Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..

[Hope]

Your understanding of the concept of the term 'love' appears to be flawed.  God has NO love humanity if the mythical flood story had been true, it shows hate not love.

Note your argument against your own argument.  Your inclusion of the term 'mythical' is the case in point.  As I have said before, the Flood story comes in a portion of Genesis which an increasing number of scholars date to the early 5th century BC (give or take a decade or 3).  It's use of language differs from the rest of the material and sets out a theological comparison of the Jew's own God and the Babylonian gods that many would have come into contact with during the exile.  The language is often symbolic and in no way attempting to record history.

[Nearly Sane]

Note your argument against your own argument.  Your inclusion of the term 'mythical' is the case in point.  As I have said before, the Flood story comes in a portion of Genesis which an increasing number of scholars date to the early 5th century BC (give or take a decade or 3).  It's use of language differs from the rest of the material and sets out a theological comparison of the Jew's own God and the Babylonian gods that many would have come into contact with during the exile.  The language is often symbolic and in no way attempting to record history.

Floo says if it  'had been true'. See when you talk about context maybe you shouldn't just ignore it.

[Hope]

The peculiar slant that St Paul gave to "sin" - alluded to in the quote I was commenting on - has given rise to most bizarre doctrine that most Christians seem to think is central to their faith. St Paul, of course, made particular reference to the life of Abraham (he seemed happy to dismiss just about everything else about Judaism), and was drawn to that gruesome episode known as the "Binding of Isaac" which so gets up Floo's nose . However, the real point of the story is that Isaac did not die, and apart from one instance (Jephtha), this seems to have been the end of child sacrifice for the Jews - whereas the peoples around them went on sacrificing children for hundreds of years. Good old St Paul, though - the Jews having rejected child sacrifice for expiation of "sin" - he brings back the concept of human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. Except that Jesus is supposed to be both human and divine. And he adds to his bizarre atonement scenario the idea that you have to accept Jesus' sacrifice to "have your sins forgiven".

I do find this concentration on St Paul both bizarre and humorous; after all, he arrived on the scene several years after the original disciples, who taught much the same as he did - and probably kick-started his understanding if only via the teaching of people whohad heard the disciples teach and preach.   If you notice, neither Paul nor the disciples associate the crucifixion with human sacrifice; it was associated with the regular sacrifice of animals that 'worked' for sins committed, but not for sins 'to be committed' - hence their having to be repeated regularly.  His once for all time sacrifice superceded the annual sacrifices that the Jews (and other religious beliefs) held to be vital. 

Yup, and it's up to us to make reparation, if we realise that we've really behaved in a vile manner, not to put it all on Jesus. That of course may be difficult for murderers who come to realise the full measure of their crimes. Still, I don't see Jesus as a patent remedy for guilty consciences.

And at no point in the NT is there anything that says otherwise, Dicky.  After all, if we sin/do something wrong, we have an impact on our relationship with our fellow humans and on that with our Creator God.  It is that second relational aspect that the crucifixion and resurrection is all about. 

[Hope]

Floo says if it  'had been true'. See when you talk about context maybe you shouldn't just ignore it.

Oh, I saw that phrase, all right.  I was simply pointing out that the combination of 'if ... had been true' and 'myth' is not a particularly strong foundation for an argument.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, I saw that phrase, all right.  I was simply pointing out that the combination of 'if ... had been true' and 'myth' is not a particularly strong foundation for an argument.

so you saw the phrase and ignored the context, doesn't look like context has any meaning for you

[floo]

Note your argument against your own argument.  Your inclusion of the term 'mythical' is the case in point.  As I have said before, the Flood story comes in a portion of Genesis which an increasing number of scholars date to the early 5th century BC (give or take a decade or 3).  It's use of language differs from the rest of the material and sets out a theological comparison of the Jew's own God and the Babylonian gods that many would have come into contact with during the exile.  The language is often symbolic and in no way attempting to record history.

Very convenient to suggest something is symbolic, when if it was factual it would paint god in a very poor light.

[Gordon]

Oh, I saw that phrase, all right.  I was simply pointing out that the combination of 'if ... had been true' and 'myth' is not a particularly strong foundation for an argument.

It is, though, a strong foundation if what is being argued is that something isn't literally true.

[Spud]

God or no God, we all know our life on earth is precarious, and that it might end in an instant for any one of us. We are harmed - day after day, sometimes through completely avoidable negligent actions, sometimes just through the quirks of fate. It is very difficult to see the hand of God in anyones' lives, and the arguments for an interventionist God have often been aired on here, with little success. Yes, maybe he could 'snap his fingers metaphorically' - and sometimes one wishes he would -  to prevent harm, not to cause it. However Alan B assures us that it we pray hard enough, we may be rewarded with finding a lost contact lens.

