born1ce Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 I am still studying and researching and trying to figure all this out and I have come up with 2 questions that make me think Christianity must be true. I come as an earnest seeker of truth--not to be combative---I have been doing so much reading and studying and the more I read and think, honestly the more confused I am. Here are my questions: 1--One reason that Christian apologists give for the Gospels being true is that the first person to see Jesus at the tomb was Mary Magdala. They say that why would Jesus appear to a woman first and not a man, when that culture was misogynistic. That does make sense==why would they give a woman such an important role as being the first one to see Jesus at the tomb. While it might not be in every Gospel, why was it put there if it wasn't true? 2--One thing that really made me think that the bible might be wrong is when I read the comparisons of the story of Mithra's life and Jesus. It is way too much of a coincidence. HOWEVER, during the time the gospels were written, weren't there still people who practiced Mithraism and might some of the converts to Christianity have been former Mithraists? So how come when they heard the story about Jesus no one at that time put 2 and 2 together and called the story of Jesus a knock off? Is it because the story of Mithra came after Jesus? Has it been embellished? 3--Finally, the question I have that I have not found a satisfactory answer to: How come Israel was created in one day just like prophecy foretold? It seems to me to be too "orchestrated" to be by chance. However, I am very ignorant about this subject. I have spent the past few months reading book after book (I've read most of the ones that I have found mentioned on this website) and I am still confused. However I have learned a lot, but I am still filled with questions. Thank you for any help!
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Hi born1ce, some Christian apologists add that Jewish legal proceedings normally did not admit testimony of women, so these apologists say, the gospel writers would not have the first witnesses be women. We had a discussion of this point on here a few years ago. I don't have the rabbinical citations handy, but in Jewish law, testimony of women is accepted if the only witnesses were women. for example, if something occurs in the women's section of the synagogue. Since women were usually the ones who did the "work" of mourning and tending to funeral customs, the gospel writers would expect their audience to expect that women would be the first to go to the tomb. One can add the speculation that if Mark is the first gospel written, Mark's typical "the last shall be first, the disciples were clueless" themes would fit Jesus' appearance first to women. This apologetic argument is poor, because it masks the MANY improbabilities and impossibilities in the resurrection accounts. For starters, isn't Jesus' resurrection supposed to be one of the most momentous events in all of human history? If God is omni-everything, why is this stupendous event so hidden? Why did Jesus just make a few appearances to his disciples after he rose? Was he still hiding out from the Romans? And the gospels depict the stories of the resurrection as setting all Jerusalem agog. Where are the Romans - they're totally cool with the dude they crucified as King of the Jews now being ALIVE again? The whole thing makes no sense. 2. As to Mithraism, I think it's usually dated in its historically known form to the first century BC. I don't think this second argument is strong. There are similarities between the Jesus story and various stories of rising gods. We don't know that people didn't call the story of Jesus a knock-off, because almost nothing survives of ancient anti-Christian literature. Good pieces of Porphyry's Against the Christians survive in Tertullian's refutation against Porphyry, since the work itself was burned on order of the later Roman church. You can get some fragments of Porphyry's work here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_against_christians_02_fragments.htm 3. Prophecy foretold? You mean things like prophecies that say, "In that day, I shall gather ...?" The expression, "in that day," is common in prophetic literature. I don't think it always means a literal day. The Jewish settlement of Palestine got started in earnest in the 19th century with the beginning of the Zionist movement under Abraham Herzel. Things like the British Balfour Declaration of 1917 promoted Zionist settlement further because it partitioned the land into a Jewish and an Arab segment. It was announced as establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The UN 1948 declaration continued this movement. Many very religious Jews refused to acknowledge the state of Israel at first, and some Hasidic Jews still do not - holding that only Messiah can reestablish Israel. Since there still is no Temple, I think one can debate whether biblical Israel has at yet been reestablished. Since Jesus is on record as saying that he will return during the lifetimes of some of his listeners, the NT prophetic scorecard is already in FAIL territory. 1
