. To: robin (#5)
Nope. Jesus is never quoted as referring to himself as the son of God. He refers to himself as the "son of Man".For 2,000 years the Scriptures have shown that Christ referred to Himself as the Son of God, as did his followers the Christians.
#21. To: Diana (#13)
Diana, how do you know that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus? Wasn't God supposed to have embodied the Spirit of Jesus in the physical body that was born of Mary and Joseph? I know the church speaks of Immaculate Conception and all that, but who knows if the texts are actually 100% true?
Indeed there is Jesus-bashing going on, along with attempts to discredit his character; he was a homosexual, he got married and had children, his real father was Joseph not God, etc.
#22. To: FormerLurker (#20)
Luke 22:70 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) 70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." ****************************************** http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm IN THE NEW TESTAMENT The title "the Son of God" is frequently applied to Jesus Christ in the Gospels and Epistles. In the latter it is everywhere employed as a short formula for expressing His Divinity (Sanday); and this usage throws light on the meaning to be attached to it in many passages of the Gospels. The angel announced: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High... the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:32, 35). Nathaniel, at his first meeting, called Him the Son of God (John 1:49). The devils called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm. In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messias, at least. But much more is implied in the confession of St. Peter, the testimony of the Father, and the words of Jesus Christ. Confession of St. Peter We read in Matt., xvi, 15, 16: "Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The parallel passages have: "Thou art the Christ" (Mark 8:29), "The Christ of God" (Luke ,ix,20). There can be no doubt that St. Matthew gives the original form of the expression, and that St. Mark and St. Luke in giving "the Christ" (the Messias), instead, used it in the sense in which they understood it when they wrote, viz. as equivalent to "the incarnate Son of God" (see Rose, VI). Sanday, writing of St. Peter's confession, says: "the context clearly proves that Matthew had before him some further tradition, possibly that of the Logia, but in any case a tradition that has the look of being original " (Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible"). As Rose well points out, in the minds of the Evangelists Jesus Christ was the Messias because He was the Son of God, and not the Son of God because He was the Messias. Testimony of the Father (1) At the Baptism. "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16, 17). "And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). (2) At the Transfiguration. "And lo, a voice out of the cloud saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:6; Luke 9:35). Though Rose admits that the words spoken at the Baptism need not necessarily mean more than what was suggested by the Old Testament, viz. Son of God is equal to the Messias, still, as the same words were used on both occasions, It is likely they had the same meaning in both cases. The Transfiguration took place within a week after St. Peter's Confession. And the words were used in the meaning in which the three disciples would then understand them; and at the Baptism it is probable that only Christ, and perhaps the Baptist, heard them, so that it is not necessary to interpret them according to the current opinions of the crowd. Even so cautious a critic a the Anglican Professor Sanday writes on thee passage: "And if, on the occasions in question, the Spirit of God did intimate prophetically to chosen witnesses, more or fewer, a revelation couched partly in the language of the ancient Scriptures, it would by no means follow that the meaning of the revelation was limited to the meaning of the older Scriptures. On the contrary, it would be likely enough that the old words would be charged with new meaning--that, indeed the revelation...would yet be in substance a new revelation.... And we may assume that to His (Christ's) mind the announcement 'Thou art my Son' meant not only all that it ever meant to the most enlightened seers of the past, but, yet more, all that the response of His own heart told Him that it meant in the present.... But it is possible, and we should be justified in supposing--not by way of dogmatic assertion but by way of pious belief--in view of the later history and the progress of subsequent revelation, that the words were intended to suggest a new truth, not hitherto made known, viz. that the Son was Son not only in the sense of the Messianic King, or of an Ideal People, but that the idea of sonship was fulfilled in Him in a way yet more mysterious and yet more essential; in other words, that He was Son, not merely in prophetic revelation, but in actual transcendent fact before the foundation of the world" (Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible"). Testimony of Jesus Christ (1) The Synoptics. The key to this is contained in His words, after the Resurrection: "I ascend to my Father and to your Father" (John 20:17). He always spoke of MY Father, never of OUR Father. He said to the disciples: "Thus then shall YOU pray: Our Father", etc. He everywhere draws the clearest possible distinction between the way in which God was His Father and in which He was the Father of all creatures. His expressions clearly prove that He claimed to be of the same nature with God; and His claims to Divine Sonship are contained very clearly in the Synoptic Gospels, though not as frequently as in St. John. "Did you not know, that I must be about my father's business" (Luke 2:49); "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you, that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23). "Everyone therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32). "At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal HIM. Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you" (Matthew 11:25-30; Luke 10:21, 22). In the parable of the wicked husbandmen the son is distinguished from all other messengers: "Therefore having yet one son, most dear to him; he also sent him unto them last of all, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen said one to another: This is the heir; come let us kill him" (Mark 12:6). Compare Matt., xxii, 2, "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son." In Matt., xvii, 25, He states that as Son of God He is free from the temple tax. "David therefore himself calleth him Lord, and whence is he then his son?" (Mark 12:37). He is Lord of the angels. He shall come "in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. And he shall send his angels" (Matthew 24:30, 31). He confessed before Caiphas that he was the Son of the blessed God (Mark 14:61-2). "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost... and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:19, 20). The claims of Jesus Christ, as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels, are so great that Salmon is justified in writing (Introd. to New Test., p. 197): "We deny that they [Christ's utterances in the Fourth Gospel] are at all inconsistent with what is attributed to Him in the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, the dignity of our Saviour's person, and the duty of adhering to Him, are as strongly stated in the discourses which St. Matthew puts into His mouth as in any later Gospel.... The Synoptic Evangelists all agree in representing Jesus as persisting in this claim [of Supreme Judge] to the end, and finally incurring condemnation for blasphemy from the high-priest and the Jewish Council.... It follows that the claims which the Synoptic Gospels represent our Lord a making for Himself are so high...that, if we accept the Synoptic Gospels as truly representing the character of our Lord's language about Himself, we certainly have no right to reject St. John's account, on the score that he puts too exalted language about Himself into the mouth of our Lord." (2) St. John's Gospel. It will not be necessary to give more than a few passages from St. John's Gospel. "My Father worketh until now; and I work.... For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which he himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. That all may honour the Son, as they honour the Father" (v, 17, 20-23). "And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day" (vi, 40). "Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.... And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee" (xvi, 1, 5). (3) St. Paul. St. Paul in the Epistles, which were written much earlier than most of our Gospels, clearly teaches the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He was the true Son of God; and it is important to remember that his enemies the Judaizers never dared to attack this teaching, a fact which proves that they could not find the smallest semblance of a discrepancy between his doctrines on this point and that of the other Apostles.
”We have room but for one flag... We have room but for one language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyality to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt
#23. To: fatidic (#18)
Everything. Regarding the idea of God redeeming himself thru Jesus, I find that the behavior of God and his "people" portrayed in the Old Testament to be reprehensible. The 10 Commandments were clear cut intructions on civilized society and yet shortly afterwards God then tells the Israelites to kill and steal the land that was already occupied by others (just like the UN and modern-day Israel). Now, to give God the benefit of the doubt Moses and Aaron had to herd the vast ex-slave army somewhere after 40 years or they would soon lose control, so they tell a little lie about there being land available given to them by God himself. I think it was a bill of goods. That there were people there with different beliefs and that made everything ok as far as killing and stealing just made it so that eventually the Jews would be subject to the same treatment by others in later history. Karma. I also find the story of Abraham and Isaac to be downright creepy. Abraham obviously had no conscience of his own or he would have disobeyed God when he initially told him to sacrifice his son. I would have said "no way, God or no god this is wrong". Of course in the end it would seem God was just messing with his head to teach some kind of lesson. Maybe things would have turned out better if Abraham had gone thru with sacrificing Isaac, even with God in the background saying "no no I was only messing with you. STOP STOP please?". After all was said and done, with Isaac lying in a pool of his own blood and Abraham duly smited for ruining everything, God would contemplate his mistake (yes, I believe God CAN make mistakes) and say to himself "Okay NEXT TIME I'm going to be alot more honest, and NO more mind games with the people I choose to communicate with". In the long run a happier ending, I would think. I can't respect a God who resorts to those kinds of tactics, nor can I respect a God who is "jealous" of other gods (so it is written). An absolutely powerful God (and what is it we hear about the effects of absolute power?) could certainly smite me if he wanted to but that still won't earn my respect. Only a mindless bot worships raw power, whether it is in "heaven" or on Earth. As for the Gospels, we only have the written (and edited!) accounts of others claiming to quote Jesus (I've heard there is somewhere a "Gospel of Jesus", of course they couldn't include THAT in the New Testament could they? Nevermind the Gospel of Mary). If the apostles and religious leaders came to the consensus that Jesus would be recorded as a larger-than-life figure after his execution, then I think they would want to promote the idea that Jesus said he was the son of God ("I'm the son of God and You're not!") above men. It's not like he was still around to say to the writers: "Hey, I never said that, you're putting words into my mouth!". Iirc, Jesus referred to his followers as his "flock", as in a "flock of sheep". I think this should be taken as a veiled (or not so veiled) insult at the lack of depth on the thinking of his followers. Today we would use the term "sheeple". And I think that when he said the way to heaven was "thru me" he was either stating that people should follow his example and live in a christlike manner OR that "the kingdom of heaven is within", that is to say "thru ME" refers to the generic "me" as in the personal SELF. It may be hard to say for certain, given the multiple translations that these texts have gone thru, context can differ. Of course, I don't expect you to agree with any of this, and I'm not here to critcize your faith. I certainly don't think that I am absolutely right and my views aren't subject to change. I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from, and MAYBE after some thought, some of my notions might have merit. We will probably find more agreement on political/foreign policy issues, but living in a Judeo-Christian country religion and the beliefs of my fellow Americans is going to come up from time to time. I appreciate your response, hostile though it may have been initially. All too often I go no response whatsoever from expressing these sorts of views, which kind of leaves me in the dark as to whether anyone agrees with me or not.
