Flare Sci-Fi Forums: A few brief lessons in Xianity...

This is topic A few brief lessons in Xianity... in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/603.html

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Okay, all you self-proclaimed "Christians", who don't even seem to know what you're getting yourselves into when you call yourselves that... Here are a few things I've noticed a lot of you seem to be unclear on...

1.) You're not the first, last, or only group to come up w/ the concept of a "god", so quit acting like it. Your main deity is named "Yahweh", so start calling it that. Calling it "god" is like if I started calling all of you "person".
For those of you who think the bible should only be read in the original English... Every time it says "the LORD", it means the original said "YHWH" (we're tlaking about the Hebrew books here; the Greek ones were done when people had already taken the nonspecific approach), which is, of course, just the name "Yahweh". If it says "GOD", the original was "elohim", which means "gods". There are a couple exceptions to this, but it applies to the OT in general, for the most part.

2.) Speaking of names, "Christ" isn't one. Your religion's founder's parents were not Joseph Christ and Mary Christ. It's a title. It's from "khristos", the Greek translation of the Hebrew "mashiah". "Christ" is no more a name than "Messiah" is.

And, while we're at it...

3.) If you travelled back in time to, say, AD 32, and started asking around for a guy named "jeez-uss", you'd get some pretty funky looks. "Jesus" used to be "Iesus" in Latin (roughly pronounced "yeh-soos"). That was "Iesous" in Greek (about the same pronunciation). The Hebrew was "Yeshua'" (I don't know much about Hebrew pronunciation, but that sure as hell isn't "jeez-uss"). 'Course, this still isn't the guy's name. He didn't usually speak Hebrew. He spoke Aramaic. It's hard to find resources on Aramaic online, but I gather his name was pronounced something like "ee-sho". So, who this "jeez-uss" fellow is you all like, I don't know, but you might want to start worshipping "ee-sho", since he's the one that created your religion.

I mean, c'm'on... If you guys don't even know the names of the entities you say you believe in, do you really think you know enough to make an accurate judgement on the accuracy of those beliefs?

------------------
8164 7644 8724 6991+360 8164 8724 6541 8164 7239

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Come now. Fair points. Look into the roots of Judiaism and they'll trace you back to Iran. And so forth.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Semantics, nitpicking, splitting hairs.

I won't even bother.

------------------
Greg: You bought me a urinal cookie?
Mike: Not just any ordinary urinal cookie! It has the AOL logo embossed on it!
-www.userfriendly.org, 12-08-00

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

See, the only one that really bugs me....is the use of "god" interchanged freely with "God" specific.

Then again, we humans are pretty uncreative.
You know...we call our sun, "the Sun"...
the earth and dirt we're standing on..."the Earth"
There are probably more examples, but its too early for creative thought.

------------------
"The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

TSN makes some good points, although I think it would be more interesting if we pronounced YHWH not as "Yahweh" but as "Yahoo-wahoo."

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"That's the last time I have a headcheese hoagie before bedtime." - Leonard Nimoy

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

And what's wrong with calling the sun the sun? Do you have a better name for it? Hapleplakledackledexia, perhaps? The sun is the sun because that's what it is.

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by MsChris (Member # 445) on :

Does it really matter what His given name is? Everyone knows who you (or they) are talking about.

**agrees with Jeff Raven**

[This message has been edited by MsChris (edited December 31, 2000).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Well, given that there are millions of Gods invented by millions of Religions, one should clarify which God is the one spoken of.

------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Which is why it's considered proper to use the capitalized "God" when refering to the specific deity, instead of the lower-case "god" when generically refering to anything people worship. In the first case, it's a proper noun. In the second, it's not.

------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

But that's my point. "God" is not a proper noun. His name is "Yahweh". Call him that.

I mean, if I decide that Loki is the one true god, and I start referring to him as "God", like it was his name, would you be perfectly okay w/ that?

------------------
8164 7644 8724 6991+360 8164 8724 6541 8164 7239

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I enjoy Huitzlopochtli myself.

What about other religions that only have one single deity? If they call their God 'God', Is their diety the same as your deity?

Although, to think of it, I can't think of any other Religion that just calls their God, God.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Then I'd suggest you need to do a bit of research on the subject.

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by MsChris (Member # 445) on :

Okay - This is my take on it...

There is only one 'God'. Depending on your religion, he will look like what you've been taught. This can be many different things. He will represent what you have been taught - and that too can be many different things. TO EACH HIS OWN!

What I see happening here is that someone is trying to tell everyone what 'God's' name is and who he is. This isn't a good thing to be doing. You have one soul (or maybe just a few) in this thread, trying to change someone's entire life of beliefs. What are the possibilities of being successful?

Just exactly what is the intent of this thread? Is it to just pick an argument or is there something trying to be aproached constructively? So far, I haven't seen the constructive part yet.

Yeah, Yeah... Ever heard of PMS? I've just graced you with it! *ahem*

*goes off to bless DEA with it's conveniences!*

[This message has been edited by MsChris (edited January 01, 2001).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

"There is only one 'God'."

What about polytheistic religions?

"What I see happening here is that someone is trying to tell everyone what 'God's' name is..."

The point is that the Christian god isn't just "God," he does have a proper name, Yahweh (or Yahoo-wahoo, or Yowiehowuhie or whatever you prefer).

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"That's the last time I have a headcheese hoagie before bedtime." - Leonard Nimoy

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I usually just call Him Sir....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Apparently you have not researched enough, TSN. His Name is *not* Yahweh, or anything you can come up with. The letters YHWH come from the ancient Hebrew- It is not his real name. There have been pieces of his name removed because it is considered sacriligious to use his name. SO, in order to refer to him, they came up with YHWH to stand for God. Yahweh is an attempt to pronounce a truncated version of God's name.

Also, it is said that God has *many* names, and not just what YHWH really is.

Because he is the *only* god, and no other god really counts here, we refer to him as God. You don't like it? Go piss on some other religion.

------------------
Greg: You bought me a urinal cookie?
Mike: Not just any ordinary urinal cookie! It has the AOL logo embossed on it!
-www.userfriendly.org, 12-08-00

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Oh, will you quit saying "he's the only god"?! If I say I'm the only god, is that supposed to be a logical arguement?!

As a matter of fact, that gives me an idea...

But, anyway, "YHWH" comes from the name originally used to refer to the Hebrews' god. Back then, they didn't write vowels, and, by the time they did, they'd stopped saying the name aloud ("YHWH" is the "ineffable name", not something used in place of it), so no-one really knows how to pronounce it. "Yahweh" is the closest they've been able to figure out, from the availbale evidence. The name you're thinking of that is used in its place is "Adonai", which means "lord".

------------------
8164 7644 8724 6991+360 8164 8724 6541 8164 7239

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited January 01, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, see, Tim, the thing is that WE believe that He is the only god, and therefore that is why we refer to Him as God. A name is used to avoid confusion among a group of similar things. What need is there for names, if there is only one?

You're wondering why we use the term "God" to describe our god, when others believe in different gods? This is a rather silly question. The reason WE call our god "God" is because He's the only one WE believe in.

When something that's completely internal to your beliefs is questioned, the argument takes place using your terms and definitions.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

If a group is calling themselves Christians, and they speak of God, then it should be relatively self explainatory what they mean.

If they speak of Allah, then you would, most likely, assume that they were not Christians.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

MC: I'd say that TSN was strugling with a bit of PMT himself.

Tim, what happened? Did a Christian come round and take a shit on your lawn?

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

No, I was just reading posts here, and noticed this particular brand of ignorance displayed over and over again, and decided to finally comment on it.

Omega: Okay, well, when you're talking to all your little church-buddies, you can call your deities "Bubba, and his son Fred" for all I care. But, if you're discussing something publicly, cut the self-righteous "my god can beat up your god, 'cause I don't believe in yours" crap.

------------------
8164 7644 8724 6991+360 8164 8724 6541 8164 7239

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

A) Exactly how does believing that our god is the only existing deity make us self-righteous? You must have an odd definition of the terms.

B) So you're suggesting that we hold one set of beliefs in private, and yet act completely differently in public? Isn't that called hypocrisy?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I knew this guy in High School named Mike. Now, I'm a Roman Catholic (so is he), and although I'm non-practicing now, I did go to "Sunday" school back then ... which was actually on Wednesday night, and consisted of sitting around with people of the same faith and approximate age, talking about God and religion and everything.

Anyway, Mike was what people called an "angel." You know, smooth talker, always smiled, parents loved him, the whole package. Did well at school, played on the football team, etcetra, etcetra.

He was also forging New Jersey driver's licenses on his computer.

He also raped two girls.

Slashed people's tires. Vandalized school property, etc, etc.

Now, on one hand, he "preached" the word of God and acted as a good Catholic boy would; and on the other hand, he totally threw the Bible away and acted like the sick-fuck he really was. He's at Penn State these days, if anyone cares.

That's hipocracy.

Also, the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill but The Death Penalty is okay because in Hebrew kill means murder and God wrote that with modern laws in mind!" is a pretty good example of Christian hipocracy as well, IMHO.

Oh, and you know, the God Omega speaks of and Allah are one and the same.

I don't think believing "your" god is the only god is self-righterous. I think when people go around saying to people who don't believe, "you're going to burn in hell, sinner!" or push their religious beliefs on people who don't have - or want - those beliefs is self-righteous.

Frankly, I also find un-swerving loyalty to anything to be rather self-righteous, so people who disrespect or dismiss other's religious beliefs tend to piss me off as well.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 01, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Also, the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill but The Death Penalty is okay because in Hebrew kill means murder and God wrote that with modern laws in mind!" is a pretty good example of Christian hipocracy as well, IMHO."

No one here said that.

You are not paying attention.

Listen to me very carefully.

Are you listening?

Good.