mymistake Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 None of these questions would indicate the Bible is true. When you read the Harry Potter series and they start talking about magical creatures and casting spells will any question you ask make Harry Potter real? Same thing for the Bible which talks about miracle beings that cast miracle spells. That should jump right out as myth. 1. Uh no. All ancient pagan cultures had goddesses. So of course we would see female characters in the Christian myths used to replace pagan religion. Mary Magdala is below the disciples (men) in the Christian pecking order. Of course she shows up first because she is fulfilling the role that would normally go to the main character's love interest or concubine. That woman belongs to Jesus in the old sense even though Christians shun sexuality. 2. Plenty of people called Christianity a knock off. The Church of Rome exterminated them and burned all their books so that we could not read their "poisonous" ideas. 3. Israel was never restored. Don't be fooled by the modern country with an ancient name. When you create a country you can name it anything you want, anything at all. They picked Israel for political reasons. However it isn't a kingdom and the don't have a king and the ruler doesn't have an unbroken blood line that goes all the way back to David. The modern Israelis are European. They moved to the Middle East in the late 1940s. If you want to look for the decedents of the Hebrews try the Palestinians. You know, the arch enemies of the Israelis. The Palestinians have lived there ever since the Bronze Age (Old Testament) and they were forced to adopt Islam when they were invaded and conquered (Bible God abandoned them). 2
Justus Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 Since Jesus is on record as saying that he will return during the lifetimes of some of his listeners, the NT prophetic scorecard is already in FAIL territory. You know I find it helpful to at least familiarize myself with the subject matter before making comments, just something to think about.... 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; John 16:9-10
Blood Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 What is the source for "the Mithra Story," exactly? I'm not aware of any Roman-era texts surviving that describe the life of "Mithra."
◊ Citsonga ◊ Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 Since Jesus is on record as saying that he will return during the lifetimes of some of his listeners, the NT prophetic scorecard is already in FAIL territory. You know I find it helpful to at least familiarize myself with the subject matter before making comments, just something to think about.... 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; John 16:9-10 Evidently you still need to familiarize yourself with this verse: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:34) And, since I suspect you'll want to try to weasel out of that, below I am pasting a excerpt that I wrote a few years ago that addresses this failed prophecy. When discussing end-times prophecy, Jesus allegedly said, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34; ref Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). Yet here we are, a couple millennia after the generation that Jesus was speaking to, and the end has not come! Did Jesus not know what he was talking about? One response Christians give is that "this generation" is not referring to the generation in which Jesus lived, but instead refers to the generation in which the end-times scenario begins to unfold. In other words, all the end-times events will happen within one generation. However, this argument is flawed, because Jesus specifically stated, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt 24:34). What are "all these things" that Jesus had been talking about? The end-times teaching (Matt 24:4-44) was given in response to the disciples asking about "these things" (Matt 24:3) that Jesus had just mentioned regarding the temple, "Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matt 24:1-2). The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and the generation that lived then has long since passed. Therefore, this explanation does not work. Another response is that "generation" could also be translated "race," and therefore Jesus was just saying that the Jewish race would not pass away until everything was fulfilled. However, if this was really true, then surely we would see modern translations reflecting that. Yet we don't see that; modern translations still use the word "generation" (NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, AMP, CEV) or an equivalent such as "the people of this time" (NCV). While some Bibles do contain a footnote saying that the word for "generation" could also mean "race," if the context really warranted that translation, we would be seeing "race" used in the actual text. But we don't see that. In fact, The Amplified Bible (which attempts to amplify the meanings of the original words) specifies that it refers to "the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period." That correlates to a generation, not race. Clearly then, the text has Jesus specifying that the end-times would happen before his generation all passed away! But that didn't happen, did it? And what do other Biblical authors have to say? The author of Hebrews wrote, "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry" (Hebrews 10:37), indicating that he expected Jesus' return to happen soon and not be delayed. In writings attributed to Paul we read, "We shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump" (I