Posts by Jonathan Drake

35

If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon in

matthew 17:20 - he said to them, because of your little faith.

for truly, i say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.. i get the 'message' - if you believe enough (in fact, even a tiny amount - a mustard seed being tiny) then nothing is impossible but really, what a ridiculous statement and idea for several reasons.. there are lots of people who believe things completely and sincerely even to the point of death.

so far i've not noticed any sudden movements of any mountain ranges.

Jonathan Drake

Ok yea, that's a good point. Lemme share what I concluded from researching this segment of matthew.

In Matt 16 you see the disciples doubted even after seeing miraculous feeding of thousands. They doubted so much that they forgot to bring the leftover loaves with them when they departed. Then, it was so heavy on their minds that when Christ said to, "watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees" they didn't even think about the strange expression. They just assumed he meant the bread they forgot.

however, Christ then explains by drawing out of them why they doubted. The Pharisees were teaching, correctly, that the bible said in Malachi that Elijah would come first before the messiah. They didn't percieve John the Baptist was Elijah and so they doubted Jesus was the Christ. However, three of them had exceptional faith, and these three are rewarded by being given the very thing the Pharisees were asking for in chapter 16, a sign of his authority and messianic claim in the form of the transfiguration. However only the three saw it, thus the others continued to doubt. and the doubt prevented the expulsion of this demon.

So, considering all this context, Jesus bluntness seems sensible to me. If I was providing all the proof in the world as credentials for a fact, and the people I was showing this to doubted anyway: I'd be frustrated. Especially after it happening many times. So, in my opinion (whatever that's worth), this blunt statement makes sense. It's like, "after everything you've seen you still have no faith in me? Really?"

35

If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon in

matthew 17:20 - he said to them, because of your little faith.

for truly, i say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.. i get the 'message' - if you believe enough (in fact, even a tiny amount - a mustard seed being tiny) then nothing is impossible but really, what a ridiculous statement and idea for several reasons.. there are lots of people who believe things completely and sincerely even to the point of death.

so far i've not noticed any sudden movements of any mountain ranges.

Jonathan Drake

What is the difference between Christ saying this and parents telling their children they can, "become anything they set their mind to"?

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

@ Viv

The part that needs a citation is the assertion that the church invented it. The undisputed fact, is the part where the phrase is only used by Christ to refer to himself.

as far as El being the Ugarit pantheon father. This was never disputed by me. Fact: this God was Abrahams God known as Elshaddai. The God was later known as yahweh. The changing of the name does not constitute a new God, it's the same God with a different name. That is in fact what all these references are saying. Did the worship of the God evolve in Israelite religious practice? Yes it did. Does this make it a different God? No it doesn't.

a way you can see this in the bible is in numbers. This God had at least one prophet he spoke to who wasn't in the tribe of Israel. In numbers 22 balaam lives in Pethor. This suggests that the God had other prophets in the area who weren't Israelites. so it would seem there were others besides Israelites who accepted the God El as their God. Just because the gods worship was changed or evolved does not make it a new God.

any further argument on the subject is to argue theology and not history. As an example, I would argue that this God elshaddai, called el, became a different God only at the hands of the surrounding nations and that the true worship of the God was preserved by Melchizadek and passed on to Abraham and his descendants. In arguing this I would submit that the surrounding nations evolved the God into something completely different from its original preserved by Melchizadek. So that THEY took on a new God, while Israel preserved the original.

But this is a theological argument, not a historical one. From history we can assert that El was Abrahams God, that Melchizadek was this gods priest and this priest blessed Abraham. Then Abraham passed the worship of this God alone onto his descendants. As I said above, did the Ten Commandments and mosaic law constitute a change to this gods worship at least in terms of making it a standard? Yes. Does this make the God different from el Shaddai mentioned by Melchizadek? No. It only standardized the practices of worship. Did this differ from how the surrounding nations worshipped this God? Probably. Does it make it a different God? No.

Modern day example:

catholics worship differently. Jehovah's witnesses worship differently. Protestants worship differently. Do they worship the same God? Yes.

So what we are really arguing isnt whether it was same God, but which manner of worship was the right one. Therefore it's a theological arguement, not a historical one.

