the invention of God

[Uncle Nate 2097]

3 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

Does it say that somewhere or is that the explanation that best fits the text as written? There was no son at the time so was this the Bi-God? I think his name was Lance.

 

Read the Gospel of John. The Trinity is eternal:

Quote

“The Word Became Flesh
JOHN 1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.”

 

[elfenix 34339]

there's a similar question in islam as to whether the quran is co-extant with god or whether it was created later.  it's a very srs discussion.  

Edited June 7, 2018 by elfenix

[Mole 4333]

53 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

Does it say that somewhere or is that the explanation that best fits the text as written? There was no son at the time so was this the Bi-God? I think his name was Lance.

 

There's a pretty common view in Christianity that there are elements of foreshadowing of Christ in the Old Testament. This passage was seen by the early church as a foreshadowing of the Trinity. Maybe not quite prophetic, but something roughly similar. There were lots of reinterpretations of Old Testament passages by Paul and others. If you grant, even just briefly, that the accounts in the Gospels and Acts are true, it makes sense that the early church would look at Jewish scriptures in a different light. There are no specific Biblical passages concerning Genesis 1:26 being a reference to the Trinity, but it certainly makes sense if you accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

It certainly was a common subject in the early church.

Spoiler

74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: “For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness” (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)

150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: “In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ‘[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures.” (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words “Let Us Make Man”)

180 AD Irenaeus “It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; ” [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

200 AD Tertullian: “If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; ” whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, “Let us make; “and, “in our image; “and, “become as one of us.” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: “Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness”), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head” (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)

200 AD Tertullian: “In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. “Let us make man,” said He, before He created him, and added, “with our hand,” for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation.” (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)

Origen: “it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)

Novatian: “For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness; ” and that after this it was related, “And God made man, in the image of God made He him? “Or when he holds in his hands: “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? ” (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: “the divine Scripture testifies that God said to Christ, His only-begotten, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. And God made man: after the image of God made He him; male and female made He them.”(Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V., VII)

 

[PRONG HORN 3161]

Quote

 

 

It certainly was a common subject in the early church.

 

 

All the father, son, etc. lets you know these ideas started in a male dominated culture.  No mention of the feminine aspect(s) of "god".   

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by PRONG HORN

[Rimbo 26157]

7 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Or the “us” and “we” is referring to the Triune God. 

Just saying. 

That's what we interpret it as now. And post-captivity Jews would have their own explanation. But when it was written? It was referring to all of 'em.

[phdhorn 6224]

10 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

a guy in the desert: "there are many gods!"

Jew comes along: " there is only one god"

guy "no way" 

Jew "Yahweh" 

Jew "Amway?"

Edited June 7, 2018 by phdhorn

[Uncle Nate 2097]

8 hours ago, Mole said:

There's a pretty common view in Christianity that there are elements of foreshadowing of Christ in the Old Testament. This passage was seen by the early church as a foreshadowing of the Trinity. Maybe not quite prophetic, but something roughly similar. There were lots of reinterpretations of Old Testament passages by Paul and others. If you grant, even just briefly, that the accounts in the Gospels and Acts are true, it makes sense that the early church would look at Jewish scriptures in a different light. There are no specific Biblical passages concerning Genesis 1:26 being a reference to the Trinity, but it certainly makes sense if you accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

It certainly was a common subject in the early church.

  Reveal hidden contents

74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: “For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness” (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)

150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: “In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ‘[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures.” (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words “Let Us Make Man”)

180 AD Irenaeus “It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; ” [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

200 AD Tertullian: “If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; ” whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, “Let us make; “and, “in our image; “and, “become as one of us.” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: “Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness”), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head” (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)

200 AD Tertullian: “In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. “Let us make man,” said He, before He created him, and added, “with our hand,” for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation.” (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)

Origen: “it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)

Novatian: “For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness; ” and that after this it was related, “And God made man, in the image of God made He him? “Or when he holds in his hands: “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? ” (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: “the divine Scripture testifies that God said to Christ, His only-begotten, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. And God made man: after the image of God made He him; male and female made He them.”(Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V., VII)

 

 

If you sit down and read the Bible all the way through, and come back and reread the Old Testament, you will see the OT is all about Jesus from start to finish.  It's amazingly eye-opening. 