Corinthians 15:51-52), where "we" clearly indicates Paul and the people he was writing to. Similarly, "And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (I Cor 10:11), where "our" clearly indicates Paul and the people he was writing to. We also read that "the time is short" (I Cor 7:29), "The Lord is at hand" (Philippians 4:5), "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" (I Thesselonians 4:15) and "the day of Christ is at hand" (II Thes 2:2), all of which clearly indicate the thought that the end was near at the time he wrote. From other authors we also read, "But the end of all things is at hand" (I Peter 4:7), "it is the last time" (I John 2:18), "the time is at hand" (Revelation 1:3; 22:10), and the end-times events are "things which must shortly be done" (Rev 22:6). In addition, Jesus reportedly also said, "I come quickly" (Rev 3:11; 22:7,12,20). Some argue that this particular saying merely means that when Jesus returns, it will happen really fast. However, the Greek word used is "tachy," which means "quickly" in the sense of without delay. This is also easily understood from the context in which it was used in Revelation 22, because, as noted in the previous paragraph, that very chapter specifies that it is talking about "things which must shortly be done" (Rev 22:6), that "the time is at hand" (Rev 22:10). Indeed, some newer translations even clarify "I come quickly" by translating it as "I am coming soon" (NIV). Can there be any doubt that the authors of the New Testament were saying that the end would happen in their generation, just as Jesus himself supposedly said? In response, some point to Peter saying, "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering" (II Peter 3:8-9). The argument is that Peter knew it could be a long time. However, keep in mind that the previous letter attributed to Peter said that "the end of all things is at hand" (I Pet 4:7), clearly indicating an imminent event. It appears that after time passed and the end did not come, the author realized that they had been wrong, and thus altered his approach to the subject. Yet, if the Bible was divinely inspired, as many Christians insist, then would there be such flip-flopping? Would there have ever been an erroneous claim that the end would happen in their generation? As such, what are we to make of this? The Bible has Jesus and New Testament authors saying that the end would happen in their generation. Yet that did not happen. Clearly, then, we have failed prophecies, thus undermining Biblical authority. 6
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 Since Jesus is on record as saying that he will return during the lifetimes of some of his listeners, the NT prophetic scorecard is already in FAIL territory. You know I find it helpful to at least familiarize myself with the subject matter before making comments, just something to think about.... 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; John 16:9-10 "I assure you, the present generation will not pass away until all this takes place." Matt. 24:34. Fundies have to argue that "the present generation" does not mean "the present generation." I yield the floor to my learned colleague, Citsonga. 1
mymistake Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Since Jesus is on record as saying that he will return during the lifetimes of some of his listeners, the NT prophetic scorecard is already in FAIL territory. You know I find it helpful to at least familiarize myself with the subject matter before making comments, just something to think about.... 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; John 16:9-10 It would be helpful to at least familiarize yourself with the subject matter. John was written in the second century at least one generation after the other gospels. The Mark prophesy was already a failure when Matthew and Luke were written. John was written long after that. Clearly one of the John author's goals was to back peddle to repair the damage from Mark's prophesy. Mark 13:30 "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." KJV 2
Justus Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Evidently you still need to familiarize yourself with this verse: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:34) And, since I suspect you'll want to try to weasel out of that, below I am pasting a excerpt that I wrote a few years ago that addresses this failed prophecy. I take it you are not familiar with the passage that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. John 6:50 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Romans 14:3
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 These verses have nothing to do with the topic. The prophecy put in the mouth of the Jesus character, that "these things" would come to pass before "this generation" passes away, is hereby pronounced a failure. People who have an antecedent commitment to the position that the scriptures are inerrant can make up an infinite number of hoops to jump through. In the end they resort to saying that X does not mean X, but rather, not-X. 2
mymistake Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Reminds me of how the Seventh Day Adventist got started. They call it the "Great Disappointment". The world didn't end? How disappointing! Our leader predicted the end of the world and was all wrong? That simply proves that we are the real true Christians!