Yes, it is evident that believers have different ideas about what constitutes sin, and it is clear that there are many ideas about what the Biblical writers thought sin was. The earlier OT prophets thought that following the Law of the Covenant would mean automatic reward in this life. The Hebrews eventually came to think that even if they did not keep the law they might buy off God with the appropriate sacrifices. However, it is hinted in Jeremiah, and explicit in Isaiah and Micah that all this animal sacrificing is completely futile, and all that is required is "to do justly and to love mercy". And of course, poor old Job, "a righteous man" really got it in the neck.

The peculiar slant that St Paul gave to "sin" - alluded to in the quote I was commenting on - has given rise to most bizarre doctrine that most Christians seem to think is central to their faith. St Paul, of course, made particular reference to the life of Abraham (he seemed happy to dismiss just about everything else about Judaism), and was drawn to that gruesome episode known as the "Binding of Isaac" which so gets up Floo's nose . However, the real point of the story is that Isaac did not die, and apart from one instance (Jephtha), this seems to have been the end of child sacrifice for the Jews - whereas the peoples around them went on sacrificing children for hundreds of years. Good old St Paul, though - the Jews having rejected child sacrifice for expiation of "sin" - he brings back the concept of human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. Except that Jesus is supposed to be both human and divine. And he adds to his bizarre atonement scenario the idea that you have to accept Jesus' sacrifice to "have your sins forgiven".

Yup, and it's up to us to make reparation, if we realise that we've really behaved in a vile manner, not to put it all on Jesus. That of course may be difficult for murderers who come to realise the full measure of their crimes. Still, I don't see Jesus as a patent remedy for guilty consciences.

Perhaps the best illustration of why something has to die to atone for sin is where God clothed Adam and Eve with skins, for which animals had to be killed. But shame about outward nakedness reflects inner guilt, which we are unable to perfectly cover ourselves.

The reason why Isaac didn't die is that he wasn't sinless. He couldn't have atoned for Abraham's or anyone else's sins because he had his own.

Jesus had no sins of his own, that's why he could die for everyone else.

Your reference to Micah 6 assumes that we can make perfect reparation. You'd need to show that someone could finish his life perfectly at peace with everyone and not having any wrongs left un-righted. Micah's words leave the reader feeling that they are unable to 'do justly' etc.

[floo]

Perhaps the best illustration of why something has to die to atone for sin is where God clothed Adam and Eve with skins, for which animals had to be killed. But shame about outward nakedness reflects inner guilt, which we are unable to perfectly cover ourselves.

The reason why Isaac didn't die is that he wasn't sinless. He couldn't have atoned for Abraham's or anyone else's sins because he had his own.

Jesus had no sins of his own, that's why he could die for everyone else.

Your reference to Micah 6 assumes that we can make perfect reparation. You'd need to show that someone could finish his life perfectly at peace with everyone and not having any wrongs left un-righted. Micah's words leave the reader feeling that they are unable to 'do justly' etc.

All that is fanciful nonsense, imo

[Hope]

so you saw the phrase and ignored the context, doesn't look like context has any meaning for you

Sorry, I not only noticed the context but also took it into consideration.  That is why I questioned the juxtaposition.

[Spud]

To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.
Isaiah 54:9

[Dicky Underpants]

I do find this concentration on St Paul both bizarre and humorous; after all, he arrived on the scene several years after the original disciples, who taught much the same as he did - and probably kick-started his understanding if only via the teaching of people whohad heard the disciples teach and preach.   If you notice, neither Paul nor the disciples associate the crucifixion with human sacrifice; it was associated with the regular sacrifice of animals that 'worked' for sins committed, but not for sins 'to be committed' - hence their having to be repeated regularly.  His once for all time sacrifice superceded the annual sacrifices that the Jews (and other religious beliefs) held to be vital.

I suppose it's nice to find a few things in life which are amusing, but I'm surprised to find you so blithely dismissing the misgivings which many scholars have had about Paul - ever since they started  looking at the Bible at all objectively. As for the other disciples "kick-starting" his understanding: you've obviously forgotten what Paul wrote in Galations 1 & 2.

"15] But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,
[16] was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,
[17] nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
[18]

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.
[20] (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)
[21] Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
[22] And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
[23] they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
[24] And they glorified God because of me.

Gal.2
[1]Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me."

Galations 1 & 2.


You also need to contrast this with what Acts 15 says, and ask yourself if both can be true.
As Prof Barrie Wilson explains here:

Taking Paul at his Word, Prof.Barrie A. Wilson
www.barriewilson.com/pdf/Taking-Paul-at-His-Word.pdf

A salient quote from the above is the following:

"Paul emphasizes, time and time again, that he did not receive his message from any
human being (Galatians 1:1 and 1:12). Nor was he taught it (Galatians 1:12), for
example, by earlier members of the Jesus Move
ment. Rather he contends that his source
of information was experiential, that is, direct contact with the mystical Christ. In
particular, he stresses that he did not re
ceive instruction or validation from the
Jerusalem leadership. He explicitly affirms that after his remarkable experience, he did
not go up to Jerusalem to confer with James, Peter and others who were there (Galatians
1:16). In other words, he is denying the linkage between his movement and the Jesus Movement"

[Ricky Spanish]

Ricky Spanish,
What do you make of Isaiah 49:5? The Servant is distinct from the nation of Israel in this verse.

