Question for christians here

[ShiningBecky]

omnipresent means He is everywhere always. So that limits Him to anywhere but mid eastern israel? That's a little contradictory, no? As for changing His mind and "coming down to look," that has nothing in contrast with transcendence or omnipresence.


Not once does mind-change or interaction of God with Creation defy His qualities. So, logically, your argument is invalid.



This site has everything I would say, and more (like more examples than I could come up with, and info on other issues)
How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

Well there's obviously no convincing you. You're too staunch in your beliefs to change right now. I used to be just as firm in my convictions as you once.

 

[ShiningBecky]

Btw, I agree with you that scripture shows God being surprised, disappointed, changing his mind,...

That's part of being in genuine relationship with this creation.

So God purposely makes himself appear flawed, human, emotional and limited for us?

 

[ebia]

Are you sure about that?

yep.
Check with any historian who studies this stuff. Paul is the easy bit to date, most of his letters we can date to within a year or two. His death happened sometime in the Nero persecutions of the mid-60s AD. That's considered fixed historical data.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we have to take all this on faith. It's like, you can't prove the bible is inspired or divine. You have to take that assumption by faith and go from there.

no, you can't absolutely prove anything like that.
But the gospel is a claim about a public historical event - unlike the foundational claims of almost any other religion - and so it is open to the same sorts of historical consideration we would apply to any other event in the period.

 

[ShiningBecky]

yep.
Check with any historian who studies this stuff. Paul is the easy bit to date, most of his letters we can date to within a year or two. His death happened sometime in the Nero persecutions of the mid-60s AD. That's considered fixed historical data.


no, you can't absolutely prove anything like that.
But the gospel is a claim about a public historical event - unlike the foundational claims of almost any other religion - and so it is open to the same sorts of historical consideration we would apply to any other event in the period.

Exactly!! Yet there's no evidence for it (the gospel) aside from the bible! We have a couple forgeries written in the name of Josephus the historian and one from Tacitus that mentions a "Christus". That is it!!

That isn't exactly compelling evidence of anything. For someone who raised the dead, walked on water and healed the blind, you would expect a little more in the way of writings.

 

[ebia]

So God purposely makes himself appear flawed, human, emotional and limited for us?

Who said "flawed"?

Isn't relationship and discovery a good thing? Isn't listening to people and being affected by that a good thing?

 

[ShiningBecky]

Who said "flawed"?

Isn't relationship and discovery a good thing? Isn't listening to people and being affected by that a good thing?

Not if you're supposed to be a timeless, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God.

The responses you get from God in the Bible mirror that of a Jewish male living in those days. Now why is that?????

 

[ebia]

Exactly!! Yet there's no evidence for it (the gospel) aside from the bible! We have a couple forgeries written in the name of Josephus the historian and one from Tacitus that mentions a "Christus". That is it!!

Historians work with the data they have, not by wishing the 1st century had 20th century volumes of data. And they are quite used to only having data that has an agenda.

The NT is data that demands to be explained, and so far no-one has produced an explanation that actually explains it satisfactorily if the resurrection did not happen.

That isn't exactly compelling evidence of anything. For someone who raised the dead, walked on water and healed the blind, you would expect a little more in the way of writings.

there are more and better contemporary writing on Jesus than there is on Tiberius Caesar - emperor of the known world at the time of his crucifixion!

Your expectations are historically anachronistic.

 

[ebia]

Not if you're supposed to be a timeless, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God.

The responses you get from God in the Bible mirror that of a Jewish male living in those days. Now why is that?????

You are starting with your/greek assumptions about what god is like and then complaining because he doesn't look like that.

In that sense the Jewish ideas about God look radically different - and better - than surrounding cultures.

 

[ShiningBecky]

You are starting with your/greek assumptions about what god is like and then complaining because he doesn't look like that.

In that sense the Jewish ideas about God look radically different - and better - than surrounding cultures.

No, these are things CHRISTIANS have said to me about god, not greek assumptions!

From what i know about Judaism, their view of god is that he is as i described. The bible writers just used anthropomorphisms to describe god in their human terms.

 

[ShiningBecky]

Historians work with the data they have, not by wishing the 1st century had 20th century volumes of data. And they are quite used to only having data that has an agenda.

The NT is data that demands to be explained, and so far no-one has produced an explanation that actually explains it satisfactorily if the resurrection did not happen.



there are more and better contemporary writing on Jesus than there is on Tiberius Caesar - emperor of the known world at the time of his crucifixion!

Your expectations are historically anachronistic.