13

The god of the bible doesn't care and here's some proof.

by Crazyguy in

around 600 ad a man named muhammed created a book called the quran.

a few hundred years later the followers of this new religion called islam went on a holy crusade out of arabia to spread their religion.

in one key battle they were met by the ruling government army and were out numbered at least by 3 to 1. they could of easily lost and if god would of made sure of this most likely thier religion would of stayed an insagnificant religion of just arabia.

Jonathan Drake

@ kaik

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but i cited my reference. The crusades were a response to the Ottoman Empire. This empire had spread far enough to actually be in Europe. I highly recommend that book I referenced, as well as this link:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

55

The contempt of Anthony Morris: the face doesn't lie.

by freemindfade in

i have noticed something even long before even looking into ttatt, something about morris bothered me.

i am personally very attuned to body language, facial expressions and general subtleties in human interaction.

there was something about his face that really bothered me, and i will explain it.

Jonathan Drake

Omg I was wondering if anyone else saw this!!!

thank you! I've seen this for years, he hates these people for taking his picture at the very least.

23

The Bible's approval of slavery (including Jesus)

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

how can there possibly be a reason for this?

smh.

i can't imagine how this is excusable..

Jonathan Drake

Ok actually yea that is what it says. Couldn't wait until tomorrow.

Look at Exodus 21:2-6. In this scenario, it specifies that if the wife was not a Hebrew, and the slave man had children with her, her and the children remained with the master. They were never freed, by seniority, by jubilee year, nothing; and they were passed on as inheritance. UNLESS the master chose to free them, which was always his right.

23

The Bible's approval of slavery (including Jesus)

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

how can there possibly be a reason for this?

smh.

i can't imagine how this is excusable..

Jonathan Drake

@ village

I'll look at this more tomorrow. i think that's a very good question. I would say from what we've considered so far, as a preliminary guess, that the master would still keep them. Because it sounds like the scenario in your question is exactly what has happened in that scripture. I.e., I'm a Hebrew, my wife is not, we have kids. 7 years go by, I'm free, wife isn't, kids aren't. The master can choose to free them, or I can choose the awl. If they are Hebrews as well, a third choice exists of waiting for their freedom.

but again, that's a guess. I'll read over the requirements tomorrow.

23

The Bible's approval of slavery (including Jesus)

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

how can there possibly be a reason for this?

smh.

i can't imagine how this is excusable..

Jonathan Drake

Don't get me wrong it IS different. But not vastly so. I.e., no employer is laying a hand on you to discipline you when you do something wrong or are a terrible employee. Whereas a master in the bible is allowed to beat the slave.

But the bible has very strict rules about how slaves are treated. Since I'm posting again I'll include why the awl throuh the ear bit isn't as bad as it sounds. A slave WHO CAME WITH his wife took his wife when he left. The only time the master kept the wife and kids is when he was the one who provided the wife, and the slave didn't bring his wife originally. So, there is a huge difference here that isn't explained at all in that article. This tells me there are likely many other things they either left out on purpose, or missed because they are ignorant.

also it should be pointed out that though the master COULD keep the wife and kids, that doesn't mean he always did. This was a guideline, a law showing the masters rights but that didn't mean this is how they ALWAYS chose to proceed.

23

The Bible's approval of slavery (including Jesus)

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

how can there possibly be a reason for this?

smh.

i can't imagine how this is excusable..

Jonathan Drake

the kind of slavery condoned in the bible is not vastly different from the slavery we still have today. I.e, we are all our employers slaves.

The bible did not allow the Israelites to mistreat their slaves. Some of the references made in the OP article I'm fairly certain aren't even correct.

if this thread is still going tomorrow I'll be sure to post a more informative reply, but it's late and I'm very tired.

13

The god of the bible doesn't care and here's some proof.

by Crazyguy in

around 600 ad a man named muhammed created a book called the quran.

a few hundred years later the followers of this new religion called islam went on a holy crusade out of arabia to spread their religion.

in one key battle they were met by the ruling government army and were out numbered at least by 3 to 1. they could of easily lost and if god would of made sure of this most likely thier religion would of stayed an insagnificant religion of just arabia.

Jonathan Drake

Technically he didn't copy anything. He didn't read or write. Muhammed was illiterate. Also i didn't say that the Muslims believe he was the messiah, but that the Quran calls him such. Like I said above, as with much of Christianity, Muslims don't really actually listen to what the Quran says. At least not so far as I have seen.

The Quran chapter 3 verse 45: "The Angels said, "Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God."