Sorry, missed this Spudders.

Have you actually read 1-4?

"1 Listen to me, you islands;
    hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
    from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
    in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
    and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
    Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
    I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
    and my reward is with my God.”

Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.

Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?

[Spud]

Ricky,

Sorry, missed this Spudders.

Have you actually read 1-4?

"1 Listen to me, you islands;
    hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
    from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
    in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
    and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
    Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
    I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
    and my reward is with my God.”

Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.

Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?

Copy that. Shall we put verses 5-6 down too?

5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

To me this looks as though it is Isaiah speaking. That would agree with your point about the past tense, and my point about it speaking about an individual.

[Spud]

You have to remember that the underlying problem is sin and its consequences, death (according to the Bible). The servant ultimately rises from the dead. If this means that Israel died when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and then came back to life when Cyrus released them, then can it also be a picture of literal death being overcome, a person rising from the dead, which is how Jesus fulfilled it?

[floo]

You have to remember that the underlying problem is sin and its consequences, death (according to the Bible). The servant ultimately rises from the dead. If this means that Israel died when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and then came back to life when Cyrus released them, then can it also be a picture of literal death being overcome, a person rising from the dead, which is how Jesus fulfilled it?

None of that makes the slightest bit of sense at all.

[Hope]

Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.

Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?

Does the use of the past tense always refer to events prior to writing, Ricky?  Might be worth checking your grammar books.

Take this example.  "By the end of this week, we will have had 5 days of sub-zero temperatures."

[ippy]

You have to remember that the underlying problem is sin and its consequences, death (according to the Bible). The servant ultimately rises from the dead. If this means that Israel died when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and then came back to life when Cyrus released them, then can it also be a picture of literal death being overcome, a person rising from the dead, which is how Jesus fulfilled it?

Your post give the impression as though you're referring to actual historic events, why's that?

ippy

[Sassy]

Sorry, missed this Spudders.

Have you actually read 1-4?

"1 Listen to me, you islands;
    hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
    from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
    in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
    and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
    Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
    I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
    and my reward is with my God.”

Again, in case you can't see it: PAST TENSE. as in events that happened before the writer was born.

Why is that fact so difficult for you lot to understand?

Hear O Israel, the LORD thy God is one God.  Past tense or present tense?
You see the WORD of God the teachings of the Prophets has not been a past tense for any Generation.

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


If man is to live by every word of God, then it cannot be a past tense can it? Rather the fulfillment of Gods words does not make them null and void because they are for every generation. From Abraham to Christ and from Christ to present day.

Your argument about Gods words fails on so many levels. But thinking something a past tense for the time it was written is shown by the very word itself, that Gods words are to be lived by, in every generation. As fulfilled they dominate with truth rather than disappear and become null and void.

So your argument when compared to the content and truth of God word is a failed concept when you live by the word.

[floo]

The Biblical god is a failure, is it exists!

[Ricky Spanish]

Massive, MASSIVE misunderstandings of what the Jewish bible teaches, ergo what Joshua/Jesus was trying to influence his followers to understand according to his interpretation of the book going on here.

It wasn't created for Christians, but still, Christians always attempt to misappropriate it!!

[Spud]

The first mention of the servant is in Isaiah 41:8. Here, the servant is Israel, the descendants of Abraham.

The second mention is in 42:1,

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;"

In verse 6-7 God says,

"I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."

The "people" mentioned here are Israel (cf 49:6). But the Gentiles, God says, are also blind, in prison and sitting in darkness.

So not only is Israel in exile in Babylon, but the world is in spiritual exile.

[Sassy]

Massive, MASSIVE misunderstandings of what the Jewish bible teaches, ergo what Joshua/Jesus was trying to influence his followers to understand according to his interpretation of the book going on here.

It wasn't created for Christians, but still, Christians always attempt to misappropriate it!!

Either prove your point by addressing the issues presented in the posts by Christians or admit that you are just making the above up to try and vex Christians because you, personally have no understanding of what the bible says.

You see, Christians as believers have more chance of knowing the scriptures as the first Jewish believers did than you an atheist.
Just a little point which required you to be reminded about.

[Sassy]

The first mention of the servant is in Isaiah 41:8. Here, the servant is Israel, the descendants of Abraham.

The second mention is in 42:1,

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;"

In verse 6-7 God says,

"I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."

The people mentioned here are not Israel, which is in exile, but the Gentiles, who, God says, are blind, in prison and sitting in darkness.

So not only is Israel in exile in Babylon, but the world is in exile.

He is winding you up. Knowing Christ and God the Father it should not be required of you to answer his wind up.

[floo]

Either prove your point by addressing the issues presented in the posts by Christians or admit that you are just making the above up to try and vex Christians because you, personally have no understanding of what the bible says.

You see, Christians as believers have more chance of knowing the scriptures as the first Jewish believers did than you an atheist.
Just a little point which required you to be reminded about.

That is really amusing!