Is your bad impression of the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible based on personal experience with Him, or on unpleasant experiences with people calling themselves 'Christians'?
#24. To: PnbC (#23)
So did God most of the time. He was quite in anguish over their rejection of Him, no matter how good He was to them and how much He wanted to do for them, they continued to be "rebellious and stiff-necked." Note that God is merciful and is the God of many, many chances to repent. He is also a Holy God and the sins of Israel cried out for judgment, which it received over and over. I want to respond to some of your other statements and will do so one at a time. How's that?
Regarding the idea of God redeeming himself thru Jesus, I find that the behavior of God and his "people" portrayed in the Old Testament to be reprehensible.
#25. To: PnbC (#23)
Karma is actually a univeral form of justice, "reaping what one sows." Many people have trouble with God's seeming harshness in meeting out justice/judgment as in the episode of the Israelites' debacle at Ai. The guilty culprit and all his family were ordered by God to be stoned to death for the father's crime of stealing and hiding property. As a result of his disobedience many Israelites were killed in the battle because God was not with them. There was gross sin in their midst and God was serious about not tolerating it. Isn't that the way it is in the world? A father sins and the child suffers. I'm thinking of family patterns of abuse which are passed on generation after generation until someone has the courage/love to break the cycle. Also, this entire nation is suffering from the churched (i can't call them Christians) who hypocritically support our maniac prez. As to the take over of the land of Cannon by the Israelites where all the children, livestock, adults, were to be killed, God found the entire area to be peopled by sinners of the grossest kind...live babies were placed on the red hot arms of false gods as sacrifice to these hideous demons. It seems God wanted everything associated with these wicked cultures to be obliterated (birthplace of porn, e.g.) and yes, God wanted to deal harshly with them, but, once again, the Israelites were not obedient and suffered centuries of terrible consequences thereafter. God is not a respecter of persons in the same way we humans are and does not order the destruction of people because, as you put it, "there were people there with different beliefs." The takeover of the land the Israelites were to occupy were clearly contained in a limited area spelled out by God, finite, in other words, and was not a mandate to conquer any other piece of land, anywhere on earth.
Now, to give God the benefit of the doubt Moses and Aaron had to herd the vast ex-slave army somewhere after 40 years or they would soon lose control, so they tell a little lie about there being land available given to them by God himself. I think it was a bill of goods. That there were people there with different beliefs and that made everything ok as far as killing and stealing just made it so that eventually the Jews would be subject to the same treatment by others in later history. Karma.
#26. To: fatidic (#25)
Well cultures that practice human sacrifice DO tend to suffer ignoble ends as we've seen in central and south America. Having said that, I think it is also possible that there could have been atrocity stories -- exaggerations drummed up for propaganda purposes to justify the slaughter both during and after the fact -- since we know that history is written by the victors. Virtually every war that I can remember has had stories that riled up the people that later turned out to be false, yet convenienly forgotton by both the people and the media. It is not so implausible that the Bible could have similar propaganda tales, whether or not that applied to this instance. I also understand that very shortly after Caanan fell the Israelite started fighting amongst themselves with many killed for not following the party line (tribe of Benjamin comes to mind).
