.
There is some reason to doubt biblical tales that Jesus Christ, identified as a godman, died and came back to life (as discussed in many threads). Some theologians regard the resurrection to be less than literal.
Questions for debate:
1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
2. Was Jesus supernatural?
3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?
If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
Catharsis
Post #11
The Early Christians were often suspected and accused of civic indifference, and even of morbid "misanthropy," odium generis humani, — which should be probably contrasted with the alleged "philanthropy" of the Roman Empire. The charge was not without substance. In his famous reply to Celsus, Origen was ready to admit the charge. Yet, what else could Christians have done, he asked. In every city, he explained, "we have another system of allegiance," allo systema tes patridos (Contra Celsum, VIII. 75). Along with the civil community there was in every city another community, the local Church. And she was for Christians their true home, or their "fatherland," and not their actual "native city." The anonymous writer of the admirable "Letter to Diognetus," written probably in the early years of the second century, elaborated this point with an elegant precision. Christians do not dwell in the cities of their own, nor do they differ from the rest of men in speech and customs. "Yet, while they dwell in the cities of Greeks and Barbarians, as the lot of each is cast, the structure of their own polity is peculiar and paradoxical.. . . Every foreign land is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is a foreign land.... Their conversation is on the earth, but their citizenship is in heaven." There was no passion in this attitude, no hostility, and no actual retirement from daily life. But there was a strong note of spiritual estrangement: "and every fatherland is a foreign land." It was coupled, however, with an acute sense of responsibility. Christians were confined in the world, "kept" there as in a prison; but they also "kept the world together," just as the soul holds the body together. Moreover, this was precisely the task allotted to Christians by God, "which it is unlawful to decline" (Ad Diognetum, 5, 6). Christians might stay in their native cities, and faithfully perform their daily duties. But they were unable to give their full allegiance to any polity of this world, because their true commitment was elsewhere. They were socially committed and engaged in the Church, and not in the world. "For us nothing is more alien than public affairs," declared Tertullian: nee ulla magis res aliena quam publica (Apologeticum, 38.3). "I have withdrawn myself from the society," he said on another occasion: secessi de populo (De Pallia, 5). Christians were in this sense "outside society," voluntary outcasts and outlaws, — outside of the social order of this world.
It would be utterly misleading to interpret the tension between Christians and the Roman Empire as a conflict or clash between the Church and the State. Indeed, the Christian Church was more than "a church," just as ancient Israel was at once a "church" and a "nation." Christians also were a nation, a "peculiar people," the People of God, tertium genus, neither Jew nor Greek. The Church was not just a "gathered community," or a voluntary association, for "religious" purposes alone. She was, and claimed to be, a distinct and autonomous "society," a distinct polity." On the other hand, the Roman Empire was, and claimed to be, much more than just "a state." Since the Augustan reconstruction, in any case, Rome claimed to be just the City, a permanent and "eternal" City, Urbs aeterna, and an ultimate City also. In a sense, it claimed for itself an "eschatological dimension." It posed as an ultimate solution of the human problem. It was a Universal Commonwealth, "a single Cosmopolis of the inhabited earth," the Oikoumene. Rome was offering "Peace," the Pax Romana, and "Justice" to all men and all nations under its rule and sway. It claimed to be the final embodiment of "Humanity," of all human values and achievements. "The Empire was, in effect, a politico-ecclesiastical institution. It was a ‘church* as well as a ‘state’; if it had not been both, it would have been alien from the ideas of the Ancient World" (Sir Ernest Barker). In the ancient society — in the ancient polis, in Hellenistic monarchies, in the Roman republic — "religious" convictions were regarded as an integral part of the political creed. "Religion" was an integral part of the "political" structure. No division of competence and "authority" could ever be admitted, and accordingly no division of loyalty or allegiance. The State was omnicompetent, and accordingly the allegiance had to be complete and unconditional. Loyalty to the State was itself a kind of religious devotion, in whatever particular form it might have been prescribed or imposed. In the Roman Empire it was the Cult of Caesars. The whole structure of the Empire was indivisibly "political" and "religious." The main purpose of the Imperial rule was usually defined as "Philanthropy," and often even as "Salvation." Accordingly, the Emperors were described as "Saviours."