God did not say, "Thou shalt not kill."

God said something in ancient Hebrew, which, as translated by modern experts, means, "Thou shalt not murder."

Understand?

"Frankly, I also find un-swerving loyalty to anything to be rather self-righteous"

I must also ask you, how do you define self-righteous? This does not fit any definition of which I am aware.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

You are not paying attention

Listen to me very carefully.

Are you listening?

Good.

You're assuming that God means "murder" to mean "a legal killing under law" and not "you don't kill anybody unless I, God, myself, personally tell you to do so." Therefore, you're assuming God says "Thou Shalt Not Murder" with the assumption that he means by the legal-definition of the current day.

I know this, because otherwise you wouldn't keep saying, "no, no, he said 'thou shalt not murder', not 'thou shalt not kill.'"

Frankly, you're also assuming that the person who copied the Ten Commandments into the Bible copied them word for word.

I'm not disputing that God may (or may not) have said "Thou Shalt Not Murder", I just want to know why you all think that 'Murder' means today what it meant many thousands of years ago? How do you know it doesn't mean the taking of ANY human life? Well, you don't, do you? Unless, of course, you converse regularly with a certain deity?

I define self-righteousness as someone who needs to pull the stick out of his/her ass.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 01, 2001).]

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

*ahem*....

MURDER n. 1. Law. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. 4. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

(all the others were slang)

"He's at Penn State these days, if anyone cares."

Name, please. We'll have him "dealt with," either before I get there or after.

------------------
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much."

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

This dude raped two girls?

And nobody reported this?

Or at least cut him?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Neither girl reported him ... when it happened, at least.

The one who did report it did so two years later. Suffice to say, nothing much happened because of it. Some people said she was lying, others said they had sex but "she wanted it" and others said "boys will be boys."

The other girl I wasn't friends with until we were both at College together, and she told me one night.

Suffice to say, he got away with those two and who knows how many others?

No one cut him. Not that I know of, anyway.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"You're assuming that God means "[not] murder" to mean "a legal killing under law" and not "you don't kill anybody unless I, God, myself, personally tell you to do so.""

Now I'm assuming that's what you meant, but correct me if I'm wrong.

A) Laws in ancient Israel were given directly BY God. Therefore, the distinction you draw is meaningless.

B) Since God did say, "Thou shalt not commit murder," you call the definition of "murder" in context into question. Fair enough.

"Murder" obviously does not include the death of someone who has done something to warrant death, as there are numerous occasions in Leviticus where crimes are listed that God says warrant death (the death of the unborn among them, BTW). If the word "murder" does not apply to the deaths of people who deserve to die, it would follow that the word applies to the deaths of people who do NOT deserve to die. Thus, "murder," in this instance, would be defined as the intentional death of one who does not deserve to die.

"Frankly, you're also assuming that the person who copied the Ten Commandments into the Bible copied them word for word."

No, I'm not. Frankly, you sound rather arrogant when you act as if you know what and how I think. As someone said earlier, the word can mean either mean "kill" in general, or "murder" specifically. Since it obviously doesn't mean "kill," it must therefore mean "murder."

"I just want to know why you all think that 'Murder' means today what it meant many thousands of years ago? How do you know it doesn't mean the taking of ANY human life?"

Now who's assuming a word-for-word translation?

If God had meant to say that we shouldn't kill ANYONE, then he would have said that. Redefining the english word "murder" to mean something completely different from what it currently means does not affect the actual meaning of the word spoken several millenia ago. It simply means that we must find a different word that conveys the same meaning, since the word "murder" in our language had been corrupted to mean something other than intended.

When you translate something, you don't translate word for word. You find an equivalent word that conveys the feeling or intent of the original. In Latin, the phrase "Furem fur cognoscit, et lupus lupum" literally translates as "A thief recognizes another thief, and a wolf another wolf." However, if you wanted to convey the feeling and intent of the phrase, you'd find an equivalent english phrase. "It takes one to know one."

God spoke Hebrew words which conveyed the command not to kill unjustly. This is how Hebrew scholars interpret the word in question, when context is taken into account. How you (mis)define "murder" is irrelevant.

"I define self-righteousness as someone who needs to pull the stick out of his/her ass."

You would get along fine with the Chinese in "TBatD." They liked misdefining words to suit themselves, too.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"If they speak of Allah, then you would, most likely, assume that they were not Christians."

That would be a poor assumption to make, as the word Allah means God in Arabic, and is used as such by anyone who speaks the language, regardless of their religion.

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, first things first.

Self means one's own interests, welfare, or advantage. So, self-righteous people like to parade their own interests with regards to virtue and morality without regard to others' feelings on those same virtues and moralities. Hence, they need to get that stick out of their ass.

Also, I might mention, you've got just as much in common with those Chinese. They're rather fond of State Executions as well.

Redefining the english word "murder" to mean something completely different from what it currently means does not affect the actual meaning of the word spoken several millenia ago. It simple means that we must find a different word that conveys the same meaning, since the word "murder" in our language has been corrupted to mean something other than intended.

Holy Mary, Mother of God!

WE AGREE!

This is what I've been saying all along, Omega! God was speaking in a different language, and he didn't say "murder", he used a Hebrew word which only "closely" translates to "murder", besides which, God didn't use said-Hebrew word with any intention of having Twentieth (and Twenty-First) century legal definitions used with the "closest" English translation of it. Therefore, when people defend their views towards Self-Defense and the Death-Penalty by saying, "it's not 'thou shalt not kill', it's 'thou shalf not murder'" they don't know what they're talking about.

Er. Wait, so what was the point of your rant above if you were just going to agree with me anyway?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 02, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

My point is that you're wrong.

But I'll elaborate a bit.

My point is that, since God's command was not to kill a human unjustly, this would not apply to capital punishment.

If God said "thou shalt not murder," when "murder" is defined as Shik listed, and self-defence and capital punishment do not constitute murder under this definition, your attacks on capital punishment and self defence on a scriptural basis are defeated.

God said something that is best translated as, "Thou shalt not murder," due to the listed definition of "murder," and the definition of the Hebrew word in question.

Therefore, your attacks on this basis are defeated.

Better luck next time.

"Also, I might mention, you've got just as much in common with those Chinese. They're rather fond of State Executions as well."

No, they're rather fond of state murder. There's a difference, if you'd bother to actually look at the definition that Shik so kindly posted.

"self-righteous people like to parade their own interests with regards to virtue and morality without regard to others' feelings on those same virtues and moralities."

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Who care's about what's right and wrong? Who cares what hurts people, physically or financially? It's how people FEEL that matters!

Give me a break. If you can't take an attack on your beliefs without getting your precious little feelings hurt, then you need to grow up.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Yes, yes, feeling is the hallmark of humanity. Conservatives might want to check on that after they've finished throwing orphans and widows into the streets this holiday season to they can line their pockets...

Ahem.

Sorry about that. Please carry on with the odd theological argument that a pretty darned close translation of a word or phrase is good enough to print.

I'm not really going to argue about the murder / kill thing here because I think Omega is correct in saying that the Commandment points to murder's malicious intent. I don't think that self-defense would fall under that, but with the Supreme Court divided the way it is, who knows. It could be split 5-4 on the Turn The Other Cheek clause.

However, does the state derive it's basis for capital punishment from the Bible? I'd have to go with a yes in the beginning and a not any more.

Does the state have the right to execute. I'd give a sparing yes. We give up some rights and immunities to live in a civilization...a community. However, I for one am glad that cold legal reasoning has taken the place of the day after the trial execution. I'm not so sure that righteous indignation has a place anymore in the business of the state putting a person to death.

And yes, I noticed the odd mixing of the two threads tue to the broadsides being pumped in to various fleets of posters from thread to thread.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, then, Omega, I guess it's okay to kill someone for touching the skin of a dead pig, making a shirt out of two different threads, or working on the Sabbath, hmmm?

Now, with Shik's definition, the only definition which would apply would be #1, because the other definition (inhumane and barberous) is up for interpretation. I find the Death Penalty to be both inhumane and barberous, therefore, it's murder. The legal definition is not valid because you're never going to convince me that God used a Hebrew word 3,000 years ago which only closely translates to the English word "murder", therefore, he did NOT say "Thou Shalt Not Murder", so why do you act as if he did? You yourself admitted the above.

Also, why do you think the Catholic church is against the Death Penalty? Just wondering. I don't know, maybe you think the Pope is Satan, but don't you think they've got good reasons for doing such, including understanding what God actually said?

Also, if you are morally against the Death Penalty, why do you support it? Aren't you therfore being hypocritical?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Who care's about what's right and wrong? Who cares what hurts people, physically or financially? It's how people FEEL that matters!

Frankly, Omega, you sound rather arrogant when you act as if you know what and how I think.

No, you totally misunderestand me. I don't care how people feel, it's when they try and push their views on me when I don't want them (and then refuse to listen to another argument) that pisses me off. And please define right and wrong? For me, driving an automatic transmission Jeep is just WRONG, but I'm not going to go and tell someone who is driving one that they're a fucking idiot for driving that. Premarital sex is completely fine and RIGHT as far as I'm concerned, and if some a-hole tries to tell me that I'm WRONG in that regard, I'll ignore 'em. Got it?

Give me a break. If you can't take an attack on your beliefs without getting your precious little feelings hurt, then you need to grow up.

LOL! Omega, the day anything someone types on this BBoard hurts my feeling, well, that'll be a first! I really don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else says about me on the BBoard, although, I think you do. I think it was your feelings hurt, which is why you keep crying about how the Chinese "murder" people and we Americans only "kill" them.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 02, 2001).]

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

Well, this argument is weird, to say the least. There are quite a few ways to address the Christian deity.