[Viper 12112]

Keep in mind you're reading a Christian translation of the Old Testament (happy newdoc?)  that made all those "references" pretty explicit. If you read the Torah, you're not going to find them, or at least you're going to have to tilt your head a lot further to "see" them.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

10 minutes ago, Viper said:

Keep in mind you're reading a Christian translation of the Old Testament (happy newdoc?)  that made all those "references" pretty explicit. If you read the Torah, you're not going to find them, or at least you're going to have to tilt your head a lot further to "see" them.

Never thought of that. Any decent examples?

[cactusflinthead 27607]

Again it's only looking at one little corner of the planet. 

Zoroaster and the Vedas don't count I suppose. 

[Ldogg53 514]

11 hours ago, GotThatFire said:

If you a nasty ass that lives in a desert and sleeps in the dirt, with no running water, it might make sense

From a health perspective sure.  Why make it part of a religion?  That just seems weird as fuck to me. 

[Steamboat1874 4087]

So "god" is a black man right?

[Spankytoes 1743]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

If you sit down and read the Bible all the way through, and come back and reread the Old Testament, you will see the OT is all about Jesus from start to finish.  It's amazingly eye-opening. 

How so?

That books were written from 3rd person accounts 50 years after they happened, edited, added and deleted by the Catholic Church, translated into English by medieval scholars that are apparently more advanced than 2018 Google and spellcheck and served to the public in several different versions of the text, which are then interpreted to fit a denomination's belief system?

I'm going to go with "no". 

[El Diablo 4232]

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

How so?

That books were written from 3rd person accounts 50 years after they happened, edited, added and deleted by the Catholic Church, translated into English by medieval scholars that are apparently more advanced than 2018 Google and spellcheck and served to the public in several different versions of the text, which are then interpreted to fit a denomination's belief system?

I'm going to go with "no". 

Have you never heard the phrase "God works in mysterious ways"? It's why I think God is a woman.

[Viper 12112]

39 minutes ago, Ldogg53 said:

From a health perspective sure.  Why make it part of a religion?  That just seems weird as fuck to me. 

because back in 1000bc religion was the same as law was the same as government was the same as culture.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

Spankytoes-

This is where faith comes in...because we as humans can in no way understand any of this as being logical.  Our hearts and minds fully reject it all.  The only way a person can believe it is through faith alone.

I admit that straight up.  The Trinity?  What human being could possibly have dreamt THAT concept up?  You can't explain it...heck, it's beyond our capability to even try to understand it.  We can't.  You either believe or you don't believe.  That's what it boils down to.

You believe by hearing (or reading) the Word.  Some people hear/read it, and reject it.  Some people hear/read it, and by a miracle of faith accept it.  Those who reject it can't understand why on Earth those who accept it believe as they do.  Why?  Because it doesn't make sense to us as humans.  It simply doesn't.  

Edited June 7, 2018 by Uncle Nate

[Uncle Nate 2097]

5 minutes ago, Viper said:

because back in 1000bc religion was the same as law was the same as government was the same as culture.

Yep.

The theocracy has been around since the earliest days of mankind.  Democracy is a relatively new concept.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Uncle Nate

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4979]

Not just democracy, but the idea that government should exist apart from religion. And that only came about really because Catholics and Protestants spent 30 years killing each other.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

You believe by hearing (or reading) the Word.  Some people hear/read it, and reject it.  Some people hear/read it, and by a miracle of faith accept it.  Those who reject it can't understand why on Earth those who accept it believe as they do.  Why?  Because it doesn't make sense to us as humans.  It simply doesn't.  

I've always had an issue with this. This is the shit that gets people to travel to some exotic country and drink Kool-Aid when Dear Leader says "you must have faith".

The Bible has been rewritten/translated for thousands of years. If this is THE WORLD, why would God allow confusion?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

The irony is that, according to Scripture, God's not a fan of theocracy.  Two kingdoms and the whole "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."  People like to claim America was founded as a Christian or a Judeo-Christian country.  It wasn't.  Far from it.  