#27. To: PnbC (#23)
A lot of people are troubled by God's demand that Abraham sacrifice his long-awaited, son of promise upon whom God promised to make Abraham "the father of many nations." Your problem in a lot of these instances is that you aren't able to enter into the mindset of the people/situations involved and are making hasty judgments based on what you, speaking from your perspective centuries removed, culturally removed, would do in their situation. If you do not acknowled God's sovereignty over your very life, then it will be your will against His, and honestly, He does know better and you can prove this for yourself. Long before Isaac was born, God called Abram out of Ur and told him to separate himself from everything and that God would make Abram the father of many nations. God also changed Abram's name to Abraham. Years went by and Sarah and Abraham got very old (90s and 100s) and decided to help God out with His prophecy---always a bad idea as we see even today with Christians trying to bring about Armageddon. To cut to the chase, after the son of promise was born God tested Abraham's loyalty, either God was supreme or Abraham's confidence was in the flesh---which will always fail us, unlike God. God ordered the sacrifice of the most painful earthly love and his faith in God's sovereignty was so great that he knew and fully expected God to raise up Isaac from the dead. Nevertheless, i don't think any of us could experience a more difficult thing to do than God commanded Abraham to do. Abraham passed the test, not for God's sake, but for Abraham and Isaac's sake.
I also find the story of Abraham and Isaac to be downright creepy. Abraham obviously had no conscience of his own or he would have disobeyed God when he initially told him to sacrifice his son.
#28. To: PnbC (#26)
And just where did you read this? In the Bible where the warts and all are revealed.
I also understand that very shortly after Caanan fell the Israelite started fighting amongst themselves with many killed for not following the party line (tribe of Benjamin comes to mind).
#29. To: PnbC (#23)
Only God, who is the Creator, has the right to be jealous and He clearly shows His broken heart over being rejected by people that He lavish His grace upon. He gives us freedom to choose, to act, to think, to be, something other gods do not give. That says a lot, doesn't it?
nor can I respect a God who is "jealous" of other gods (so it is written).
#30. To: PnbC (#23)
I thank you for taking the time to repond so fully. I don't want to sound "superior" or put you down when i say that i once thought as you did and went through other religions and practiced other beliefs. Ah, but that loving "hound of heaven" as C.S. Lewis refers to Him, caught up me when i was at the end of my ability to help myself be as really good a person/mother as i wanted/needed to be. Even now, i think it is a very good thing to question, as God invites us to do: Come, let us reason together." He is real and is love and is holy and wants, as incredible as it may seem, to have a real relationship, two ways, with us. I suggest you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Lewis is brilliant and started out as an athesist to debunk the Bible and ended up a believer, not all do. And ask God your hard questions in sincerity and honesty and willingness to accept His answers. Of course you don't have to agree with Him, He gives his creation freedom to reject or accept. Hope you have a good day. Cheers
Of course, I don't expect you to agree with any of this, and I'm not here to critcize your faith. I certainly don't think that I am absolutely right and my views aren't subject to change. I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from, and MAYBE after some thought, some of my notions might have merit.
#31. To: fatidic (#29)
Jealosy suggests self-esteem issues. Adds a human dimension to him I admit. The current Apocalypse scenario being set up and played out by "our" leaders suggest that we are not being given the freedom to choose. I don't want this, but most christians would say it is God's will.
#32. To: PnbC (#31)
And there you have an example of my anguish...the deplorable state of ignorance, harshness, stupidity, warmongering hypocracy of the "churched". As one poster here so clearly put it, Lucifer has gone to church, taken over the seminaries, sits in the pews and appears on TV proclaiming false words and grossly misrepresenting God and everything He stands for. I don't know how He stands it...it hurts me so deeply. But while there are always false leaders, wolves in sheep's clothing, there is the truth waiting to be discovered by each individual who seeks. God has promised to answer his/her knock.
I don't want this, but most christians would say it is God's will.
#33. To: fatidic (#32)
Thanks. I have to be off to work. It's been an interesting discussion.
#34. To: PnbC (#26)
My take on the situation is that a peaceful, enlightened people were overtaken by those that were not so peaceful or enlightened. They took what they saw of certain traditions they found convenient, and used them to there own ends. For instance, the concept of animal sacriface could well have originated with people that blessed the soul of the animal they were about to eat, where they were helping it find its way to God. Barbarians came along, slaughted the men, and took the women as "wives", who's culture they assimalated in their own special way.
Having said that, I think it is also possible that there could have been atrocity stories -- exaggerations drummed up for propaganda purposes to justify the slaughter both during and after the fact -- since we know that history is written by the victors.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest