Love vs Tyranny

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

You stated that there is no "proof" that Jesus was an Essene, and I countered that there is no proof that the Biblical Jesus existed.

It's not my goal to prove that Jesus didn't exist, only to prove to you that there is indeed a scholarly debate, ongoing, on the existence of the Biblical Jesus. There is no evidence of a "Biblical" Jesus, who was born of a Virgin, performed certain miracles, had certain conversations and said certain things and then rose from the dead. There is no proof!

What I asked you for was evidence that credible scholars had unearthed reasonable evidence that Jesus was not an historical figure. That was a loaded question, because I'm not aware of any historian (apart from Carrier, and even he's a stretch,) who disputes that Jesus existed -- the debate is whether he is accurately depicted in the Bible.

When one understands who the Essenes were and what they believed, it easy to correlate Jesus and and John the Baptist with the Essenes.

Again, it is absolute speculation to claim that Jesus was an Essene. He did not live an ascetic life, he did not live in a community of Essenes and he did not teach what the Essenes taught. One might as well claim that he was a Sadducee or Samaritan.

You can't say that the Old Testament God wasn't tyrannical. He was, and there's no disputing it!

Of course I can say that -- you (and AI, apparently) view him as such, and you're entitled to your opinion, but opinion is not fact, and comparing the Hebrew God to a tyrannical human government serves to show that they are not the same thing.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I do have a point. Does tyranny become love just because of the subject matter?

But you haven't shown God to be a tyrant, so that's a pointless comparison.

If we brought "God" down to earth and instated him as a President or Prime Minister and he continued to rule the way he does now, would we call that love? Or would he be thrown out of office?

How does he rule now? How would that be substantiated in a human government?

reply to post by adjensen

But you haven't shown God to be a tyrant, so that's a pointless comparison.

You haven't shown "God" to be love, either, although I know you believe that he is. So that's a pointless rebuttal.

How does he rule now? How would that be substantiated in a human government?

In a word? Hitler. He was motivational too, and everyone except the victims thought he was doing the right things. Amazing how circumstantial our perspective can be, eh?

I'll have to leave the rest of this discussion for tomorrow, as I am closing up shop right now and I don't expect to be online until the morning.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

You stated that there is no "proof" that Jesus was an Essene, and I countered that there is no proof that the Biblical Jesus existed.

It's not my goal to prove that Jesus didn't exist, only to prove to you that there is indeed a scholarly debate, ongoing, on the existence of the Biblical Jesus. There is no evidence of a "Biblical" Jesus, who was born of a Virgin, performed certain miracles, had certain conversations and said certain things and then rose from the dead. There is no proof!

What I asked you for was evidence that credible scholars had unearthed reasonable evidence that Jesus was not an historical figure. That was a loaded question, because I'm not aware of any historian (apart from Carrier, and even he's a stretch,) who disputes that Jesus existed -- the debate is whether he is accurately depicted in the Bible.

There is no irrefutable evidence of the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible.

When one understands who the Essenes were and what they believed, it easy to correlate Jesus and and John the Baptist with the Essenes.

Again, it is absolute speculation to claim that Jesus was an Essene. He did not live an ascetic life, he did not live in a community of Essenes and he did not teach what the Essenes taught. One might as well claim that he was a Sadducee or Samaritan.

Yes there is, there's a lot of it.

You can't say that the Old Testament God wasn't tyrannical. He was, and there's no disputing it!

Of course I can say that -- you (and AI, apparently) view him as such, and you're entitled to your opinion, but opinion is not fact, and comparing the Hebrew God to a tyrannical human government serves to show that they are not the same thing.

Any God that commands that people "love him" is a tyrant. Any God that commands the death of those who worship another God, is a tyrant. Plain and simple!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

But you haven't shown God to be a tyrant, so that's a pointless comparison.

You haven't shown "God" to be love, either, although I know you believe that he is. So that's a pointless rebuttal.

As I said, that's my opinion, so I see no reason for you to agree with me. But it's your proposition, not mine, so saying that I have to do something for your benefit is irrational.

How does he rule now? How would that be substantiated in a human government?

In a word? Hitler. He was motivational too, and everyone except the victims thought he was doing the right things. Amazing how circumstantial our perspective can be, eh?

Well, yours seems to be rather well coloured -- "everyone except the victims thought he was doing the right things" has no grounding in reality. There was significant dissension in Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by windword
There is no irrefutable evidence of the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible.