In retrospect all these claims may seem to be but Utopian delusions and wishful dreams, vain and futile, which they were indeed. Yet, these dreams were dreamt by the best people of that time — it is enough to mention Vergil. And the Utopian dream of the "Eternal Rome" survived the collapse of the actual Empire and dominated the political thinking of Europe for centuries. Paradoxically, this dream was often cherished even by those, who, by the logic of their faith, should have been better protected against its deceiving charm and thrill. In fact, the vision of an abiding or "Eternal Rome" dominated also the Christian thought in the Middle Ages, both in the East, and in the West.
There was nothing anarchical in the attitude of Early Christians toward the Roman Empire. The "divine" origin of the State and of its authority was formally acknowledged already by St. Paul, and he himself had no difficulty in appealing to the protection of Roman magistrates and of Roman law. The positive value and function of the State were commonly admitted in the Christian circles. Even the violent invective in the book of Revelation was no exception. What was denounced there was iniquity and injustice of the actual Rome, but not the principle of political order. Christians could, in full sincerity and in good faith, protest their political innocence in the Roman courts and plead their loyalty to the Empire. In fact, Early Christians were devoutedly praying for the State, for peace and order, and even for Caesars themselves. One finds a high appraisal of the Roman Empire even in those Christian writers of that time, who were notorious for their resistance, as Origen and Tertullian. The theological "justification" of the Empire originated already in the period of persecutions. Yet, Christian loyalty was, of necessity, a restricted loyalty. Of course, Christianity was in no sense a seditious plot, and Christians never intended to overthrow the existing order, although they did believe that it had ultimately to wither away. From the Roman point of view, however, Christians could not fail to appear seditious, not because they were in any sense mixed in politics, but precisely because they were not. Their political "indifference" was irritating to the Romans. They kept themselves away from the concerns of the Commonwealth, at a critical time of its struggle for existence. Not only did they claim "religious freedom" for themselves. They also claimed supreme authority for the Church. Although the Kingdom of God was emphatically "not of this world," it seemed to be a threat to the omnicompetent Kingdom of Man. The Church was, in a sense, a kind of "Resistance Movement" in the Empire. And Christians were "conscientious objectors." They were bound to resist any attempt at their "integration" into the fabric of the Empire. As Christopher Dawson has aptly said, "Christianity was the only remaining power in the world which could not be absorbed in the gigantic mechanism of the new servile state." Christians were not a political faction. Yet, their religious allegiance had an immediate "political" connotation. It has been well observed that monotheism itself was a "political problem" in the ancient world (Eric Peterson). Christians were bound to claim "autonomy" for themselves and for the Church. And this was precisely what the Empire could neither concede, nor even understand. Thus, the clash was inevitable, although it could be delayed.
The Church was a challenge to the Empire, and the Empire was a stumbling block for the Christians.
The Age of Constantine is commonly regarded as a turning point of Christian history. After a protracted struggle with the Church, the Roman Empire at last capitulated. The Caesar himself was converted, and humbly applied for admission into the Church. Religious freedom was formally promulgated, and was emphatically extended to Christians. The confiscated property was restored to Christian communities. Those Christians who suffered disability and deportation in the years of persecution were now ordered back, and were received with honors. In fact, Constantine was offering to the Church not only peace and freedom, but also protection and close cooperation. Indeed, he was urging the Church and her leaders to join with him in the "Renovation" of the Empire. This new turn of Imperial policy and tactics was received by Christians with appreciation, but not without some embarrassment and surprise. Christian response to the new situation was by no means unanimous. There were many among Christian leaders who were quite prepared to welcome unreservedly the conversion of Emperor and the prospective conversion of the Empire. But there were not a few who were apprehensive of the Imperial move. To be sure, one could but rejoice in the cessation of hostilities and in that freedom of public worship which now has been legally secured. But the major problem has not yet been solved, and it was a problem of extreme complexity. Indeed, it was a highly paradoxical problem.
Antinomies of Christian History:
Empire and Desert.