There are more historical writings on Julius Caesar than on Jesus. Your info of Jesus comes entirely from the bible that what put together by the council which voted on it in 4th century C.E.

 

[ebia]

No, these are things CHRISTIANS have said to me about god, not greek assumptions!

where do you think the Christians got them from?

From what i know about Judaism, their view of god is that he is as i described. The bible writers just used anthropomorphisms to describe god in their human terms.

that's one take on it, but there isn't much evidence to back it up

There is a mass of evidence of the hellenisation of Jewish as well as Christian thinking.

 

[ebia]

There are more historical writings on Julius Caesar than on Jesus. Your info of Jesus comes entirely from the bible that what put together by the council which voted on it in 4th century C.E.

The date of the formal rubber stamp is a red-herring. The texts all date from between roughly 49-90 AD.

Julius is quite exceptional in the ancient world in the amount of text. You can't assume what you would see about anyone else from that - as evidenced by the lack of data on Tiberius. Serious historians do not expect a lot of data on first century figures in remote backwaters.

 

[ShiningBecky]

where do you think the Christians got them from?


that's one take on it, but there isn't much evidence to back it up

There is a mass of evidence of the hellenisation of Jewish as well as Christian thinking.

Ok, so you're a Bible Literalist and Inerrantist I take it?

Ok i have a couple questions for you then...

Why is it a sin for women to have short hair?
Why is it a sin for men to have long hair, like Jesus?
Why is it a sin to have a tattoo?
Why is it a sin for women to speak in the church?
Why is it ok to sell your daughter into slavery in god's eyes?

There's just a few problems I can think of in the Bible.

 

[ShiningBecky]

The date of the formal rubber stamp is a red-herring. The texts all date from between roughly 49-90 AD.

Julius is quite exceptional in the ancient world in the amount of text. You can't assume what you would see about anyone else from that - as evidenced by the lack of data on Tiberius.

Wrong for one reason. Julius didn't do half the things Jesus, the son of God, is said to have! so surely there should have been even just a "little" written about him! but no such luck.

 

[ebia]

Ok, so you're a Bible Literalist and Inerrantist I take it?

far from it.

You'll usually find such people are the first to take the handful of biblical passages that look remotely like they support omni-god [more than] literally despite most of them being in poetry, and the first to overlook the mass of narrative showing God genuinely interacting.

I'm someone who takes the narrative of the bible seriously, doesn't give priority to absolutised decontextualised abstracts and tries to be critical of the assumptions we are bringing in from elsewhere.

 

[ebia]

Wrong for one reason. Julius didn't do half the things Jesus, the son of God, is said to have! so surely there should have been even just a "little" written about him! but no such luck.

Did you mean Julius or Tiberius that time?

There is more than a little - the New Testament.

 

[ShiningBecky]

Did you mean Julius or Tiberius that time?

There is more than a little - the New Testament.

The new testament is a religious canon of books, not an accurate portrayal of literal history. We don't even know who wrote several of the books!!

Why didn't you respond to my questions about various sins the Bible talks about. You believe in its divinity and inerrancy so how come you can't tell me why God is apparently so sexist in the pages of the bible?

 

[ebia]

The new testament is a religious canon of books, not an accurate portrayal of literal history.

all historical texts are written for a reason by people with an agenda.

We don't even know who wrote several of the books!!

another red-herring. It doesn't matter.

Why didn't you respond to my questions about various sins the Bible talks about. You believe in its divinity and inerrancy so how come you can't tell me why God is apparently so sexist in the pages of the bible?

did I say I believe in it's inerrancy? I didn't read the questions because they seemed to be addressed to a literalist.

 

[ShiningBecky]

all historical texts are written for a reason by people with an agenda.


another red-herring. It doesn't matter.


did I say I believe in it's inerrancy? I didn't read the questions because they seemed to be addressed to a literalist.

Wait. Are you saying the bible being a forgery doesn't matter? The book that's supposed to be "THE TRUTH" is forged and that is ok with you????

If you don't believe its inerrancy, how can you trust it at all then? You're pretty much picking and choosing what you believe and what you don't then.

 

[ebia]

Wait. Are you saying the bible being a forgery doesn't matter? The book that's supposed to be "THE TRUTH" is forged and that is ok with you????

where did I say anything like that?

If you don't believe its inerrancy, how can you trust it at all then? You're pretty much picking and choosing what you believe and what you don't then.

I think inerrancy is an answer to the wrong question.

I trust the bible to be reliable on it's own terms.