Justus Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Let's see if I recall correctly, the 13th Chapter of Mark begins with Jesus being cast out of the temple and responds to the comment of one of his disciples who noted the stones and buildings there at the temple. Many interpret that his remarks that the there would not be one stone left upon another was fulfilled when the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. when Roman forces under the command of Titus was sent to squash the Jewish insurrection. If not mistaken, Paul was with Titus when the Romans forces launched their assault as they attempted to breached the walls of the Temple. However, around 10 hours later the Roman forces had killed over a million Jews and all that remained of the temple structure was what is now called the wailing wall. However, upon his return to Rome, Titus did something that was unheard of for a victorious Roman Commander, he refused to accept the Victory Wreath presented by Caesar. According to Roman historians Titus refused to accept the wreath because he claimed that there was no glory in vanquishing a people that had been forsaken by their own God. Moreover, Titus made a proclamation that 'history' record that he neither ordered nor intended the total destruction of the Temple which resulted. However, considering the number of Roman forces and the duration of the conflict, each Roman soldiers under Titus's command would have had to slaughter 5 combatants each and every hour during the 10 hour battle. What is most interesting is the location of the Victory wreath that Titus refused to accept. While I recall on another thread you had refuted my suggestion that Gaius Julius Caesar may in fact have been the young rich ruler that is recorded in scriptures as having asked Jesus how he could inherit eternal life. While you inferred that there wasn't anything in the scriptures to even suggest such, you might consider that Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianuswas the Roman Centurion, who in Luke 7 summoned Jesus to heal one of his servants.
Justus Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 These verses have nothing to do with the topic. The prophecy put in the mouth of the Jesus character, that "these things" would come to pass before "this generation" passes away, is hereby pronounced a failure. People who have an antecedent commitment to the position that the scriptures are inerrant can make up an infinite number of hoops to jump through. In the end they resort to saying that X does not mean X, but rather, not-X. Well, in Genesis 2 the LORD God told Adam that in the day that thou eatest thereof of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt surely die. And the scriptures themself show that Adam did not die that day. So what then? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. However, the serpent was a beast of the field which indicates that he wouldn't have been in the garden but outside the garden in the field. So one might consider that the tree eaten from wasn't the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden, but rather from around the perimeter..
Wittyusername Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 I remember sitting through a sermon which tried to state that Jesus had not got it wrong. 1. When he said 'this generation shall not pass away before these things come to pass' - he was only talking about the destruction of the temple - not the end of the world. 2. When he said 'I am coming soon' and other epistle writers indicated these things would happen shortly it is because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit that since the human lifespan is short and can end anytime, for anyone reading, even in the 21st century, Jesus is coming soon and the bible is correct. This is the sort of mental gymnastics I am glad to leave behind. I am still unsure what to think about those arguments.
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 If not mistaken, Paul was with Titus when the Romans forces launched their assault as they attempted to breached the walls of the Temple. "You know I find it helpful to at least familiarize myself with the subject matter before making comments, just something to think about...." -- Justus Paul supposedly was martyred in Rome in 66. The assault on Jerusalem was in 70. However, around 10 hours later the Roman forces had killed over a million Jews and all that remained of the temple structure was what is now called the wailing wall. Josephus says that over the course of the entire siege, this number of Jews perished, not in the final assault (BJ 6.420). However, upon his return to Rome, Titus did something that was unheard of for a victorious Roman Commander, he refused to accept the Victory Wreath presented by Caesar. According to Roman historians Titus refused to accept the wreath because he claimed that there was no glory in vanquishing a people that had been forsaken by their own God. What Roman historians? Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana says that the neighboring races offered a crown to Titus after he captured Jerusalem (6.29). Philostratus is writing in Greek in the third century. His tale is full of fables and invented conversations. While I recall on another thread you had refuted my suggestion that Gaius Julius Caesar may in fact have been the young rich ruler that is recorded in scriptures as having asked Jesus how he could inherit eternal life. While you inferred that there wasn't anything in the scriptures to even suggest such, you might consider that Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianuswas the Roman Centurion, who in Luke 7 summoned Jesus to heal one of his servants. These last items are just BS. Vespasian's grandfather had been a centurion, but Vespasian's family had risen too high for him to have held that rank. His brother as a young man held the much higher rank of military tribune. 2
