Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You imply that somehow their writing is perfect when in fact the Hebrews redacted their entire history while in Babylon. In doing so they left mater of fact statements in the record, traces of the original.What did I say that implies the men of the church are perfect? Or that the people capable of killing the Son of God were perfect?
I had a miracle in my life and I've always known the Bible says ridiculous things that aren't true. I'm not sure why you think the people capable of killing the Son of God were incapable of imperfection. I don't know why you think the men of the church are perfect?????
Anyway, for me I see God as being "inerrant", but the writings about God come through the mind of man and are conditioned by the age in which they were created.
Do you know that z= .691 and z = .472 are about two measured redshift ....Your point was that Arp have found two "paired" quasars where one quasar showed a redshift and the other no redshift at all...That is not what the article is saying:
Other examples of measured redshift in Arp article you have linked.
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts
In the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, 243 redshifts of objects fainter than 25.5 mag. were observed. Remarkably, two of them turned out to be very high redshift at z = 4.800 and z = 4.882. Even more remarkably these two fell only 3 and 1.5 arcsec on either side of an emisssion line galaxy of z = .733. (The ESO Messenger No. 118, p.49 and Vanzella et al. astro-ph/0406591.) The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.
You don't seem to know what quasars are:
http://www.kidsastronomy.com/quasar.htm
Not at all. Your point was that Arp have analysed a pair of quasars where one quasar showed a redshift and the other showed NO redshift at all.I have pointed out to you that the article written by Arp demonstrate that both quasars have in fact a high redshift. It seem that you don't like having been politely corrected on that point.What's this? A game of oneupmanship?
Arp claims:If I had the time to read further, I would have. You showed an interest and so I took a quick look to see something that might answer your question. Note that Arp used the key phrases: non-velocity redshifts and the picture associated with the quote I gave you shows two objects clearly tied together.
Hi colter,
You make a good point. The Israelites, as a body of people, put the Lord to death. However, that was God's plan also and He used them to bring salvation to the world just as He used them to bring the truth to the world. You think that the Israelites were 'bad' because they put Jesus to death, but I don't think you fully realize or appreciate that what they did brought your salvation.
However, as regards the Scriptures, God didn't use the Israelites as a nation to deliver His Scriptures to us. He used a select few of the faithful children of Israel. He did raise up the nation of Israel to do His bidding, but He didn't trust all of Israel with the pearl of the Scriptures. He trusted a select few. Some 25-35 people in all the nation of Israel were charged with and given the blessing of writing the Scriptures.
So, I'm not so confident as you are in charging the Scriptures with error based on the fact that the Jews in general did orchestrate the death of my Savior.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Not at all. Your point was that Arp have analysed a pair of quasars where one quasar showed a redshift and the other showed NO redshift at all.I have pointed out to you that the article written by Arp demonstrate that both quasars have in fact a high redshift. It seem that you don't like having been politely corrected on that point.
Arp claims:
Source:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts
-The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.-
Arp propose that the two high red shifted quasars have been ejected by the galaxy with a lower redshift because he have a picture showing 3 objects which appear to be close together in the line of sight, and supposedly "connected" with the emission line of the galaxy ... Arp is convinced that he have discovered non velocity redshift....
-Arp is unable to explain how a Galaxy can eject 2 quasars like a pop corn machine ....
-Arp is unable to provide a mechanism explaining his intrinsic redshift theory.
Do you know that Arp have never promoted a 6,000 years old universe .
The original gospel that Jesus preached to the Jews, the gospel that he had hoped they would adopt, is the gospel they would be preaching today from Jerusalem had they not rejected their sacred calling and hence Jesus' saving message. The gospel changed after Jesus left as it was interpreted by the Pagan world who was found to be open to the modified version.
This is just another self evident example of the human inconsistencies of the concepts of the Bible books.
It is your theory, the theory of inerrancy, another speculation that God selected special holy men who dictated his Word....even when those dictations of the same story contradict each other giving way to endless rationalizations and excuse making for those inconsistencies.
Again, somewhere, somehow faith in the perfection of God has been transposed to faith in the perfection of Books about the doings of God. It's another Golden Calf.
Jesus taught his original good news gospel of the kingdom of heaven openly to the Jews and all who would receive it 3+ years before the cross ever happened. That gospel was rejected, Jesus was killed, and the Jews un-chosen. The new, post cross speculative gospel was the theory that Jesus was a human sacrifice. The old gospel of salvation by faith and personal transformation was replaced by the Pagan theories of atonement. This new gospel began on the day of Pentacost when Peter began the proclamation of the death and resurrection of the savior, it replaced what they had been teaching and preaching before the cross.You reject the Scripture as written, yet come up with 'evidence' that I've never seen:
1. An original gospel exists that isn't in the Bible
2. Jesus hoped they would accept this gospel
3. Had they accepted this gospel, the Jews would be preaching it today in Jerusalem
4. The pagan world changed the gospel of Jesus after He left
5. To believe in the Scripture as written in another golden calf
6. And it appears that the basis for some or all of this 'new gospel' is the Urantia Book
If Jesus had hoped they would accept a different gospel than He preached, changing all of Judaism, then He would be contradicting His own prophecy in Zechariah 12:10. According to Zechariah, "In that day" (when "all the nations are gathered against Jerusalem"), "I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn." (Zech. 12:10)
You say the pagan world changed this gospel, but that not possible: If all copies of the New Testament had been burned up as the pagan Romans attempted, we could still reconstruct all the entire content of the Majority Text from the writings of early Church fathers (not pagans) writing within 100 years of Jesus's death on the cross, except for 2 solitary verses. Note: the Majority Text is what the majority of Christians have used, in various languages, throughout history, until Westcott and Hort updated the King James to the new replacement Bible.
You sound like you have an inerrant source that is more reliable than the Bible. What is this amazing source of wisdom?
Hi Ted,
I understand your point, it's a common teaching or speculation in the Christian religion that it was Gods will that God the Son incarnate so he could be sacrificed thus enabling a path for the Father to finally forgive man through this endless sin debt repayment deal. It was the theoretical ransom paid to the Satan God who had possession of man.
Hi Ted, the "ransom" idea came from a quote attributed to Jesus and conceptually expanded upon by his disciples and apostles.Hi colter,
Yea, Isaiah was just making a wild guess when he wrote what he wrote about the coming servant. I get it. And of course, everyone knows that Jeremiah was just a drunk. You and I understand a different faith. I'm not sure where you've found in the Scriptures that Jesus' death was the 'theoretical ransom paid to the Satan god.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Hi Ted, the "ransom" idea came from a quote attributed to Jesus and conceptually expanded upon by his disciples and apostles.
While looking up the verse I found this commentary which contains the many areas where the ransom idea occurs.
How is Jesus a ransom for many? What is ransom theory?
Subscribe to our Compelling Mail Newsletter:
Jesus is recorded in Matthew 20:28and Mark 10:45 referring to Himself as "a ransom for many," and Paul uses nearly identical verbiage in 1 Timothy 2:6, except that he uses a universal "ransom for all." The Greek words translated "ransom" in these texts indicate a price paid for redeeming or ransoming a slave or prisoner – a common practice in the time of the New Testament – or the price for a life, closer to what we might think of today in the context of kidnapping and holding a person "for ransom."
Closely related to these verses are passages that say Jesus "bought" us. One of these, Acts 20:28 (NIV), helps us understand how Jesus "paid" this ransom, for it says that the church was "bought with his own blood." First Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 both remind the reader that they "were bought with a price," and 2 Peter 2:1also uses "buying" terminology.
These passages led church father Origen (c. 185-c. 245 AD) to develop a theory of the atonement called "ransom theory." In this understanding, Adam and Eve became captives to Satan and sin at the fall, followed by all of their offspring – the entire world. In order to bring salvation to the human race, Jesus died to give Satan his due price of blood, buying back humanity. However, Jesus did not remain dead, in the clutches of Satan, but rose back to life, defeating Satan and the death he brings to the world. Ransom theory was widespread until the eleventh century, when Anselm argued against it strongly.
Today, neither the Roman Catholic nor most Protestants accept ransom theory in its original form. The concept of God being a debtor to Satan, or even Satan having a just claim for "owning" humanity is dubitable at best. However, it is interesting to note that C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe presents, allegorically, Aslan's slaying and resurrection as atoning for sin and breaking the power of evil in a manner very similar to the original representation of ransom theory. An altered version of ransom theory claims that it was God the Father who required payment for sin, which is far more coherent with biblical representations. This altered version continues to be acknowledged as a part or picture of Jesus' atoning work, though it is not believed, in Protestant and Roman Catholic circles, to be the primary source of or reason for our salvation. Most Protestants accept substitutionary atonement as the most complete understanding of Christ's work on the cross available to us.
It may be concluded that in the sense that Jesus paid a ransom to redeem us, it was paid with His blood to God the Father for sin. However, it should be remembered that this is not the totality of how our salvation comes about, nor are we likely to fully understand the incredible work of Christ that brought us salvation and into full relationship with God."
Thank you, you have demonstrated the reason people willingly accept things that are obviously contradictory and or are false. You fear a "slippery slope". Truth is never to be feared, if anything it destroys institutional pride. But the church more or less know theses disturbing facts but fear to reveal them to the people.This is precisely how Higher Criticism started. In the beginning, they didn't have enough courage to attack Christ Himself, so they doubted the words of the words of the men around Christ.
But what you've begun is a long slippery slope that will evolve into questioning the Lord Jesus Himself.
I have no interest in what you're selling. May God have mercy on your soul.
Ok, got it. I would argue that man never was the property of the fallen administration, that God was already forgiving.Hi colter,
Oh, I'm not questioning the word 'ransom'. What I'm questioning is the idea that the ransom was paid to the 'Satan god'. God doesn't owe Satan anything and Jesus wasn't traded for us to Satan. A ransom is given to the person who is demanding payment. Jesus was not given to Satan.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Ok, got it. I would argue that man never was the property of the fallen administration, that God was already forgiving.
But that was a symbolic term, not literal. Like when he upbraided Peter for suggesting that Jesus take a different coarse of action. "Get ye behind me Satan."Hi colter,
And yet Jesus himself accused them of being children of Satan. He probably didn't know what he was talking about either.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Why do you think God reject Cain? Because h offered up an unsuitable sacrifice. God rejected him and as a result he got jealous of Abel and killed him. BTW Cain's wife was his sister, since the exclusion of such marriages doesn't happen until Moses, who comes after all these events. Even many evolutionists I talk admit that the first humans would have had to interbreed since that is the only option for them also. But here are two articles about scieintific evidence that points out some flaws in current scientific thinking. The fist one is about carbon dating and how many samples that should have no carbon 14 have plenty and many samples used as blanks, are not carbon 14 blank as they were assumed, but were assumed because they were hundreds of millions of years old, or so they believe.The passage in question in no ways is about a sacrifice...do you believe that Cain have offered the fruits and vegetables of his garden to be sacrified ? The story is about Cain and Abel making an offering to God as soon as Cain and Abel became mature enough .They have surely not waited many hundred of years to do that.. Taken into consideration that it have taken about 100 years for Adam and Eve to have their third child Seth.You want us to believe that Cain ,Abel,Seth and many other childs of Adam and Eve and many generations of their descendants where there when Cain have killed Abel,that reasonning is simpy not Biblical. (Genesis 4)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?