... and yet you've failed to show any historian who claims that Jesus didn't exist.

Funny.

Any God that commands that people "love him" is a tyrant. Any God that commands the death of those who worship another God, is a tyrant. Plain and simple!

By what standard do you declare either of those claims to be tyrannical? You neither love God nor worship him, how has his tyranny affected you as a result?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Your link quote clearly says that exegesis is based on objective, critical, and analytical reading of the material. You don't fall under any of those categories when it comes to interpreting the bible, you follow someone else's guidelines (Paul) before you interpret the text. That's neither of those three things.

A great example of eisegesis used in mainstream Christianity is from John 3:7.

John 3
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

This doesn't have anything to do with being baptized, it literally means that you must be born again, a clear reference to reincarnation. When Paul and his buddies came into the picture they added their own eisegesis to that quote, turning it into something completely different.

You may want to actually study what those two words mean because you have there meanings completely backwards.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Same reason I believe the father and mother of a house get to make the rules for that said house.

So we're willing to compare a godly father to a human father, but we're not willing to judge a god by human definitions or standards?

edit on 2-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You totally missed my point which was God's sovereignty. He created us and the universe, so I allow Him to set the rules.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Your link quote clearly says that exegesis is based on objective, critical, and analytical reading of the material. You don't fall under any of those categories when it comes to interpreting the bible, you follow someone else's guidelines (Paul) before you interpret the text. That's neither of those three things.

A great example of eisegesis used in mainstream Christianity is from John 3:7.

John 3
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

This doesn't have anything to do with being baptized, it literally means that you must be born again, a clear reference to reincarnation.

Thank you for the perfect example of eisegesis, though probably not in the way you intended.

You have taken John 3:7 out of context. That is an example of eisegesis. In your snippet, you claim this passage is about reincarnation.

However, placed back in context:

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:3-8 NIV)

Put back into context, with one of the key concepts underlined for you, it is obvious that this has nothing to do with reincarnation (which would be "flesh giving birth to flesh") but IS about baptism.

Nothing from Paul required, just a restoration of your carefully dissected passage.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Do you know what "objective" and "critical analysis" mean?

Get your dictionary back out. When that's finished, please review the laws of Biblical hermeneutics.

Exegesis is digging to try and determine the exact context and meaning the author wished to convey.

Eisegesis is reading into the text what you predetermine you want it to say, ignoring culture, history, Semitic language and literary devices and textual criticism.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I do have a point. Does tyranny become love just because of the subject matter?

But you haven't shown God to be a tyrant, so that's a pointless comparison.

If we brought "God" down to earth and instated him as a President or Prime Minister and he continued to rule the way he does now, would we call that love? Or would he be thrown out of office?

How does he rule now? How would that be substantiated in a human government?

Well if God isnt the tyrant, who is? GOD CREATED ALL. Church and state separated 200 years ago with the American constitution; no excuses there. God is that devil pinned to your left shoulder telling you to go to Church and try not to become a pulpit pundit Chester the Molester. God is also the angel squatting on your right shoulder, telling you to turn yourself in to the nearest authority figures unfortunately also God negatypes.

reply to post by adjensen


I have cited historians that will debate the existence of Jesus. I have posted 2 YouTube debates that you refuse to watch.

I am not saying he didn't exist, although I'm not thoroughly convinced that he is not a combination of people and myths. The fact is, anything we suppose about Jesus is speculation.

Your saying that he was not an ascetic is speculation. Was he married? Did he eat meat? Was he a drunken winebibber? We can only speculate.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

I have cited historians that will debate the existence of Jesus. I have posted 2 YouTube debates that you refuse to watch.

The fact that I didn't watch your videos is nothing but evidence that I don't watch videos. You're not special -- I don't watch anyone's. YouTube videos are the worst medium possible for relaying information.

Your saying that he was not an ascetic is speculation. Was he married? Did he eat meat? Was he a drunken winebibber? We can only speculate.

We can speculate on things that aren't documented in the only known text that was written in a timeframe where eyewitnesses to his life were still alive, but such speculation is pointless.

We know that Essenes refrained from eating meat, for example, though there are examples of Christ eating both lamb and fish. They refused to anoint with oil, though Mary anoints Jesus with oil. They obeyed every letter of Sabbath Law, Jesus refuted it.