I'm a Christian and I have no problem saying that not only was America NOT founded as a Christian nation, it shouldn't be considered one either, and that is a GOOD THING.  Keep the two kingdoms separate.  Let people worship as they want to and leave each other the hell alone.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I've always had an issue with this. This is the shit that gets people to travel to some exotic country and drink Kool-Aid when Dear Leader says "you must have faith".

The Bible has been rewritten/translated for thousands of years. If this is THE WORLD, why would God allow confusion?

Yet if you read the original Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek, it's pretty much unchanged.

God did not intend for there to be confusion and a broken world.  We did that.  We screwed it up.  And in this broken world evil gets in and does its thing.  False prophets take advantage and use that...thus the kool-aid.  

I'm not here to convince you one way or the other...I can only tell you what I believe. There is a God, and I'm not him.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Uncle Nate

[Anastasis 23490]

9 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

All the father, son, etc. lets you know these ideas started in a male dominated culture.  No mention of the feminine aspect(s) of "god".   

 

Actually the prototype for the Holy Spirit in the 1st century jewish religious tradition was the (feminine) concept of Wisdom. 

[Spankytoes 1743]

9 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Spankytoes-

This is where faith comes in...because we as humans can in no way understand any of this as being logical.  Our hearts and minds fully reject it all.  The only way a person can believe it is through faith alone.

I admit that straight up.  The Trinity?  What human being could possibly have dreamt THAT concept up?  You can't explain it...heck, it's beyond our capability to even try to understand it.  We can't.  You either believe or you don't believe.  That's what it boils down to.

You believe by hearing (or reading) the Word.  Some people hear/read it, and reject it.  Some people hear/read it, and by a miracle of faith accept it.  Those who reject it can't understand why on Earth those who accept it believe as they do.  Why?  Because it doesn't make sense to us as humans.  It simply doesn't.  

Understood, which is why it's a pointless debate. The Christian god is one of trillions of theories to answer the questions of "why" and "how" and one of thousands of gods that have been worshiped. As an agnostic, it's not about making sense for me. The Big Bang Theory is severely flawed. Where did the particles come from and when did infinite time and space come into existence...and who created the chain reaction for that? That's why I classify as agnostic rather than atheist, because I think that atheists are just as arrogant and misguided as Christians. The Bible, however, is so full of plot holes and double-talking that George Lucas looks like a scholar compared to it. Faith is a choice, but it's not a "free choice" in that Christianity has a major influence on you simply based on where you were born and grew up. A devout Muslim is just as convinced that he is following the righteous path all the while recognizing Jesus as a prophet.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Uncle Nate said:

Yet if you read the original Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek, it's pretty much unchanged.

Well that's just not true;

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

 

[Spankytoes 1743]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I've always had an issue with this. This is the shit that gets people to travel to some exotic country and drink Kool-Aid when Dear Leader says "you must have faith".

The Bible has been rewritten/translated for thousands of years. If this is THE WORLD, why would God allow confusion?

Texas won the National Championship 12 years ago. Based on the people I've talked to, and the claims on the internet, the Rose Bowl must have held 500,000+ seats for all the people that say that they were there to witness it in person. When you tack on more time, and something like eternal damnation as the worst outcome, I imagine the stories get exaggerated a little further. Maybe even fabricated to run with a good PR line that can't be disproved. 

[Anastasis 23490]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

Keep in mind you're reading a Christian translation of the Old Testament (happy newdoc?)  that made all those "references" pretty explicit. If you read the Torah, you're not going to find them, or at least you're going to have to tilt your head a lot further to "see" them.

Technically, it wasn't a "Christian translation", it was the Greek translation of earlier hebrew texts performed by leading greek speaking jewish scholars 2-300 years prior to Jesus. The masoretic text was codified some 1000-1200 years after the LXX, largely in response to and rejection of the Christian usage of the LXX. The modern MT is a reactionary document intended to reject to Christian use of the Hebrew scriptures. But your overall point stands and is well made. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Anastasis

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

Texas won the National Championship 12 years ago. Based on the people I've talked to, and the claims on the internet, the Rose Bowl must have held 500,000+ seats for all the people that say that they were there to witness it in person. When you tack on more time, and something like eternal damnation as the worst outcome, I imagine the stories get exaggerated a little further. Maybe even fabricated to run with a good PR line that can't be disproved. 