"Empire and Desert" appeared in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. Ill, No. 2 (1957)
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets ... orovky.htm
It would be utterly misleading to interpret the tension between Christians and the Roman Empire as a conflict or clash between the Church and the State. Indeed, the Christian Church was more than "a church," just as ancient Israel was at once a "church" and a "nation." Christians also were a nation, a "peculiar people," the People of God, tertium genus, neither Jew nor Greek. The Church was not just a "gathered community," or a voluntary association, for "religious" purposes alone. She was, and claimed to be, a distinct and autonomous "society," a distinct polity." On the other hand, the Roman Empire was, and claimed to be, much more than just "a state." Since the Augustan reconstruction, in any case, Rome claimed to be just the City, a permanent and "eternal" City, Urbs aeterna, and an ultimate City also. In a sense, it claimed for itself an "eschatological dimension." It posed as an ultimate solution of the human problem. It was a Universal Commonwealth, "a single Cosmopolis of the inhabited earth," the Oikoumene. Rome was offering "Peace," the Pax Romana, and "Justice" to all men and all nations under its rule and sway. It claimed to be the final embodiment of "Humanity," of all human values and achievements. "The Empire was, in effect, a politico-ecclesiastical institution. It was a ‘church* as well as a ‘state’; if it had not been both, it would have been alien from the ideas of the Ancient World" (Sir Ernest Barker). In the ancient society — in the ancient polis, in Hellenistic monarchies, in the Roman republic — "religious" convictions were regarded as an integral part of the political creed. "Religion" was an integral part of the "political" structure. No division of competence and "authority" could ever be admitted, and accordingly no division of loyalty or allegiance. The State was omnicompetent, and accordingly the allegiance had to be complete and unconditional. Loyalty to the State was itself a kind of religious devotion, in whatever particular form it might have been prescribed or imposed. In the Roman Empire it was the Cult of Caesars. The whole structure of the Empire was indivisibly "political" and "religious." The main purpose of the Imperial rule was usually defined as "Philanthropy," and often even as "Salvation." Accordingly, the Emperors were described as "Saviours."
In retrospect all these claims may seem to be but Utopian delusions and wishful dreams, vain and futile, which they were indeed. Yet, these dreams were dreamt by the best people of that time — it is enough to mention Vergil. And the Utopian dream of the "Eternal Rome" survived the collapse of the actual Empire and dominated the political thinking of Europe for centuries. Paradoxically, this dream was often cherished even by those, who, by the logic of their faith, should have been better protected against its deceiving charm and thrill. In fact, the vision of an abiding or "Eternal Rome" dominated also the Christian thought in the Middle Ages, both in the East, and in the West.
There was nothing anarchical in the attitude of Early Christians toward the Roman Empire. The "divine" origin of the State and of its authority was formally acknowledged already by St. Paul, and he himself had no difficulty in appealing to the protection of Roman magistrates and of Roman law. The positive value and function of the State were commonly admitted in the Christian circles. Even the violent invective in the book of Revelation was no exception. What was denounced there was iniquity and injustice of the actual Rome, but not the principle of political order. Christians could, in full sincerity and in good faith, protest their political innocence in the Roman courts and plead their loyalty to the Empire. In fact, Early Christians were devoutedly praying for the State, for peace and order, and even for Caesars themselves. One finds a high appraisal of the Roman Empire even in those Christian writers of that time, who were notorious for their resistance, as Origen and Tertullian. The theological "justification" of the Empire originated already in the period of persecutions. Yet, Christian loyalty was, of necessity, a restricted loyalty. Of course, Christianity was in no sense a seditious plot, and Christians never intended to overthrow the existing order, although they did believe that it had ultimately to wither away. From the Roman point of view, however, Christians could not fail to appear seditious, not because they were in any sense mixed in politics, but precisely because they were not. Their political "indifference" was irritating to the Romans. They kept themselves away from the concerns of the Commonwealth, at a critical time of its struggle for existence. Not only did they claim "religious freedom" for themselves. They also claimed supreme authority for the Church. Although the Kingdom of God was emphatically "not of this world," it seemed to be a threat to the omnicompetent Kingdom of Man. The Church was, in a sense, a kind of "Resistance Movement" in the Empire. And Christians were "conscientious objectors." They were bound to resist any attempt at their "integration" into the fabric of the Empire. As Christopher Dawson has aptly said, "Christianity was the only remaining power in the world which could not be absorbed in the gigantic mechanism of the new servile state." Christians were not a political faction. Yet, their religious allegiance had an immediate "political" connotation. It has been well observed that monotheism itself was a "political problem" in the ancient world (Eric Peterson). Christians were bound to claim "autonomy" for themselves and for the Church. And this was precisely what the Empire could neither concede, nor even understand. Thus, the clash was inevitable, although it could be delayed.