Those (and many other) are ascetic practices that Christ did not follow, so it does not follow that he was an Essene.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And I gave my opinion. I don't believe God is a tyrant. I believe He is sovereign, Holy, and righteous.

Why do you believe that?

Same reason I believe the father and mother of a house get to make the rules for that said house.

Well, what if that father and mother of a house are clinically insane and you recognise YOURSELF as a sovereign being with FREE WILL you are in terrible danger of being NEGLECTED, cannibalized, USED and you decide to run away; (remember) you are the child with wanton means, what become your options if you have any?

reply to post by adjensen


Flesh giving birth to flesh and spirit to spirit does not discount it being about reincarnation. The spirit is eternal, but the flesh is not. I think that is the meaning he was trying to convey.
His comments on the wind blowing are also a reference to reincarnation, meaning where you are taken to in the next life depends on where the wind blows, which is unpredictable.

What do you think it means specifically?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You believe "God" is love. I see symptoms of tyranny. Explain why you believe "God" is love, seeing as how I have already provided my argument.

Why should I care what you see "symptoms" of? Similarly, my beliefs are just as subjective, so it's a pointless debate.

You want to think God is a tyrant with no evidence for it, knock yourself out. Like I said, he either doesn't exist, so it's a moot point, or he does, and you can complain to him in person at that time.

So you are rolling with the idea that God exists as a Good and Just Ruler of this 'house of hell' ON EARTH (no netherworld) it created for mankind. You do not question intention, past performance, its reasonings, decision making ablilty regarding its children (as an exemplar statesman) and would re-elect this obviously incompetant guardian?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are neither objective toward the bible nor do you use critical analysis when interpreting it, you have a set of guidelines that you use in order to get your interpretation. Having rules to follow is not being objective, it's being subjective, meaning if it interferes with your emotional opinion you reject it and find an interpretation that already fits into your presuppositions.

Paul used eisegesis in order to turn "born again" into "baptized". In fact, baptism itself is allegory for child birth. Being born of water and spirit is being born from your mother's water (amniotic fluid) with life (spirit).

Exegesis means your conclusion leads out of the text, you have your conclusion already made up before ever reading it. Since you model your conclusions around your presuppositions, you do not use exegesis but eisegesis.

You do not understand the meanings of the words clearly enough.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Flesh giving birth to flesh and spirit to spirit does not discount it being about reincarnation. The spirit is eternal, but the flesh is not. I think that is the meaning he was trying to convey.
His comments on the wind blowing are also a reference to reincarnation, meaning where you are taken to in the next life depends on where the wind blows, which is unpredictable.

And that is an example of eisegesis -- from the text, it is quite clear that is NOT what he's conveying, as there is nothing about time or lives involved, so your insistence that it is about reincarnation demonstrates eisegesis, the selective reading of a text in order to claim that it means something that it does not.

What do you think it means specifically?

It means exactly what it says -- to be born again is to be born, not twice in the flesh, as Nicodemus asks, but in the spirit, as Jesus teaches. It is a point that may be taken against reincarnation, though it isn't about it, so it isn't a major point of evidence.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

just as those selling "doves" in the temple is allegory for selling the holy spirit.

The doves were being sold because they were proscribed for use in Temple ceremonies, as outlined in Leviticus, it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Poor people offered them as a sin sacrifice. (The Five Offerings)

edit on 2-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Back to the sacrifice phenominom. Jesus sacrificed himself for our past present and future sins; thereby saving the countless lives of innocent four legged bleating animals (also Gods Creations) once accomplished no more sacrifices EVER. It is murder by proxy, idiocy, moronisism, stupidity any way you look at it. Jesus as a Lamb biggest metaphorical murder sacrifice EVER. No one sees a problem with this. the blatancy of it? Turn it around, You Are Worshiping not an act of Self Sacrifice, but one of the pre-meditated MURDER of ITS Son by its own Father. Ironic that murder rates are what they are, maybe some took it to heart, as a one way free ticket to heaven no judgement allowed, the particular sin sentence was already appealed and overturned would be the arguement. Vanquished is a powerful term, and would rule in all of these new cases pending.

reply to post by adjensen


How am I using eisegesis when my conclusion is leading out of the text? He says you must be born again, saying it's anything other than being literally born again is eisegesis, inserting your own meaning into something that is clearly literal.

Where does he mention baptism in that passage? Does he use the word baptism at all? No, so where did you get the idea that's what he was talking about?