Great example. And that's only 12 years and we have video footage. Imagine what the stories would have been if handed down thru several hundred generation orally. 

VINCE YOUNG WAS 18 foot tall and RAN FOR 18,000 yards!

[gsoda3 3283]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I've always had an issue with this. This is the shit that gets people to travel to some exotic country and drink Kool-Aid when Dear Leader says "you must have faith".

The Bible has been rewritten/translated for thousands of years. If this is THE WORLD, why would God allow confusion?

it's not your first time around the block so i'm sure you know the answer.  the issue you have is whether or not you accept that answer.  do you accept the wisdom of God or do you accept your own wisdom?  it's a heart issue.

 

and @Spankytoes the biblical scriptures are the most accurately and preserved writings in the history of humankind. the new testament alone has thousands of specimens our modern NT is compared to.  the textual integrity of the bible isn't in question unless you're hoping it is.  you're barking up the wrong tree there.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Great example. And that's only 12 years and we have video footage. Imagine what the stories would have been if handed down thru several hundred generation orally. 
VINCE YOUNG WAS 18 foot tall and RAN FOR 18,000 yards!

That last part is actually true.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

That last part is actually true.

And then drank Bill Brasky under the bar later that night?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

it's not your first time around the block so i'm sure you know the answer.  the issue you have is whether or not you accept that answer.  do you accept the wisdom of God or do you accept your own wisdom?  it's a heart issue.

Cop out. 

I'm an engineer. Imagine if we allowed people to build buildings but when the inspection process began, the builder said "we know this building is safe. Accept it or not, it's a heart issue". Would you hang out on the 96th floor?

[gsoda3 3283]

10 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Well that's just not true;

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

 

textual variants.  if you want to go down that road there are thousands of examples like that-  a handful of copies that branch away from the main line at different places.  the key is to trace the main line through the ages.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

it's not your first time around the block so i'm sure you know the answer.  the issue you have is whether or not you accept that answer.  do you accept the wisdom of God or do you accept your own wisdom?  it's a heart issue.
 
and [mention=177]Spankytoes[/mention] the biblical scriptures are the most accurately and preserved writings in the history of humankind. the new testament alone has thousands of specimens our modern NT is compared to.  the textual integrity of the bible isn't in question unless you're hoping it is.  you're barking up the wrong tree there.

You mean “accept the wisdom of God as told by man”, right?

[gsoda3 3283]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Cop out. 

I'm an engineer. Imagine if we allowed people to build buildings but when the inspection process began, the builder said "we know this building is safe. Accept it or not, it's a heart issue". Would you hang out on the 96th floor?

that's an odd and irrelevant answer, you don't have to justify yourself to me.  you keep asking questions that have answers. you don't like the answers so you don't accept them.  realize that you've chosen to rely on your own wisdom. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

textual variants.  if you want to go down that road there are thousands of examples like that-  a handful of copies that branch away from the main line at different places.  the key is to trace the main line through the ages.

This is why at least with some of the Lutheran & Methodist seminaries (that I know of), students have to learn Greek because they have to be able to read the NT in the original Greek.  I know some Lutheran pastors also learned Hebrew so they could read the OT in the original Hebrew.  Why?  So they are not dependent on the English translations as they study the scriptures.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

 

You mean “accept the wisdom of God as told by man”, right?

 

Exactly. The wisdom of a higher being has been around since Fred and Barney were eating brontosaurus burgers. Why is this version correct and all others false?

[gsoda3 3283]

Just now, Uncle Nate said:

This is why at least with some of the Lutheran & Methodist seminaries (that I know of), students have to learn Greek because they have to be able to read the NT in the original Greek.  I know some Lutheran pastors also learned Hebrew so they could read the OT in the original Hebrew.  Why?  So they are not dependent on the English translations as they study the scriptures.

i've not heard of any seminaries where greek/hebrew aren't requisite.  

[gsoda3 3283]

3 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

 

You mean “accept the wisdom of God as told by man”, right?

 

can God not use man?  