The Church was a challenge to the Empire, and the Empire was a stumbling block for the Christians.
The Age of Constantine is commonly regarded as a turning point of Christian history. After a protracted struggle with the Church, the Roman Empire at last capitulated. The Caesar himself was converted, and humbly applied for admission into the Church. Religious freedom was formally promulgated, and was emphatically extended to Christians. The confiscated property was restored to Christian communities. Those Christians who suffered disability and deportation in the years of persecution were now ordered back, and were received with honors. In fact, Constantine was offering to the Church not only peace and freedom, but also protection and close cooperation. Indeed, he was urging the Church and her leaders to join with him in the "Renovation" of the Empire. This new turn of Imperial policy and tactics was received by Christians with appreciation, but not without some embarrassment and surprise. Christian response to the new situation was by no means unanimous. There were many among Christian leaders who were quite prepared to welcome unreservedly the conversion of Emperor and the prospective conversion of the Empire. But there were not a few who were apprehensive of the Imperial move. To be sure, one could but rejoice in the cessation of hostilities and in that freedom of public worship which now has been legally secured. But the major problem has not yet been solved, and it was a problem of extreme complexity. Indeed, it was a highly paradoxical problem.
Antinomies of Christian History:
Empire and Desert.
"Empire and Desert" appeared in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. Ill, No. 2 (1957)
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets ... orovky.htm
-
Catharsis
Post #12
>>>What's more important here, though, it's what's going on in this thread. I've offered a very rational explanation of what Christianity really is<<<
What Christianity is
http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b ... apy.01.htm
http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b ... apy.00.htm
This book contains the important message that the church can heal an ailing personality. The term "Orthodox Psychotherapy" does not refer to specific cases of people suffering from psychological problems of neurosis. Rather it refers to all people. According to Orthodox Tradition, after Adam;s fall man became ill; his "nous" was darkened and lost communion with God. Death entered into the person's being and caused many anthropological, social, even ecological problems. In the tragedy of his fall man maintained the image of God within him but lost completely the the likeness of Him, since his communion with God was disrupted. However the incarnation of Christ and the work of the church aim at enabling the person to attain to the likeness of God, that is to reestablish communion with God. This passage way from a fallen state to divinization is called the healing of the person, because it is connected with his return from a state of being contrary to nature, to that of a state according to nature and above nature. By adhering to Orthodox therapeuthic treatment as conceived by the Holy Fathers of Church man can cope succesfully with his thoughts (logismoi) and thus solve his problems completely and comprehensively.
What Christianity is
http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b ... apy.01.htm
http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b ... apy.00.htm
This book contains the important message that the church can heal an ailing personality. The term "Orthodox Psychotherapy" does not refer to specific cases of people suffering from psychological problems of neurosis. Rather it refers to all people. According to Orthodox Tradition, after Adam;s fall man became ill; his "nous" was darkened and lost communion with God. Death entered into the person's being and caused many anthropological, social, even ecological problems. In the tragedy of his fall man maintained the image of God within him but lost completely the the likeness of Him, since his communion with God was disrupted. However the incarnation of Christ and the work of the church aim at enabling the person to attain to the likeness of God, that is to reestablish communion with God. This passage way from a fallen state to divinization is called the healing of the person, because it is connected with his return from a state of being contrary to nature, to that of a state according to nature and above nature. By adhering to Orthodox therapeuthic treatment as conceived by the Holy Fathers of Church man can cope succesfully with his thoughts (logismoi) and thus solve his problems completely and comprehensively.
-
The Duke of Vandals
- Banned
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm
Post #13
So, at this point you've conceded the debate. Disagree? Then in your next post address the issues I raised with Athenagoras, with Philo, and with the issues of Judaism in the first century. I'm not interested in your worthless tangents.
-
BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Post #14
Here are additional OT quotes to support this truth, and to indicate that there were many sons of god. Jesus considered himself one among many. Jesus derived his terms from the OT, not from second century scholars.goat says: In the Jewish culture of the time, the term 'son of god' was someone who was particularly righteous and particularly blessed by god by their actions.