The first is God. God capitalized is a person, normally used as a reference to the Christian deity. a lower cased god is generalized as any deity, just as Sun is the center of our particular solar system while sun is any star in the universe. The capitalizing of a word to specify person from thing is common, like "I believe Mother is making us some cookies" vs. "Go ask your mother."
I think that one other explanation is that in the Christian culture, God is one god. There shall be no other god before Him (another capatilization refering to God only).

Another is YHWH. This is unpronouncable (much like Mr. Spock's true last name) It is commonly pronounced Yahweh, but that is not a proper pronounciation, and normally trying to address someone and pronounce their name incorrectly is either rude or ignorant (Mr. Hay-mond please report to the front desk. Mr. Boosh is going to be president, etc.) Besides, how do we know it's pronounced Yahweh. It might be pronounced Ihw (or "eww". Y is a short i, and a silent h. ihw.).

I'm going to hell for that bit, and your all coming with me. And don't try to get out of it, "we didn't laugh at it Jesus, please?" "Shut up and get on the bus with Hammond and Scorcese you're going right to hell!"

ABBA means father. Many people use this to refer to God as a father-figure. However, Abba can be used to refer to your father.

Allah is the Islam word for God, and they worship the same god as Christians. Does that mean Christians should call God Allah?

LORD in all caps (normally small caps) is termed for God and Jesus Christ. lord or Lord in some lower case means any other lord (feudal system and all). As with God, this is a general term that is changed to mean a specific person.

Jehovah, or Iehova is another word that means God, normally used for the Christian God. It is not an english word, therefore not normally used in the English version of the Bible.

There are others, but this is all I can think of right now.

As for Jesus Christ, he had many names himself:

The afforementioned LORD. Same explanation

Christos means "the annointed", just to clarify.

Emmanuel means "God with us". A proper term for Christ, but not used to refer to Jesus, except in his early days (birth).

Messiah (There's a mess alright, but no Messiah!) means any expected savior or liberator of a people, country, etc. Christ was definitely an expected savior of the Jews, so I think he deserves that title.

So, if all names fit, does that mean we have to start calling God: GodAllahYHWHJehovahAbbaLORDetc. and Jesus: JesusMessiahLORDEmmanuelChristChristosetc.?

Oh yes, and one more thing. There is a politically correct bible out that refers to God as the Mother-Father. What do you think of that?
------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited January 02, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"I guess it's okay to kill someone for touching the skin of a dead pig, making a shirt out of two different threads, or working on the Sabbath, hmmm?"

This is relevant to the discussion... how?

This was ancient Israelite law, and is not relevant to current law. So... what's your point?

"Now, with Shik's definition, the only definition which would apply would be #1, because the other definition (inhumane and barberous) is up for interpretation."

If definition #1 is the only one that can apply, then why do you...

"find the Death Penalty to be both inhumane and barberous, therefore, it's murder."

That's part of definition four, and therefore, at least by your terms, does not apply to God's command.

You're contradicting yourself.

"The legal definition is not valid because you're never going to convince me that God used a Hebrew word 3,000 years ago which only closely translates to the English word "murder""

This does not follow. While I agree that definition four is the appropriate definition to use in this circumstance, it DOES fit the definition of "murder." Therefore, God said a Hebrew word that closely translates to "murder," because the two words have similar definitions.

"Also, why do you think the Catholic church is against the Death Penalty?"

The Catholic Church is screwed up on a lot of things. Why don't you ask them? I'm not Catholic.

"don't you think they've got good reasons for doing such, including understanding what God actually said?"

Yeah, of course I think so. Just like they've got good reason for worshiping Mary. Or a good reason for the existance of the pope. Or for half their other dogma.

None of it has any scriptural basis.

"Also, if you are morally against the Death Penalty, why do you support it? Aren't you therfore being hypocritical?"

No, to be hypocritical is to say one thing and act another way. I fully explain my beliefs on the issue, and act exactly the way I say I will. Therefore, I can not be acting hypocritically.

Again, would you prefer that I try to have my religious beliefs legislated?

"I don't care how people feel, it's when they try and push their views on me when I don't want them that pisses me off."

Oh, so in other words, you want to express your views, without hearing any opposing views? Then what the heck are you doing HERE? This forum is here for DEBATE, not single-post manefestos.

Again, if you can't take an attack on your views, you need to grow up.

"Premarital sex is completely fine and RIGHT as far as I'm concerned, and if some a-hole tries to tell me that I'm WRONG in that regard, I'll ignore 'em."

That's your problem, but that doesn't mean people have to stop telling you. Besides, why are you saying this? We all already KNOW that you ignore everything anyone tells you that you disagree with, regargless of strength of argument.

"I think it was your feelings hurt, which is why you keep crying about how the Chinese "murder" people and we Americans only "kill" them."

Jeff, please believe me when I say that the only emotions I experience when reading your posts are pity at your incredible ignorance, and dispair that anyone can be so.

Do you automatically equate "kill" with "murder," or something? I'd love for you to point out a time that the current US government has ordered the outright murder of someone.

Oh, wait. I just thought of something. There WAS an instance where the above happened. Bill Clinton blew up an asprin factory in Sudan, killing several innocent people, didn't he? Would this not make Bill Clinton a *gasp* murderer? Of course, he SHOULD have been removed from office, but that was prevented. Who stopped that, again? Oh, yes, it's that party you support (for whatever unfathomable reason).

SB:

Mother-father? Oh, now that's just wonderful. Now we have translators that place political correctness over accuracy. There IS a gender case in most languages, is there not?

And I was under the impression that Messiah was Hebrew for "annointed one," and that that's where we picked up the word "Christ" when it became a greek thang, 'cause it was the exact translation.

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

I was reading right out of the dictionary. They are close enough definitions to be the same as each other, so I can see the point there.

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

Posted by Right on :

WOAH! What is with the attack on Catholics? I find that about as smart as those who bash Jews or Muslims or others for having different religions. Oooooh, they worship Him differently! Ooooooh, they're so evil! They must all burn in Hell if they don't worship EXACTLY as I worship!

::sigh::

Yeah, you're a standup Christian there. If you'd been constructive about why the Catholic Church is against the DP and why they shouldn't be, that would be a different story. All you did was call them names.

And what is your thing with Bill Clinton? You know, his impeachment didn't find him guilty -- you seem kind of confused about that. Due process of law and all. It's really fascinating, you should take a government or civics class someday.

This is a very interesting argument, I must admit. These are my views:

God doesn't like the Death Penalty. It's not like you're shooting the guy in the act of committing a crime, but rather, you're locking him up and then killing him. There's a difference between self-defense and the DP, and while I can see Him at least understanding the taking of a life during SD, I don't think He cares much for the people who support the DP and do so in His name.

I find it incredible sexist that people assume God to be male. Or female. But, hey, guys, if you get off on thinking God's got a penis too, believe whatEVER you want.

[This message has been edited by Right (edited January 02, 2001).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

"Another is YHWH. This is unpronouncable..."

Actually, it's very pronounceable, depending on whether the h's are glottal fricatives or velar fricatives or who knows what else...as luck would have it, y and w are approximants, meaning they're vowels masquerading as consonants. Looks like Yahweh was playing some tricks with Hebrew.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"That's the last time I have a headcheese hoagie before bedtime." - Leonard Nimoy

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

Very true, but most likely is that YHWH is the closest thing they could come to what God's name sounds like, since it was only truly spoken once.

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

BTW, you are not all right on Christians not knowing what they are getting into. Some blindly follow, but there are some who don't listen to what the pastors and evangelists say and study the bible, making their own decisions on what is right and wrong. There are some who go indepth about the context of the bible, and write whole books on what one verse in the bible means to society today. These are the people you should question on why we call God "God". However it's quite an unanswerable question, just like "What was there before the Big Bang?" and "Why did they have to make Star Trek V such a subpar movie". We'll never know. Besides, we speak different languages. Jesus in Spanish is pronounced "he-zeus". Everything changes with translation.

As for how a question on why we call God "God" instead of Yahweh, Jehovah, or something else turns into a discussion about the death penalty is beyond me, and I cannot take a side on that discussion.

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited January 02, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Right:

"Oooooh, they worship Him differently! Ooooooh, they're so evil! They must all burn in Hell if they don't worship EXACTLY as I worship!"

I said nothing of the kind. I simply stated that many Catholic beliefs and practices have no scriptural basis. I made no comment whatsoever on whether that affects their eternal salvation.

Touchy.

Frank:

Isn't it true that in Hebrew, there were no written vowels except "O?" Just curious. I seem to recall hearing that somewhere or other.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 02, 2001).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I was under the impession that there weren't any written vowels at all...I can look into it, though.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"That's the last time I have a headcheese hoagie before bedtime." - Leonard Nimoy

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Christianity is good for swear words. Like, Jesus fuckin' Christ!

That is all.

------------------
"Life end when you die. But imagination share with others, live forever."
--Quan, Final Fantasy IX

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I have read that the Pope and the U.S. President are two of the multi-headed beast that arises and is smited during the Apocolypse......

If the Arabs and the Jews believe in the same deity, then why do they have religious wars??

How meny different languages was the Bible written in, Hebrew and Greek I remember, but were there others?

It still seems odd the God/Allah/YHWH would gives Moses the Big Ten, then give them the ok to break one the next day.
Monday: Thou Shalt Not KILL
Tuesday: Go slaughter the Palastinians......
This would be hypocritical.

Someone refresh my memory, doesn't the Bible, as translated, say nothing about pre-maritial sex, only that all people should be like Him, and remain virgins? Of course, if everyone did that the world would be human free in about 80 to 100 years....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think the bible says sex for any purpose other than procreation is BAAAD.

See, the problem I have here, is that I can not for the life of me believe that God would approve of the Death Penalty. I really think He'd want us to keep 'em alive locked up for their natural lives, and frankly, no amount of Omega's defintions or lectures about word translations are going to change my mind. Sorry.

