Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

Revelation In Space said:
Messiah, or Christ, means savior.
Click to expand...
Actually it means anointed one as the kings of old. it is from a Hebrew word "mashiach" Christ is merely Greek for Messiah. It does not mean "god almighty" and there is no reason to think that is what Jesus thought he was from the synoptic. From John yes.
 
Revelation In Space said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

That Mark was the fist Gospel and Matthew and Luke used that as a source is generally accepted. Current consensus is Mark around 70CE Matthew and Luke 80-85 and John around 95CE.
As well as Mark Luke and Matthew used a source that gave some sayings of Jesus called "Q", they also had their individual sources called L and M.
references to historical events can place Mark at 70CE, namely the Jewish Roman war and the fall of the temple.
 
Revelation In Space said:
Messiah, or Christ, means savior. David was a messiah; Jesus was a messiah. sons of God is exactly what it says
Click to expand...
My point on all of this is there are no such sayings in terms of the divinity of Jesus in the synoptics (this simply means "seen together" because Mark Matthew and Luke are similar) Only John. This is because John is has a more developed Christology. Jesus is god. I am not saying all the Gospel writers did not think he was divine in different ways, I am saying what Jesus the man thought of himself.

Mark has Jesus beginning with his ministry Mark 1:15 “The time promised by God has come at last!” he announced. “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!”

No birth narrative, he is already an adult.

Luke and Matthew begin with a miraculous birth following long lineages back to David and beyond.

John puts Jesus at the beginning of time with god creating the universe! All completely different.

The thing is I was taught this at school as jumbled garbage, no author had his view, it was all just mashed together. It is far more beautiful understanding it this way. As an atheist.
 
Revelation In Space said:
When the earth was created the angels cried out in joy. They were there before man. Abraham was a man. (Job 38:7)
Click to expand...
Fun fact - the two books of Genesis contradict each other in terms of creation order. In Genesis 1 cattle come first, before Man. In Genesis 2 Man comes first before cattle.

Reading it in the original languages makes it more clear why this happens. The two are completely different accounts. The first - the Priestly account - is Genesis 1 and the first lines of Genesis 2. The rest is from the Jahwist source. They have different forms (narrative vs verses) different terms for God (Yahweh vs Elohim) different similarities to other myths (Babylonian vs Mesopotamian) and different orders of creation.

So it's no wonder they contradict each other. To discuss Genesis rationally you have to pick one account and stick with that one.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Well, think of it analogous to "To discuss Harry Potter rationally..."

You don't have to believe it's actually true to discuss the construct rationally.
Click to expand...
No, you can construct reasonably, not rationally. Fantasy and irrationally are find bedmates if you're bored.
 
billvon said:
Fun fact - the two books of Genesis contradict each other in terms of creation order. In Genesis 1 cattle come first, before Man. In Genesis 2 Man comes first before cattle.
Click to expand...

There are two different creation accounts, though they don't contradict one another. They are given from two different perspectives. The first chronologically, the second topically.

billvon said:
Reading it in the original languages makes it more clear why this happens.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

billvon said:
The two are completely different accounts. The first - the Priestly account - is Genesis 1 and the first lines of Genesis 2. The rest is from the Jahwist source. They have different forms (narrative vs verses) different terms for God (Yahweh vs Elohim) different similarities to other myths (Babylonian vs Mesopotamian) and different orders of creation.
Click to expand...
The documentary hypothesis is nonsense. Anyone with any sense knows that.

billvon said:
So it's no wonder they contradict each other. To discuss Genesis rationally you have to pick one account and stick with that one.
Click to expand...

No, you don't.
 
Revelation In Space said:
There are two different creation accounts, though they don't contradict one another. They are given from two different perspectives. The first chronologically, the second topically.
Click to expand...
In Genesis 1, cattle comes first, then man. I assume you agree, since you say that it is chronologically correct.

Genesis 2:

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
- So Man is created.
"The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."
- Then he moved Man to the garden.
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
- Then he tells Man to not eat from the tree.
"And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field."
- THEN God creates cattle.

And no, he didn't really create cattle first. The narrative makes it clear that it is not until God recognizes that Adam is alone that he creates cattle, specifically to create a helper for him.

This contradiction occurs because they are two completely different stories. Different authors, different original languages. different source material. The imagery of Earth rising out of the waters (Genesis 1) came from the area around present-day Egypt where regular flooding of the Nile brought fertility to the area. The imagery of Earth being created as a series of rivers (Genesis 2) came from the area around the Tigris-Euphrates river valley (today in Iraq) where the many rivers there brought water and life to the area. One of the rivers listed is indeed the Euphrates; the name is the same today.

Different stories, different origins.

I recommend you do a little studying on this. It's a fascinating subject.
 
Pinball1970 said:
That Mark was the fist Gospel and Matthew and Luke used that as a source is generally accepted. Current consensus is Mark around 70CE Matthew and Luke 80-85 and John around 95CE.
As well as Mark Luke and Matthew used a source that gave some sayings of Jesus called "Q", they also had their individual sources called L and M.
references to historical events can place Mark at 70CE, namely the Jewish Roman war and the fall of the temple.
Click to expand...

billvon said:
I recommend you do a little studying on this. It's a fascinating subject.
Click to expand...

[Sigh] Let's say I tell you I went to the store to buy a coat but I tell someone else I bought a coat at the store. Is that a contradiction? Is that a totally different story? The first account is chronological, meaning in the order of creation. The second is topical meaning events are given as they are relevant to man. After his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So, the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top