Gen. 6 [2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen. 6 [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1 [6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2 [1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38 [7] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Hosea 1 [10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
-
Easyrider
Post #15
For a more comprehensive and accurate view of Jesus as God's only begotten Son, please review:BeHereNow wrote:Here are additional OT quotes to support this truth, and to indicate that there were many sons of god. Jesus considered himself one among many. Jesus derived his terms from the OT, not from second century scholars.goat says: In the Jewish culture of the time, the term 'son of god' was someone who was particularly righteous and particularly blessed by god by their actions.
Gen. 6 [2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen. 6 [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1 [6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2 [1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38 [7] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Hosea 1 [10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resou ... gottenson/
-
BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Post #16
easyrider
First, I have read several of Henry M Morris’ books and he lacks credibility.
He explains fossils in the mud as God’s way of confounding the evolutionists. He put them there to confuse the scientists. I find this lacks rationality, therefore Morris lacks credibility.
His conviction that the universe is less than 10,000 years old lacks credibility.
What he/you provide is more of what other individuals say about Jesus.
Many people have believed many things about the man Jesus. Some of them true, others not true.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote “That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible...
First, I have read several of Henry M Morris’ books and he lacks credibility.
He explains fossils in the mud as God’s way of confounding the evolutionists. He put them there to confuse the scientists. I find this lacks rationality, therefore Morris lacks credibility.
His conviction that the universe is less than 10,000 years old lacks credibility.
What he/you provide is more of what other individuals say about Jesus.
Many people have believed many things about the man Jesus. Some of them true, others not true.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote “That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible...
-
The Duke of Vandals
- Banned
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm
Post #17
Easyrider wrote:For a more comprehensive and accurate view of Jesus as God's only begotten Son, please review:BeHereNow wrote:Here are additional OT quotes to support this truth, and to indicate that there were many sons of god. Jesus considered himself one among many. Jesus derived his terms from the OT, not from second century scholars.goat says: In the Jewish culture of the time, the term 'son of god' was someone who was particularly righteous and particularly blessed by god by their actions.
Gen. 6 [2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen. 6 [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1 [6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2 [1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38 [7] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Hosea 1 [10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resou ... gottenson/
Son, we're having a grown up discussion about the non-existence of Jesus. I know you didn't have anything to refute my post and that you've been waiting to add something of value to this thread. To get your licks in. What you've offered, though... well, let's just say that you're still not ready to sit at the adult table. Why don't you run along and play in the general debate forum and let the grown-ups have their conversation, yes?
-
Easyrider
Post #18
You should have focused on his arguments relating to Jesus as the Son of God, which was the issue being debated.BeHereNow wrote: easyrider
First, I have read several of Henry M Morris’ books and he lacks credibility.
He explains fossils in the mud as God’s way of confounding the evolutionists. He put them there to confuse the scientists. I find this lacks rationality, therefore Morris lacks credibility.
Jefferson had his own "pick and choose" Bible. He left all of Jesus' miracles, and his resurrection, etc., on his cutting room floor. His theology is highly suspect.BeHereNow wrote:I agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote “That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible...
But if you'd prefer different sources here's a couple of more:
Jesus as the Unique Son of God
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/sonofgod.htm
Jesus as the Son of God
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Jesus-son-of-God.html
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #19
Ah yes.. you point out yet another use of the term 'sons of god', and that is the angels.BeHereNow wrote:Here are additional OT quotes to support this truth, and to indicate that there were many sons of god. Jesus considered himself one among many. Jesus derived his terms from the OT, not from second century scholars.goat says: In the Jewish culture of the time, the term 'son of god' was someone who was particularly righteous and particularly blessed by god by their actions.
Gen. 6 [2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen. 6 [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1 [6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2 [1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38 [7] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Hosea 1 [10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
Catharsis
Post #20
To Duke,
>>>So, at this point you've conceded the debate. Disagree? Then in your next post address the issues I raised with Athenagoras, with Philo, and with the issues of Judaism in the first century. I'm not interested in your worthless tangents.<<<
What specific questions/issues/points do you want me to address?
>>>So, at this point you've conceded the debate. Disagree? Then in your next post address the issues I raised with Athenagoras, with Philo, and with the issues of Judaism in the first century. I'm not interested in your worthless tangents.<<<
What specific questions/issues/points do you want me to address?