Jeff, please belive me when I say that the only emotions I experience when reading your posts are pity at your incredible ignorance, and dispair that anyone can be so

And here we have it. Because I don't agree with Omega, and because he can't convince me that God okays the Death Penalty, he calls me ignorant. Now, this is an example of self-righteousness. This is why I don't like self-righteous people, because if you disagree with them, they pretty much call you an ignorant piece of shit. I've got no problem with those who disagree with me, and I'll try and convince them to see my way, but I'm not going to say something like this, because it would reflect bad on me.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"If the Arabs and the Jews believe in the same deity, then why do they have religious wars??"

For the same reasons that the Catholic church caused the Crusades: hypocracy and stupidity.

"How meny different languages was the Bible written in, Hebrew and Greek I remember, but were there others?"

Bits of the Old Testament were in Aramaic.

"doesn't the Bible, as translated, say nothing about pre-maritial sex, only that all people should be like Him, and remain virgins?"

The letters of Paul are quite clear on this. One said that if you can't control your biological lust, get married and eliminate the temptation. Fornicators are also listed as one of the groups of people who will "not inherit the earth," IIRC. Don't have my concordance handy, unfortunately.

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

Hail, hail, your resident practicing Roman Catholic is here...

The whole pope/cardinal/archbishop/bishop thing was created a long, long, long time ago when a hierarchy was needed to control the church, 'cause the Catholic church was the only Christian church around and there was a lot of people to keep in check. So, in order to help keep everyone in check, they decided that only the important folk would be allowed to have bibles, mainly because they were expensive and time-consuming to produce. And, as the old saying goes, power corrupts and apsolute power corrupts absolutely. The Catholic church became corrupt. Enter the Crusades. Enter the Protestant split. After a while, the whole hirearchy wasn't really needed anymore, but it was kept around anyways. Why mess with a good thing? It seemed to be working out well, considering that the pope doesn't have the same power he had back in the day, so he wouldn't be corrupt anymore. Then, in the 1970's, there was the Vatican II split that happened, which resulted in the mass being said in every language other than Latin. And now we have the lovely situation we currently love and hate. Catholics and protestants generally get along, save for the few friendly jabs here and there. Except in Ireland, but that's another topic for another day...

------------------
"What happens on the edges of infinity, the never-never land of mathematics?"
-Miss Hodgin

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Just to repeat myself, Allah is Arabic for God. It has its own origin seperate from Islamic thought, and is used by anyone who speaks Arabic and has a burning desire to enter theological discussions like this one.

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Oh, yeah, that last post of yours wasn't a Catholic bash, Omega.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"ABBA means father."

No. ABBA means 'shitty swedish band that is shit'.

That is all.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

You are SO gonna get it when Liam reads this thread. Right, Liam? Right? Right?

(Or if Stephin Merritt reads this thread, which is distinctly less likely.)

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

quote:
Oh, yeah, that last post of yours wasn't a Catholic bash, Omega.

Bash or not, it was true. It was started by stupidity and hypocracy. However, he was refering to the past, some 1000 years ago. No where did Omega imply that the Catholic Church is involved in stupidity and hypocracy in the present.

------------------
Greg: You bought me a urinal cookie?
Mike: Not just any ordinary urinal cookie! It has the AOL logo embossed on it!
-www.userfriendly.org, 12-08-00

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, actually, I think there are lots of people out there today preaching God's word who are hippocritical and stupid (Catholics, Baptists, Protestents, and everybody else), but that's just me -- Jerry Falwell is probably the leading example, IMHO.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 03, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You have an interesting habit of bringing up completely irrelevant things, JK.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

My mind wanders. Sue me.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 03, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Falwell's a moderate when it comes to extremism. Once you get into guys like Phelps, Lyons & Bradleys, then you're talking hypocrisy and stupidity.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I think I can see Sol getting into Zoroastrianism sometime real soon.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

My translation of the Tanach (Bible) is from the Mesorah Heritage Fundation, a very orthodox Jewish business. They have very good translations of the Tanach and the Talmud.

In these translations, the name YHWH is written as Hashem ("His Name"). Hashem and Elohim are identified with the attributes of God-mercy and judgement.

Shalom, the greeting used by Jews today, is a name of God. In the past, Jews would never say hello to another Jew using the name of God. Then, according to the Tanach, a prominent Jew said Shalom Aleichem to another Jew. This tradition of saying, "Shalom Aleichem", was accepted by the whole Jewish community by 400 CE.

Another name of God is "I Shall Be What I Shall Be", from Exodus.

According to Jewish tradition, Hashem has many names. These names can refer to attributes of Hashem or names given to this entity by various Jewish communities and accepted by the whole Jewish community before the writing of the Talmud. Shalom is an example of the latter. Many of these names are untranslatable into our language.

In the period of the Talmud (200 CE to 500 CE), the Jews of Babylonia (Bushir) who went to service would hear the Tanach translated into Aramaic by a reader. The rabbi would read the text and the reader would translate.
(Bushir is the popular name of Babylonia.)

The Tanach was translated into at least five languages by 500 CE: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and a Celtic language.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

I agree that a lot of Catholicism (sp?) is not based in the Bible. The worship and prayer to Mary is not endorsed anywhere in the Bible, and the same with Saints, etc.

Jews and Muslims fight in their belief of how they worship their God. Much like how the Christians battle the Jews, and within Christianity, Protestants vs. Catholics.

More names include "I am what I am" and just plain "I am"

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Oh, I'm SO happy I'm a Deist and don't believe in ANY 'Holy Text,' so that nobody can throw it back at me...

It's all crap. Every line in every chapter of every holy book ever written. It's hogwash. It's crud. It's that stuff you find under a refrigerator that hasn't been moved or cleaned or swept under in 20 years.

People wrote them. Oh, they may have THOUGHT they were inspired, but so does every hack harlequin writer. Nonsense. Scattered bits of good ideas drowned in a sea of poopy.

I'm goin' ta hell for that bit.
After this holiday season, it should be a frickin' BREEZE.

WHEE!

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

I yam what I yam, and that's what I yam, I'm Popeye the--

Sorry, couldn't help it.

------------------
"Life end when you die. But imagination share with others, live forever."
--Quan, Final Fantasy IX

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

I know, it's bad. I've caught myself thinking that so many times in church.

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Isn't it funny how people can hold up the Ten Commandments as the "word of god", and then disclaim the entire rest of the Mosaic Law in the same breath...?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yet another reason why I'm a "non-practicing" Catholic.

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

I really do see organized religion as bunch of hogwash. But I go anyways. Just trying to keep peace in the family...

------------------
"What happens on the edges of infinity, the never-never land of mathematics?"
-Miss Hodgin

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, the thing is, most of the ten commandments were repeated by Christ, and are in fact an outgrowth of the basis of Christ's teachings (Love God, love man, love yourself). The exception is the one about Saturdays, which was never repeated. IMO, the reason for that is that under Christ, we're supposed to dedicate our whole lives to Him, so why do you need a special day to do the same thing?

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

By your logic, why celebrate Christmas or Easter on special days? Why not celebrate them everyday?

Hey, that's a good idea!

------------------
"Life end when you die. But imagination share with others, live forever."
--Quan, Final Fantasy IX

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

In theory, we're supposed to. I mean, how can we NOT celebrate the birth and ressurection of Christ constantly?

But as for the special days thing, it's more tradition than anything. Nothing binding.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Well, I'm sure Jesus would have us celebrate his birth and death every day, rather than the incorrect days we celebrate them now.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, that's an interesting point. We know for certain when the crucifiction was relative to the Passover feast, and we know when the ressurection took place relative to that, so we should, in theory, be able to figure out the exact date of the ressurection. However, Easter still shifts between two different months. I'd never thought of that.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

IMHO, Saying that "we know for certain" what the dates were is kind of like extrapolating dates in history from TNG-Era stardates...

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: So, anything that was said in the OT, and repeated in the NT, that's the stuff that's still applicable? And anything not repeated isn't?

Okay, so how about this... I posed this question to my religion teacher senior year in high school, and he couldn't answer satisfactorily... If Yahweh said one thing during the Exodus, and then sent someone along thirteen centuries later to say something different, why did he change his mind? Isn't he supposed to be all-knowing? Doesn't he know what's right and what's wrong? Why would he say "this is wrong" and then, a while later, say "okay, never mind, it's alright". Because that's what you're suggesting he did.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

I have a few options on that TSN:

A) He's a total & utter bullshit artist

B) He's a congenital idiot

C) He's a brainless wanker

D) It was a religion contrived out of a religion which came out of another one. Ie. Zoroastrians-judiasts-christians-muslims etc and all.

Blind faith is the crutch of fools.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Or maybe he decided to raise the standards a bit. Which is harder: an eye for an eye, or turning the other cheek?

The law was the law given to the jews. Well, I ain't a jew.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

And since when, Rob, do you have humble opinions?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"Well, I ain't a jew."

Well, thank God. I don't see anyone being one of those unconvertable Heathens. What? We were creat - no, no, that's Protocols of the Elders of Zion propoganda.

LONG LIVE MARTIN LUTHER!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, I give up. Omega's once again crossed into a realm of illogic where I refuse to tread. Hell if I'm going to step in that shit on the off-chance that he might actually accept some infinitesimal measure of defeat...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

No, you're not Jewish, Omega, but His son is. And if we're supposed to ignore the OT, why exactly is it in the Bible?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

No, Omega. the "H" wasn't for "Humble."
It was for "Honest."
Or perhaps, given my inflated self-image and the fact that I believe in myself more than any so-called 'inspired' text, "Holy."

But NEVER "Humble."

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Ah, my mistake.

The OT's there as backstory. Otherwise, The NT'd just be some disembodied tale. Christianity wouldn't have had the effect it did were Jesus' birth not prophecied as it was. The whole Bible is the story following the coming of Christ, and that, with a few exceptions, is what the OT does: it follows the ancestors of Jesus, and prophecy regarding Him.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

That's one that get's me. Jesus's Ancestors? through Mary? Coz he's got NO ancestors through his pa, if you believe that story.

And the story STILL reflects the story of Apollonius of Tyre almost exactly.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Rationalize it however you want.

The problem with that, of course, is your defense of the 10 Commandments -- namely, "Thou Shalt Not Kill/Murder." Why have you defended it if you're just going to argue that they don't count? As far as I know, God gave 'em down just that once and didn't do so again in the NT, so why not just say, "that commandment doesn't count 'cuz I'm not a Jew?"

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 05, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Why have you defended it if you're just going to argue that they don't count?"

'Cause I have a compulsive need to ensure that your specious arguments don't stand.

"God gave 'em down just that once and didn't do so again in the NT"

Read the sermon on the mount. Matthew 5-7.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."
-Matthew 5:22

Well, looks like I'm going to hell.

"But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
-Matthew 5:28

Oops. Going to hell twice.

"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply `Yes' or `No'; anything more than this comes from evil."
-Matthew 5:33-38

So, Omega, what are you going to do if you ever use your gun to "prevent a crime" as you always want to, and you get called to be a witness at the trial?

"But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."
-Matthew 5:39

Oops. Looks like you're not supposed to fight back, w/ your gun or otherwise. Oh well.

"...and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well..."
-Matthew 5:40

Hm... I could use a new cloak... Expect to hear from my lawyer...

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
-Matthew 5:46-48

Hm... Looks like Gentiles are no good. But, wait, what did you say earlier, Omega? "I ain't a jew"? Well, that makes you a Gentile, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."
-Matthew 6:1

Hm... No heavenly goodies for Omega, then...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited January 05, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Even the Devil can quote scripture

------------------
Greg: You bought me a urinal cookie?
Mike: Not just any ordinary urinal cookie! It has the AOL logo embossed on it!
-www.userfriendly.org, 12-08-00

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

So, Omega, what are you going to do if you ever use your gun to "prevent a crime" as you always want to, and you get called to be a witness at the trial?

Courts have contingincies for this. It's on the Straight Dope website somewheres...

*looks*

Ah, here we go.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_145.html

"When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead."

Now the question Cecil was responding to was about atheists, but the same principle would seem to apply. They give the same option to people taking the presidential oath of office, too.

Oops. Looks like you're not supposed to fight back, w/ your gun or otherwise.

"If any one strikes YOU on the right cheek." As I've said countless times, I'd only actually shoot someone if they were immediately about to harm someone ELSE. Were it just my life, I'd take the risk and try to find another solution.

Looks like Gentiles are no good.

In the eyes of those to whom He was speaking, they weren't.

No heavenly goodies for Omega, then...

"IN ORDER TO be seen by them." The command is not to worship in private. It's to avoid doing it specifically to be noticed, which was a common practice of the supposedly devout of the day.

Nice try, though.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh, and I never responded to Rob.

"Jesus's Ancestors? through Mary? Coz he's got NO ancestors through his pa, if you believe that story."

Mary and Joseph were distant cousins. Both of them were decended from David, and almost all of the familial narrative takes place before David's death. Thus, the OT's mainly the story of His ancestory through BOTH his parents.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

True, but since Israel was a matriarchy, feminine lines of descent (through Mary) don't mean much of anything, certainly not to be considered much as regards prophecy.

And since Joseph wasn't Jesus's real father, from a biological standpoint, HIS line of descent wouldn't matter, either.

And, of course, since the bits that link both Mary and Joseph's lineages to David were written long after Jesus's rise to fame, (because before then, who knew?) and cover ages in which geneological records were essentially nonexistent, they could pretty much say whatever they wanted to say, couldn't they? Much as for a while, back a century or two ago, virtually anybody who was anybody in Europe could produce "lineages" back to Charlemagne.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

since Israel was a matriarchy, feminine lines of descent (through Mary) don't mean much of anything

I assume you mean "patriarchy?"

Either way, what's your point? Both His parents (even if only one counts) were decended from David, as prophecied.

the bits that link both Mary and Joseph's lineages to David were written long after Jesus's rise to fame...

Not a problem, due to genealogical records. Mary and Joseph had kids together, and Judaic society was very strict on keeping records of your ancestors. Thus, a good researcher could get the records off of Joseph through his kids, and they could get Mary's through some male member of her family which likely existed.

...and cover ages in which geneological records were essentially nonexistent...

Such as? Even during the exile to Babylon, records were kept. The book of Ezra, chronicaling the return to Jerusalem, makes a big deal about it when someone had lost their ancestoral record. Again, chances are the records would have existed, and thus the people who wrote them down for the gospels would have been able to find them intact.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, whether Joseph was a descendant of David, or not, they're still inconsistent. No mention of Mary's pedigree is given. Only Joseph's.

"Look, Jesus is descended from David through Joseph!"
"So, Joseph is Jesus' father, then?"
"No, Yahweh is his father."
"So, he's not really descended from David, is he?"
"Yes, through Joseph."
"So, Joseph is his father..."
"No, I told you, Yahweh is!"
"So, how is Jesus related to Joseph?"
"Jesus is descended from David through Joseph."

Not the most genealogically sound arguement, I assure you.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Actually, there were two different geneologies given for Jesus, both leading back to David. One was Mary's, the other was Joseph's.

Next.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

See, THIS is what people mean when they say you don't listen:

"Actually, there were two different geneologies given for Jesus, both leading back to David. One was Mary's, the other was Joseph's."

So, the points are:

1/ Using Mary's geneology, Jesus leads back to David.

First of Two's religous-hatred filled response:
"True, but since Israel was a matriarchy, feminine lines of descent (through Mary) don't mean much of anything, certainly not to be considered much as regards prophecy."

2/ Using Joseph's geneology, Jesus leads back to David

First of Two's God-ate-my-mum response: "And since Joseph wasn't Jesus's real father, from a biological standpoint, HIS line of descent wouldn't matter, either."

So, Mr "I always answer every argument ever", I say to you:

NEXT!

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Forgive me, my response wasn't clear. I assumed that you could connect the dots for yourself. Sorry, it won't happen again.

He said that "since Israel was a matriarchy, feminine lines of descent (through Mary) don't mean much of anything." I reject this premise, on the grounds that it's a non sequitor. What basis does he have for this conclusion? IIRC, even a woman's geneology was important, because you were supposed to marry within your own tribe. Why should her geneology be ignored?

The prophecies said that the Messiah would be of the line of David. Why should it make a difference that it was through a woman?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Even the Devil can quote scripture

Yes, but in this case, it's Omega ... not the devil, but close

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

According to your special book though, aren't we all from the same Genealogical descent? Y'know like Adam and Eve and those other random people that came to create little people, and their quest to populate the earth in time for the subterranian cryogenic ships to launch, carrying human kind to new planets and new adventures.

Wouldn't we all, if you went far back enough, be related? So, then Liam could be the Messiah?

I'm sure he's got some fellow named David in his family, perhaps a crazy uncle with a magic lap, or somesuch.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

*Has an Uncle David*

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Looks like Gentiles are no good.
In the eyes of those to whom He was speaking, they weren't.

Well, as long as he was reforming everything else about them, why not preach religious tolerance? If he said Gentiles were wrong, it means he felt that way. Or are you saying he was lying, just to keep people listening to him? That would make him quite the hypocrite, eh?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Who is to say Jesus and not Muhammed is the true messiah? C'mon, UM's right about geneolgy, if it all comes from Adam and Eve, then how do you know?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, it all comes from Oot and Gurt and their contemporaries. But that's another argument entirely.

Oot and Gurt begat Ug, who married Brun and begat Gort, one of whose sons begat Mugna, the first anthropoid to use a disyllabic name, who begat Ordo, who begat Grunt, who begat Grunt-un, who begat Muggor, who begat Ungwa, etc, etc, skip several hundred begattings, ...begat Alexander, who begat Robert Ellis, who begat Robert Allison, who begat Rob. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

All this begatting... who did the research for it? Who verified the authenticity of the records? And where are these indestructible historical documents, that somehow survived from David to Jesus's time and beyond, NOW?

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Hey, I work with a Rob Ellis.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

UM:

Wouldn't we all, if you went far back enough, be related?

Yes, through both Adam and Noah. However, that wasn't the prophecy. God promised David (that's David the king, not QW's uncle David, nor, for that matter, my dad David) that one of his decendents would reign for eternity. Thus Jesus, who, through Mary, was a decendent of David, and now reigns for eternity.

Why is this so hard to get?

Tim:

If he said Gentiles were wrong, it means he felt that way.

But He didn't say that. The idea was to make it hit home that the self-righteous Pharasees were really no better than the Gentiles that they despised. Kind of a sarcasm thing, and a way to point out the hypocracy of the Pharasees at the same time. Things like that don't translate well to text, apparently.

Well, as long as he was reforming everything else about them, why not preach religious tolerance?

He did. Good Samaritan parable, for example.

JK:

Who is to say Jesus and not Muhammed is the true messiah?

A whole freakin' bunch of prophets. Oh, and God. Can't forget God.

Rob:

All this begatting... who did the research for it?

Again, who needs to do research? People kept records of their ancestory, adding to them each generation. It would have just been sitting somewhere in a family house.

Who verified the authenticity of the records?

Who verified the authenticity of your family tree? If you don't accept SOME historical records, even when they can't be proven to be accurate, then you have no history to work with. On what basis do you deny the historical accuracy of the books of the Bible? And WHICH books, for that matter? Do you accept ANY of it as accurate?

To me, this seems on the scale of people who deny the accuracy of Smith's account of the Pilgrim settlement of Plymouth (darn, what WAS the name of that book?), just because it shows a failed communist society, and we know that THAT can't happen, don't we?

And where are these indestructible historical documents, that somehow survived from David to Jesus's time and beyond, NOW?

Um... written in the Bible?

I never said it was the exact same physical document that was passed from generation to generation. That's be rediculous. Scrolls would rot after four or five hundred years, in all likelyhood. They probably made several copies, for each child, with his or her personal geneology on it. What happened to the parents', I don't know. Maybe they buried them with the bodies?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I find this type of devotion to a mere book, and a book trasnlated hundreds of thousands of times, and changed hundreds of thousands of times, probably to the point where whoever was writing the 'new' version in some temple somewhere secretly added passages that ensured that his family got the prized goats in the town, because his second toe was larger than his big toe, disturbing.

When the only way to maintain written records was to manually rewrite the article in question, I'm sure that somewhere, someone along the line said "hey, you know, this doesn't make sense. This prophecy here hasn't been fulfilled properly. Well, I'm sure in all Yahweh's Greatness, He didn't show us so that we mere underlings could understand. But it still happens. So, I'll write that Mary is second cousins with the brother of the wife of Davids great grandson. There, it works, and we have no way of checking it, so this can be the definitive source for the Ancestry of Mary. I am invincible."

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"Do you accept ANY of it as accurate?"

No, I'm a Deist, remember? I don't accept the Bible (Or Koran, or Talmud) as accurate just because it SAYS so.

I accept the existence of certain places in the Bible.
-but-
I also accept the existence of Devil's Tower, Wyoming, while not believing that aliens landed there, a la "Close Encounters."

I submit that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain for CERTAIN the accuracy of the genealogies of Joseph and Mary, as claimed by the Bible authors. Therefore their accuracy is entirely a matter of FAITH, a resource I do not spend freely. You have to TRUST too many things for my liking. You have to trust that the writers were telling the absolute, unvarnished truth, with proof (at least at the time), and not simply creating a new myth similar to preexisting myths, (Dionysus, Orpheus, Osiris, the Horned God, Persephone, etc, etc,) and trying to give it authority by claiming descent from a famous historical personage.

Hell, half the Romans claimed descent from some God or another. And as I said, not long ago, EVERYBODY in Europe claimed descent from Charlemagne... there are still a lot of family trees in Europe, in fact, that include Charlemagne on their branches... whether or not it's accurate.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yes, not to mention He speaks Hebrew, not English, therefore, an English translation is not God's Word, it's an approximation of God's Word. Something else people don't seem to understand.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

'Course it's an approximation. That's why we have footnotes: to point out alternate meanings. If you can point out a section where the meaning could be significantly changed by accepting an alternate translation, that actually fits available evidence, feel free to do so.

Rob:

So you don't accept any individual book of the Bible as historical record? Even though it may have no supernatural elements whatsoever, and is not contradicted by anything? Ezra, for example. Heck, I can probably come up with a dozen other historical documents that you DO accept on nothing but faith. How do you know that THEY're accurate? How 'bout this Apollonius of Tyre guy that you're always going on about? What do you base THAT on?

You accept certain historical documents, while ignoring others. I'd love to know why.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: Where is there a genealogy via Mary presented in the bible? Here's all I can find on Mary's family...

She had a cousin named Elizabeth, descended from Aaron and married to a priest named Zechariah. They had a son John ("the Baptist") who ended up w/ his head on a plate.

She had a sister, who may have been married to a guy named Clopas (the wording of John 19:25 makes it hard to discern whether or not these are separate people).

She had four other sons named James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, plus some daughters.

I remember also learning that her parents were Joachim and Ann, but that's not in the bible, so I don't know where it came from...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

BTW, I realize I keep using the English versions of the names, even though this thread started as a complaint against such practices. However, I'm only doing it so people understand me. And also because, even though I could find the Hebrew versions of the names, the Aramaic ones would be more correct, and those are a bit more difficult to find...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Two of the gosepls have two different geneaologies, both leading back to David. One is of Mary, and one is of Joseph. The book I got that particular idea out of (not sure what or where it is, sorry) said which gospel was probably which persons ancestory, based upon the personality of the author and researcher, but I don't recall which was which.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

There are two different genealogies, yes, but they both purport to be that of Joseph.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Yes, but that's how a Hebrew geneology worked. Typically, you'd list only the males, even if they were only part of the family through marriage.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

So, then, if one of the places where it says "Joseph" is actually supposed to be "Mary", then Mary's father was either Jacob (Matthew 1:16), or Heli (Luke 3:23). So, who's Joachim?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I never claimed Apollonius of Tyre was a TRUE story, Omega. There's no more historical documents supporting its veracity than there is that of Jesus. Oh, I accept that the records show that there was some guy named Yeshua who was crucified by the Romans around AD32 for promoting sedition. That's what's in the official historical records, as I understand them. But that's it.

The real evidence for Apollonius is equal in its validity to the official evidence for Jesus: that is, a brief mention in the records of people the Romans killed. The other stuff written about him is as circumstantial and suspect as the New Testament. I use Appollonius simply to show that the Jesus story isn't new, or even original in its content. I don't believe in him any more than in any of those other Gods I mentioned.

I believe the list of executions that the Romans performed because they have no logical reason to lie about those facts, since Christianity was a minor cult of about a dozen true believers (and a lot of followers, but followers don't count early in a religion's creation) at the time, hardly worth notice.

People creating a New religion, however, have every reason to fudge a bit. Like L. Ron Hubbard said, before he followed his own advice and founded Scientology, "The quickest way to make a fortune is to found a new religion."

(Paramount knows this too, now.)

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

*Is currently busy worshiping false idols*

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Gah. I wish all these people would stop worshiping me on the streets! There are curry temples for the proper worship of Daryus. Go forth my children, and eat

By eating, you worship me.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Not right now my friend Gus isn't, he had a dodgy curry last night and is off work. 8)

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

An Indian food place recently opened in the shopping center across the street from me. Good stuff.

------------------
"Life end when you die. But imagination share with others, live forever."
--Quan, Final Fantasy IX

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Y'know, the more I look into this, the more discrepant it becomes. Do you know Matthew traces Jesus back to Abraham in fewer generations than it take Luke to go back to David?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The Greek word in question, which is translated "the son of," is more appropriately translated as "the decendant of." The idea for the gospels' geneologies wasn't to trace every frikin' generation back to Adam.

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

Well, maybe they should have. It could have come in handy later on.

------------------
"What happens on the edges of infinity, the never-never land of mathematics?"
-Miss Hodgin

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Jesus is black! It's true, I saw it in the movies!

No, but seriously, on another tangent ...

Why do people assume God to be a He and Jesus to be white? I mean, if God is God, couldn't God appear however God wanted to appear to anyone? God could be Aslan if that suited him.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 09, 2001).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: Except that Matthew, the shorter of the two pedigrees, specifically does count the generations:

"So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations."
-Matthew 1:17

So, Matthew specifies that there were exactly forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus (so that's who wrote the gospel of Matthew! Douglas Adams!) even though it only lists forty-one, while Luke gives at least fifty-seven (or even more, given your claim that "tou" is actually Greek for "descendant of", not "son of"). How do you explain that one, w/o contradicting your earlier assertions?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Oh, and Jesus wasn't white. Only white people assume that. The especially ignorant ones, at that...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Come to think of it, Omega, your arguement makes no sense. You claim that the "son of" bit is the mistranslation; that it should actually be "descendant of", allowing for more generations. But Luke is the one that uses "son of", and it already has more generations. You should be arguing that Matthew's genealogy is mistranslated, to allow for more generations. But even that wouldn't work, since, as I said, Matthew actually gives specific numbers of generations.

You have read the passages in question, haven't you? You're not attempting to debate a point w/o researching it, are you?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You're forgetting, these are the genealogies of two different families. There could easily have been more generations between David and one of Jesus' parents than the other. Not that that accounts for ALL the discrepancies, but it would work for that particular one.

Look up the book "The Chronological Life of Christ, Vol. 1: From Glory to Galilee," by Mark E. Moore. Page 26. I'll give you a (relatively) brief rundown.

You may be interested to know that Matthew does not include a list of ALL the names in the genealogy going back to Abraham. There are four in First Chronicles that he didn't include. The reason: Jews (the people Matthew was mainly writing for) weren't interested in knowing every single name. Just in lines of descent. People would frequently "forget" to include ancestors that weren't flattering to the family. Oddly, Matthew includes a couple rather immoral women like Tamar and Rahab. Trying to make a point about forgiveness?

The three groups of fourteen (David's mentioned twice, being the important one; Jewish ideas of symmetry were kinda strange back then) are obviously based upon the Hebrew number system fixation on seven. It's a poetry thing that REALLY works better in Hebrew. There're some puns in I think Ezekiel that only work in Hebrew, too, and some of the Psalms are helped by an appreciation of Hebrew poetry.

Then we get to the differences. If you arrange the lists paralell, you discover that before David, they're practically identical, but afterwards, they're completely different. Thus, we're probably dealing with two different descendants of David. It seems to me that the best theory listed about why both are listed as Joseph's genealogy is that Mary may have had no brothers or older sisters. Thus, she would be the heiress of her family. However, by marrying her, Joseph effectively would become heir, and thus it becomes his spot in the Luke genealogy of Mary's family. Notice that while Matthew includes women, Luke doesn't. Again, thus Joseph.

As for the "all the generations" statement, all the generations from Abraham to David WERE fourteen generations, by both accounts. However, it don't say that the other two sets of fourteen were all from their time period. Translation from Latin and Greek does funny things to sentence structure sometimes.

I actually have what I consider a pretty good amature theory on what might be a better translation, but there wouldn't be any point to posting it.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, of course the lines from Abraham to David would be the same. Those were documented well enough in the Hebrew scriptures. 'Course, Luke adds a guy named "Admin" before Aminadab. This character isn't in Matthew, or in the OT accounts.

"The three groups of fourteen (David's mentioned twice, being the important one; Jewish ideas of symmetry were kinda strange back then) are obviously based upon the Hebrew number system fixation on seven. It's a poetry thing that REALLY works better in Hebrew.

So, you're admitting that they changed things to make it sound better. That doesn't sound like a very trustworthy source.

"As for the "all the generations" statement, all the generations from Abraham to David WERE fourteen generations, by both accounts.

As I just pointed out, they are not. Can't you count?

the names given in the Greek versions of the gospels (I'm tired of dealing w/ varied English translations):


Matthew:               Luke:
1.  Abraam             1.  Abraam
2.  Isaak              2.  Isaak
3.  Iakob              3.  Iakob
4.  Ioudas & Thamar    4.  Iouda
5.  Phares             5.  Phares
6.  Hesrom             6.  Hesrom
7.  Aram               7.  Arni
                       8.  Admin
8.  Aminadab           9.  Aminadab
9.  Naasson            10. Naasson
10. Salmon & Rhakhab   11. Sala
11. Boes & Rhouth      12. Boos
12. Iobed              13. Iobed
13. Iessai             14. Iessai
14. Dauid              15. Dauid

There. Definitive proof that Matthew shows fourteen generations and Luke shows fifteen. Now, why would you even say that they both have the same number, unless you have no idea what you're talking about?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited January 09, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Wouldn't Jesus have had an olive complextion?

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Before this continues, I must kill Jeff for bringing up the Narnia tales.

You will die.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

So, you're admitting that they changed things to make it sound better.

No, nothing was changed at all. It's a slight mistranslation of the word that is usually translated as "son of" that is causing your confusion. It's consistant with everything else. Things were merely arranged to seem more attractive to the Hebrew eye.

As for the extra generation supposedly mentioned by Luke, if you read the footnotes (assuming you have a decent study bible), you'll see that there are several variations in the available ancient manuscripts. Most don't have the name "Admin" listed. I'd guess someone screwed up copying the thing at some point.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Admin? That Capps feller really gets about, doesn't he?

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Yes. He must have spread certain things far & wide.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: Luke shows 43 generations from David to Jesus. Matthew shows 28. Even if we use a round number of 1000 years (which is actually slightly low), that means Luke has an average generation of about 23 years. Matthew's is nearly 36. Back then, a good number of people didn't even live to be 36, so Luke's number seems a lot more reasonable. You've already said that Matthew's bit was specifically made to be symmetrical. Any rational person would realize that this strongly suggests that the facts were altered to fit this symmetry.

The simple fact of the matter is that these things were written by people. People who were trying to get other people to join their religion. The authors wrote things that weren't quite true, in order to appeal to their given audiences. Now, in my opinion, the vast majority of what's in those gospels falls under this category. Obviously, you won't admit that, but can't you at least realize that some things were changed in the name of "poetic license"? I'll bet even biblical scholars know this. I remember learning in religion class that the story of the Magi was actually BS, but the authors of Matthew put it in because the people they were targeting would like it.

And why do you keep going on about the mistranslation of "tou"? Your assertion is that it should be changed to "descendant of" to allow for more generations. But Luke is the book that uses it, and that already has more generations.

Lastly, I find it interesting that, since I proved you wrong about the respective numbers of generations from Abraham to David in each gospel, you chose to simply ignore it, rather than admitting that you were wrong...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I am a descendant of John Williams. This is true in every possible way, but skips the fact that this is my great-grandfather.
A minister once explained it to me that only the notable persons were listed, so there could be a few more generations then the numbers counted. Sam would be the descendant of Pete, by way of Jerry, Chuck, and Bill, but since they were boring/un-notable they were skipped.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Tim:

You've already said that Matthew's bit was specifically made to be symmetrical. Any rational person would realize that this strongly suggests that the facts were altered to fit this symmetry.

But no facts were altered. All the statements are consistant, as it was never stated that the second and third groups of 14 in Matthew were ALL the generations in their particular time period. Just the first group.

And why do you keep going on about the mistranslation of "tou"? Your assertion is that it should be changed to "descendant of" to allow for more generations. But Luke is the book that uses it, and that already has more generations.

Your point being? Maybe Luke didn't skip any generations in his genealogy of Mary, but Matthew did in his genealogy of Joseph, to keep his symmetry intact. Maybe they both skipped. Ancient Hebrews weren't worried about knowing every single generation, and that's the group Matthew was writing to. Luke, OTOH, was writing to Greeks, as I recall, and thus would have a different style.

Just because one provided more info, or provided it in a different form, than the other doesn't mean one contradicts the other.

I find it interesting that, since I proved you wrong about the respective numbers of generations from Abraham to David in each gospel, you chose to simply ignore it, rather than admitting that you were wrong...

I WASN'T wrong. Most ancient manuscripts of Luke, from which the Bible is translated, have the same number of people between Abraham and David as Matthew does. Look at an NIV sometime. They go with the majority, and make a note of it. The translation you were reading out of was incomplete in its information.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"The Greek word in question, which is translated 'the son of,' is more appropriately translated as 'the decendant of.'"

That's Luke. That's the one that counted backward, using "son of". Matthew counted forward, using the whole "so-and-so begat such-and-such" format.

"Maybe Luke didn't skip any generations in his genealogy of Mary, but Matthew did in his genealogy of Joseph, to keep his symmetry intact."

So, if your point is that Matthew skips people, why did you say that Luke has the bad translation?

"...it was never stated that the second and third groups of 14 in Matthew were ALL the generations in their particular time period. Just the first group."

Well, I don't know anything about Greek sentence structure, nor how well it was translated from the Aramaic, but the sentence�

"So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations."
-Matthew 1:17

�in English says "all the generations" a single time. All the prepositional phrases after that ("from Abraham...", "from David..." and "from the deportation...") fall under it. Therefore, in English, the "all" applies to each one. I'll be happy to diagram the sentence if necessary...

Anyway, like I said, I don't know how this works in the Greek from which it was translated, but I highly doubt that you do, either.

"Most ancient manuscripts of Luke, from which the Bible is translated, have the same number of people between Abraham and David as Matthew does."

So you're saying that, as long as some of them agree, it's okay? There are still differences in some, then. For all you know, the ones that match were altered specifically for the purpose of making them match...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Matthew counted forward, using the whole "so-and-so begat such-and-such" format.

Both words can be used to indicate indirect descent. For all I know, it's the same word. Greek's weird like that.

So, if your point is that Matthew skips people, why did you say that Luke has the bad translation?

Where did I say that? I said your particular copy of the Bible was missing important information on slightly different versions of the same manuscript. And my point can be both, you know.

I don't know how this works in the Greek from which it was translated, but I highly doubt that you do, either.

I know enough to know that if the word translated as "all" from Greek only appears once, it's considered ambiguous. It could be modifying all three, or just the one. You have to judge by context. Since the context requires that it only modify the first...

So you're saying that, as long as some of them agree, it's okay?

"Most." Not "some." Meaning the great majority agree. As I've said, chances are that someone just screwed up making a hand copy of the original (or an early copy thereof) ninteen centuries or so ago. And again, you have to go by context. We already have a record of those generations from two other sources, and the majority of Luke manuscripts agree with those sources. It is logical to assume that the correct source to use is the one that agrees with as many other valid sources as possible, both internally and externally. Thus, no Admin, and Luke and Matthew are still consistant.

For all you know, the ones that match were altered specifically for the purpose of making them match.

And how would you suggest someone go about this? I think you're just getting desperate for an explaination.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

">And how would you suggest someone go about this? I think you're just getting desperate for an explaination."

Actually, that one's fairly easy.

Most 'records' of ancient times, until the printing press was invented, were copied from generation to generation by people who were generally under the command of the Church. (Monks, mostly, are responsible for all those old 'illuminated manuscripts')

So maybe somebody reads something that he's copying and notices a discrepancy. So he points it out to the Friar In Chief, and the guy says "change it so it matches, and burn the old copy. we can't have anything undermining Our authority." So they do. Voila, altered text. Happened all the time. Really, the Soviets under Stalin did the same thing with their history books.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I give you Matthew 1:17, in Romanized Greek:

----------

pasai oun ai geneai apo abraam ewv dabid geneai dekatessarev kai apo dabid ewv thv ~metoikesiav babulwnov geneai dekatessarev kai apo thv metoikesiav babulwnov ewv tou cristou geneai dekatessarev

So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

----------

First we'll translate the obvious words.

pasai oun ai (generations) apo (Abraham) ewv (David)(generations) (fourteen) kai apo (David) ewv thv ~metoikesiav (something to do with Babylon) (generations) (fourteen) kai apo thv metoikesiav (something to do with Babylon) ewv tou (Annointed One (Christ)) (generations) (fourteen)

----------

From this, we can probably deduce the meaning of the remaining words. "Apo" would seem to mean "from," "ewv" would seem to mean "to." Since we can also tell which word represents Babylon, we can deduce that "thv metoikesiav babulwnov" refers to the Babylonian capture of Israel, or the "deportation to Babylon." Thus we plug again.

----------

pasai oun ai (generations) (from) (Abraham) (to) (David)(generations) (fourteen) kai (from) (David) (to) (the deportation to Babylon) (fourteen) kai (from) (the deportation to Babylon) (to) tou (Annointed One (Christ)) (generations) (fourteen)

----------

Now it seems logical to assume that "kai" means "and," and that leavs us with "tou," and which we can guess means "to." That leaves us with "pasai oun ai" untranslated, but we can assume that it means "so all the." Since none of these words appears more than once in the verse, it follows that the word "all" only appears once, and is thus ambiguous. Yeah, in English, it would certainly modify all three groups, but not necessarily in Greek. It looks to me like the translators ignored sentence structure altogether here.

You can diagram the English sentence all you want, Tim. I'd love to see you diagram a Greek one.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: You expect me to trust your translation skills when you can't even transliterate properly? How the fuck did you get "ewv" out of "heos"?! The Greek word is spelled epsilon-omega-sigma, and the diacritical marks show an 'h' at the beginning.

As a matter of fact, you transliterated every omega as a 'w'! Can you not even properly interpret the letter that you use as your name?!

Here's the proper transliteration. I've used capital letters to denote eta and omega, as opposed to epsilon and omicron...

pasai oun hai geneai apo abraam heOs dauid geneai dekatessares, kai apo dauid heOs tEs metoikesias babulOnos geneai dekatessares, kai apo tEs metoikesias babulOnos heOs tou khristou geneai dekatessares.

pasai == "all", "the whole" (plural)
oun == "so"
hai == I can't find it
geneai == "generations"
apo == "from"
abraam == "Abraham"
heOs == "until"
dauid == "David"
dekatessares == this seems to be an alternative form of "tessareskaideka", which is "fourteen"
kai == "and"
tEs == I can't find it
metoikesias == "captivities"
babulOnos == not precisely the word for "Babylonian" ("babulOnios"), but that's what it probably was meant to be
tou == I can't find it, but this is the word used in Luke that's translated as "son of"
khristou == "anointed"

So all hai generations from Abraham until David fourteen generations, and from David until tEs Babylonian captivities fourteen generations, and from tEs Babylonian captivities to tou anointed fourteen generations.

Like I said, I don't know Greek grammar, but, in a way, this seems like it could be set up in the following manner...

So all the generations:
from Abraham to David: 14
from David to Babylon: 14
from Babylon to Jesus: 14

That's just speculation, of course. But, then, so is what you're doing.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited January 11, 2001).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The lower-case omega is written like a w, IIRC.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Brave New World: 'The future sucks. Or does it? Hell if I know. Ooh, LSD!'" - Simon Sizer

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Yes, it is. But, then, the lowercase mu looks like a 'u', but is still an 'm'. The lowercase eta looks like an 'n', but is still a long 'e'. The lowercase nu looks like a 'v', but is still an 'n'. The lowercase gamma looks like a 'y', but is still a 'g'. The lowercase rho looks like a 'p', but is still an 'r'. The lowercase khi looks like an 'x', but is still 'kh' or 'ch'. He had no problem w/ those.

The lowercase sigma at the end of a word actually looks like an 's', yet he got a 'v' for those.

I should expect you, Frank, of all people, to appreciate such distinctions. What if people started transliterating the 'þ' in Old English words as a 'p', rather than 'th'?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Pen we would have a ping to worry about.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

That would be bad. I just figured I'd suggest where Omega came up with that transliteration.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Brave New World: 'The future sucks. Or does it? Hell if I know. Ooh, LSD!'" - Simon Sizer

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Or maybe I just copied and pasted out of a freely available Greek NT available on the internet? It didn't look right to me, either, but I figured, "Well, these people probably know how to represent Greek characters in English."

Either way, I'm still right. The sentence is still ambiguous, and is thus determined by context. It can mean either one, and thus there's only a conflict if you want there to be.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 12, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

That is an illogical conclusion. If it is ambiguous as you suggest, then it is open to interpretation and therefore no one is right. Illogic is not a valid debating tactic.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

If it is ambiguous as you suggest, then it is open to interpretation

False. If a statement is ambiguous, it is only open to interpretation insofar as no other information is available. That does not apply to this situation. The statment is ambiguous in and of itself, but when other available information is taken into account, a complete picture of the veracity of the statement can be found.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Or maybe, just maybe, y'all have finally driven this topic so deep into the ground that geologists are eager to search your pockets for samples from the Mohorovicic discontinuity?

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

This would never have happened if Jesus had been properly defended. His apostles could have laid down some covering fire from their MK11 Heathenfraggers, while he went straight for Judus with his perfectly legal "kisserkilller".

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"Or maybe I just copied and pasted out of a freely available Greek NT available on the internet? It didn't look right to me, either, but I figured, 'Well, these people probably know how to represent Greek characters in English.'"

Yet another example of how you'll believe almost anything you read? I mean, apparently, even when your own better (I use that term loosely) judgement tells you otherwise, you'll still believe someone if you think they're an "expert"...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited January 13, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

So does that mean you have no further argument to make on this topic?

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Omega, that seemed to be a slam against your beliefs and how you form your opinions. This seems to show that you will believe things that are only half done/unproven because it fits your purposes and self styled beliefs.
Then again, I maybe reading too much into TSNs statement.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

What it was is irrelevant. What it WASN'T, now that matters. It wasn't an argument on the subject at hand. It wasn't a rebuttal of my argument. All it was was an attack on me, and not a very good one, at that.

Now if there are no further points to be made in this argument...?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It wasn't an attack on you, IMO.

It was an attack on your source, which you have no way of proving is accurate. You admitted you found it on the net and assumed they know what they're talking about. An attack on the source is not the same as an attack on you.

Your source is rejected.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

At least this thread will be over in 47 posts...

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

...46 ...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Your source is rejected.

On what basis? That you don't like their transliteration method? If you knew anything about Greek, you'd know that that's irrelevant to the actual meaning of the sentence. Now if you have an objection to the CONTENT, then you might have a point. But of course, no one's objected to the content.

Again, if there are no further points to be made?

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

I would like to express an opinion. This is my own personal opinion, and nothing you can say or do can change it, okay?

It is my opinion that the Bible is just a big load of baloney. It's just a collection of stories added to over the years. As for how a book can lead a culture... It's kinda like "The Book" in the TOS ep "A Piece of the Action"...

------------------
Two atoms walk into a bar. One atom says to the other atom:
"I've lost an electron!"
"Are you sure?"
"I'm positive!"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Okay, now we need to find out who F**ked with our timeline and development.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You can think what you wish. I'm just here to shoot down supposed inconsistancies and contradictions.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Isn't that the Bible's other title? "The Large Boring Book of Inconsistancies, Contradictions & Contriviances." ?

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, considering that no one here has pointed out an inconsistancy or contradiction that actually holds up under inspection... no.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"...considering that no one here has pointed out an inconsistancy or contradiction that actually holds up under inspection..."

Just because you say something nonsensical that "disproves" our assertions in your own little mind, that doesn't mean there's been an "inspection", nor that what we've said doesn't "hold up"...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, considering that I haven't done that, instead using something called "logic" (which is apparently foreign to you) to point out that just because something applies in english doesn't mean it also applies in greek.

So I ask again: are there any further points to be made on this topic?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

That's interesting Omega.

You may recall our argument over whether God said "murder" or "kill." Your argument was that because the word applied to one meaning in Hebrew, it applied to the same meaning in English. Apparently, you've decided to switch tactics here.

Your argument is ... hypocritical, I suppose?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 16, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Your argument was that because the word applied to one meaning in Hebrew, it applied to the same meaning in English.

What exactly does this mean, in english?

Whatever you're trying to say, you need to get a good book on linguistics. Sentence structure varies from language to language, as anyone who bothers to think about it knows. Thus, while the word can be translated as "all," it doesn't have to affect other words in the sentence exactly as "all" does in english. Greek is a different language, if you weren't aware.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Logic is foreign to me?! That's too funny even to respond to... *LOL*

Anyway, do you realize that your entire arguement is based on "Well, Greek isn't English, therefore, in Greek, the sentence might mean what I want it to..."? Maybe you should do some research and determine what the sentence really does mean, rather than saying "I'm going to assume it means what pleases me, until someone proves otherwise. Then I'll keep believing it, anyway."

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Anyway, do you realize that your entire arguement is based on "Well, Greek isn't English, therefore, in Greek, the sentence might mean what I want it to..."?

Of course I realize that. It's a perfectly good argument. "This sentence can mean "X". "X" is consistant with all other available information. Thus, there is no contradiction between the sentence in question and all other available information." Clear enough?

Maybe you should do some research and determine what the sentence really does mean

And maybe you should do some research and determine what the basic english word "ambiguous" means. It's impossible to know what certain sentences in Latin and Greek REALLY mean, by themselves. I'm sure the same applies to any other language. This sentence is one of them. Thus, your suggestion is meaningless.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

So, again, you claim that, since you can't know w/ absolute certainty what the author was thinking, you're just going to assume the passage means whatever you want it to mean. That's not a valid method of interpretation.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

since you can't know w/ absolute certainty what the author was thinking, you're just going to assume the passage means whatever you want it to mean.

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that YOU can't do that. A contradiction is when two pieces of evidence flatly contradict each other, and there is no possible resolution. I am pointing out that, since you can not know with ANY degree of certainty, what the author of that one sentence meant, you can not assume that the one meaning that contradicts other sources is the correct one.

It's only a contradiction if you're dealing with the only possible interpretations.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

If there's a plane crash, and one report says 250 people died, and one report says 260 people died, those reports are contradictory, in that they are two statements on the same subject which do not agree.

However, it would probably be more accurate to say that the reports CONFLICT.

On the other hand,
"Thou shalt not committ murder"
and
"Go into this town and mercilessly massacre everybody there, including children"

are contradictory by implication.

And, of course, literal interpretations of "The Four corners of the Earth" and "The Sun stood still in the sky" are CONTRARY to geography and heliocentrism, respectively.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

'Course, if the bible said 250 and 260 people died, Omega would just say that the "250" didn't count a few people, and that it's technically correct anyway because, if 260 people died, then 250 people did die; there are just ten more that died also.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Those other ten were the boring folks.....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"