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 I remember sitting through a sermon which tried to state that Jesus had not got it wrong. 1. When he said 'this generation shall not pass away before these things come to pass' - he was only talking about the destruction of the temple - not the end of the world. 2. When he said 'I am coming soon' and other epistle writers indicated these things would happen shortly it is because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit that since the human lifespan is short and can end anytime, for anyone reading, even in the 21st century, Jesus is coming soon and the bible is correct. This is the sort of mental gymnastics I am glad to leave behind. I am still unsure what to think about those arguments. I suggest the thing to think is not that these arguments show the Bible is correct. They show that with enough word games, redefinitions, etc., an apologist can depict the Bible as not proved false. Much of religious argumentation boils down to making the religion unfalsifiable. The result is that its claims are rendered untestable. Sort of along the lines of claiming that what happens inside a car engine is managed by an undetectable ghost, which sometimes does its job and sometimes not, with no consistent relation to whether it receives prayers and sacrifices or not. The outcome: the belief system has no credibility. Human life is more consistently explained without the religious assumptions. 1
◊ Citsonga ◊ Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Evidently you still need to familiarize yourself with this verse: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:34) And, since I suspect you'll want to try to weasel out of that, below I am pasting a excerpt that I wrote a few years ago that addresses this failed prophecy. I take it you are not familiar with the passage that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. John 6:50 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Romans 14:3 Well, you take it quite incorrectly. I am indeed familiar with that verse, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was discussing. It's quite telling that you try to change topics because you can't refute the problems that are pointed out.
◊ Citsonga ◊ Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Well, in Genesis 2 the LORD God told Adam that in the day that thou eatest thereof of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt surely die. And the scriptures themself show that Adam did not die that day. So what then? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. In addition to the fact that the story has them not dying like God had said would happen, it has the events unfold exactly as the serpent said they would. Their eyes are opened and they become like the gods, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5, 7, 22). So, which one was telling the truth? Hmmmm..... However, the serpent was a beast of the field which indicates that he wouldn't have been in the garden but outside the garden in the field. So one might consider that the tree eaten from wasn't the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden, but rather from around the perimeter. Yet, the forbidden tree is precisely the one that the story says they ate from. You don't even really believe your own Bible, do you?
mymistake Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Let's see if I recall correctly, the 13th Chapter of Mark begins with Jesus being cast out of the temple and responds to the comment of one of his disciples who noted the stones and buildings there at the temple. Many interpret that his remarks that the there would not be one stone left upon another was fulfilled when the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. when Roman forces under the command of Titus was sent to squash the Jewish insurrection. A more reasonable interpretation is that Mark was written after the year 70. All the gospels of the Bible were written after the year 70. If you want an early first century gospel try the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas was probably written before Paul was born. If not mistaken, Paul was with Titus when the Romans forces launched their assault as they attempted to breached the walls of the Temple. However, around 10 hours later the Roman forces had killed over a million Jews and all that remained of the temple structure was what is now called the wailing wall. Perhaps you are thinking of somebody else? However, upon his return to Rome, Titus did something that was unheard of for a victorious Roman Commander, he refused to accept the Victory Wreath presented by Caesar. According to Roman historians Titus refused to accept the wreath because he claimed that there was no glory in vanquishing a people that had been forsaken by their own God. Moreover, Titus made a proclamation that 'history' record that he neither ordered nor intended the total destruction of the Temple which resulted. However, considering the number of Roman forces and the duration of the conflict, each Roman soldiers under Titus's command would have had to slaughter 5 combatants each and every hour during the 10 hour battle. What is most interesting is the location of the Victory wreath that Titus refused to accept. Maybe the accounts were exaggerated. It happens. While I recall on another thread you had refuted my suggestion that Gaius Julius Caesar may in fact have been the young rich ruler that is recorded in scriptures as having asked Jesus how he could inherit eternal life. While you inferred that there wasn't anything in the scriptures to even suggest such, you might consider that Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianuswas the Roman Centurion, who in Luke 7 summoned Jesus to heal one of his servants. The rich young ruler in the gospel account is a fictional character. Notice how many characters in the gospels do not even have names? There are hundreds of characters called "a certain man". There are dozens of characters named "a woman". Occasionally there is a guy identified by his job; a tax collector or a centurion or a Pharisee. All of these characters were disposable. They are plot devices so the main character (Jesus) can show them something or work a miracle upon them. Then at the end they either marvel or worship or are in awe. After that they are of no further use to the authors so the story moves on without them. If the authors wanted to have Gaius Julius Caesar in the story first of all they would have named him as they did Pontius Pilate and second of all the Gospel of Luke would not have set the story in the time after Gaius Julius Caesar was dead. 1
rjn Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 If the authors wanted to have Gaius Julius Caesar in the story first of all they would have named him as they did Pontius Pilate and second of all the Gospel of Luke would not have set the story in the time after Gaius Julius Caesar was dead. Yeah, why was THE Caesar brought up? He died in 44 B.C, so what has he got to do with anything?