[gsoda3 3283]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Exactly. The wisdom of a higher being has been around since Fred and Barney were eating brontosaurus burgers. Why is this version correct and all others false?

b/c this guy raised people from the dead.  this guy drove out spirits.  this guy healed.  and then this guy died and came back to life.  and there were witnesses.  hundreds of them.  most who radically changed their lives afterwards to live lives of poverty, hunger, toil, rejection, persecution, and some even martyrdom.  to what end if they didn't truly believe?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

b/c this guy raised people from the dead.  this guy drove out spirits.  this guy healed.  and then this guy died and came back to life.  and there were witnesses.  hundreds of them.  most who radically changed their lives afterwards to live lives of poverty, hunger, toil, rejection, persecution, and some even martyrdom.  to what end if they didn't truly believe?

*allegedly

[Uncle Nate 2097]

7 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

 

You mean “accept the wisdom of God as told by man”, right?

 

Comes down to accepting if the Scriptures are the Word of God written down by man as instructed by God or not.  Again, it comes down to faith.  I admit I had serious doubts, and I really had no clue what the Old Testament was about other than to give us history and law.  But after reading the Bible cover-to-cover, and then digging deeper into those areas that I had (and still have) trouble comprehending, I believe now more than ever the Bible, all of it, was written by man but is the word of God.  That's what I believe after reading it.

I can't convince anyone else of it...I'm not a theologian and I'm not an evangelist.  I have had no religious training.  I believe the Holy Spirit worked within me to hear and understand what I read.

There is no way...NO WAY...man could have come up with that stuff on his own over those thousands of years.  It's not possible. 

That's what I believe.  Can I debate someone on it?  Not really, no.  I can just tell you what I believe and why.

[gsoda3 3283]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

*allegedly

sure you can choose to ignore the historical impact the eyewitnesses had, but just realize you're relying on your own wisdom.  again.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

6 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

i've not heard of any seminaries where greek/hebrew aren't requisite.  

I admit I don't get out much.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

sure you can choose to ignore the historical impact the eyewitnesses had, but just realize you're relying on your own wisdom.  again.

Are their any books outside of the bible that corroborate the witness testimony?

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Comes down to accepting if the Scriptures are the Word of God written down by man as instructed by God or not.  Again, it comes down to faith.  I admit I had serious doubts, and I really had no clue what the Old Testament was about other than to give us history and law.  But after reading the Bible cover-to-cover, and then digging deeper into those areas that I had (and still have) trouble comprehending, I believe now more than ever the Bible, all of it, was written by man but is the word of God.  That's what I believe after reading it.
I can't convince anyone else of it...I'm not a theologian and I'm not an evangelist.  I have had no religious training.  I believe the Holy Spirit worked within me to hear and understand what I read.
There is no way...NO WAY...man could have come up with that stuff on his own over those thousands of years.  It's not possible. 
That's what I believe.  Can I debate someone on it?  Not really, no.  I can just tell you what I believe and why.

I have no issue with your stance. You distinguish fact and faith are two different things. Others struggle with that concept.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Are their any books outside of the bible that corroborate the witness testimony?

 

Josephus....well-known historian during that time.

[cactusflinthead 27607]

1 minute ago, Uncle Nate said:

Josephus....well-known historian during that time.

Rex Kramer made the same claim. He also stated that Tacitus did as well. 

Going to ask you to cite it.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

can God not use man?  

Sure. But how do you prove that what they are saying is in fact the word of God?

Aren’t you the one that believes the Bible is to be taken literally?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Rex Kramer made the same claim. He also stated that Tacitus did as well. 

Going to ask you to cite it.

With what could I possibly cite?  I don't have his original writings in front of me, and anything I post from the interwebs you won't accept (would you?  I wouldn't).  It's not like there are scholarly journals out there I could cite with APA style formatting that have been peer-reviewed by his fellow scholars.  That's really the only thing we would accept in this day and age when it comes to citing scholarly works, is it not?

Here's some stuff...not peer-reviewed scholarly journals, however.  If our roles were reversed, I would not accept these at face value:

https://www.allabouthistory.org/josephus-and-christ-faq.htm

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/josephus-and-jesus/

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Josephus....well-known historian during that time.

You should probably do a little research on this. Josephus did write that a person named Jesus existed and was crucified. No one is debating that. But he doesn't describe any miracles.