rjn Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 If the authors wanted to have Gaius Julius Caesar in the story first of all they would have named him as they did Pontius Pilate and second of all the Gospel of Luke would not have set the story in the time after Gaius Julius Caesar was dead. Yeah, why was THE Caesar brought up? He died in 44 B.C, so what has he got to do with anything? After Julius all of the Emperors took the name Caesar. It became the title for the Roman emperor. IIRC the Gospel of Luke is set during the reign of Caesar Augustus who was the successor of Julius. I know, hence "THE" Caesar, as in Gaius Julius Caesar. Pretty much every European language borrowed "Caesar" as a word for "Emperor". Thing is, someone brought up ol' Julius, who's got naught to do with anything mentioned in this thread.
Justus Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 If the authors wanted to have Gaius Julius Caesar in the story first of all they would have named him as they did Pontius Pilate and second of all the Gospel of Luke would not have set the story in the time after Gaius Julius Caesar was dead. Yeah, why was THE Caesar brought up? He died in 44 B.C, so what has he got to do with anything? After Julius all of the Emperors took the name Caesar. It became the title for the Roman emperor. IIRC the Gospel of Luke is set during the reign of Caesar Augustus who was the successor of Julius. I know, hence "THE" Caesar, as in Gaius Julius Caesar. Pretty much every European language borrowed "Caesar" as a word for "Emperor". Thing is, someone brought up ol' Julius, who's got naught to do with anything mentioned in this thread. Julius Caesar never was a Emperor of the Roman Empire. rjn, sure you do. IIRC the Gospel of Luke is set during the reign of Caesar Augustus who was the successor of Julius. Born Gaius Octavius, Octavius was later adopted by Julius Caesar and was named Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, or whatever name you want to call him was not Emperor of Rome at the time period referenced in Luke 18. [FYI: divi filius (son of the god) since Julius Caesar was deified around 42 B.C.] The time period in 18th chapter of Gospel of Luke would have corresponded with the reign of Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus, the 2nd Emperor of the Roman Empire.
Justus Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 Well, in Genesis 2 the LORD God told Adam that in the day that thou eatest thereof of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt surely die. And the scriptures themself show that Adam did not die that day. So what then? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. In addition to the fact that the story has them not dying like God had said would happen, it has the events unfold exactly as the serpent said they would. Their eyes are opened and they become like the gods, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5, 7, 22). So, which one was telling the truth? Hmmmm..... Tell me which one you believe was telling the truth and I will tell you which one I know was telling the truth. However, the serpent was a beast of the field which indicates that he wouldn't have been in the garden but outside the garden in the field. So one might consider that the tree eaten from wasn't the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden, but rather from around the perimeter. Yet, the forbidden tree is precisely the one that the story says they ate from. You don't even really believe your own Bible, do you? Can you name a tree that bares fruit without seed? And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29
mymistake Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 First of all, the Garden of Eden is a mythical story. Second of all it was stolen (plagiarized) from Greek religion. It's the story of Pandora's Box retold with ancient Hebrew values. With that said the talking serpent told the truth and God lied. You see the ancient Hebrews didn't need a God who was always good or moral. Their God was to be feared and obeyed because God was powerful and he would smite those who didn't obey. 1
Recommended Posts