Is there a god?

[oss spy]

There needs to be definitive proof that any god exists before I will accept the existence of that god.

That being said, I do not believe that there is a god and I will continue to not believe in a god until sufficient proof has been presented.

[natty dread]

heheh so it is only theologians who pick and choose?

i have heard something of the global warming debate. it sounds like scientists just believe what they want to in this debate also? some say it is definitely not exist and others say it is going to kill us all in 5 years. they are either conmen or practicing an imprecise discourse (science)

This post is so full of stupid I don't even.

[BigBallinStalin]

There needs to be definitive proof that any god exists before I will accept the existence of that god.

That being said, I do not believe that there is a god and I will continue to not believe in a god until sufficient proof has been presented.

You'll be eating your cereal for a looonngg time until your demands are met.

[PLAYER57832]

Jesus lineage from David. Two gospels, two different lineage's. Not a contradiction... ok.

And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.

I will answer this. The most common answer is that one is a top down lineage and the other is reversed. It gets confusing. The answer was posted a while back in this thread.. you can google it if you wish.

You are entirely correct, it gets confusing when you attempt to explain things that don't make sense.

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

"God, why have thou forsaken me"? Those words?

He went to hell. Then to heaven. Hell is the absence of God, he was therefore forsaken at that point.

Not a tough one.

[PLAYER57832]

i have heard something of the global warming debate. it sounds like scientists just believe what they want to in this debate also? some say it is definitely not exist and others say it is going to kill us all in 5 years. they are either conmen or practicing an imprecise discourse (science)

No, "scientists" don't really say Global warming will kill us in 5 years. Only an idiot would say that.

A few claiming to be scientists do say the Earth is not warming. However, only a VERY few. The most prominant ones that have been brought up in this forum were those funded by a chemical company.. and noted frauds. A number of others are associated with the young earth movement.

IN truth, there are few things in science about which there is more agreement than that the Earth's climate is changing.

What there IS disagreement about is just exactly what that means.. (not some things, like that weather patterns in some areas are getting more extreme.. snowfall will increase in some areas, due to the warming temperatures, etc.) and what we can do (exactly) to fix it.

The real truth is that you have a lot of people who cannot be bothered to do more than look at a few headlines and pictures and therefore make assumptions like "oh, there is snow in Washington DC.. or Rome .. no global warming!"

[Aradhus]

37 pages in are you guys any closer to god?

[Woodruff]

i have heard something of the global warming debate. it sounds like scientists just believe what they want to in this debate also? some say it is definitely not exist and others say it is going to kill us all in 5 years.

While you are technically correct, your use of the terms "some" and "others" leaves a lot to be desired. Very, very few scientists state that global warming definitely does not exist. And I can't recall hearing any scientist say it is going to kill us within 5 years.

they are either conmen or practicing an imprecise discourse (science)

Intelligent design, baby!

[chang50]

i have heard something of the global warming debate. it sounds like scientists just believe what they want to in this debate also? some say it is definitely not exist and others say it is going to kill us all in 5 years.

As far as I know,only madcap loony fringe scientists say global warming does not exist,the real controversey is whether it is man made or not.For global warming not to exist would take one of two things 1) a conspiracy on a gigantic scale 2) millions of faulty thermometers.Or both.
This is a very poor analogy to the allegorical/literal interpretations debate over the Bible.Science rejoices in being proven mistaken on an issue because that means we now have improved science,it is and always will be a work in progress.Perhaps I am mistaken here but has any religious person ever said their religion is an incomplete work in progress,and could in theory be totally wrong?And that this would be a good thing leading to progress.

[BigBallinStalin]

37 pages in are you guys any closer to god?

We're one page closer!

[pmchugh]

Jesus lineage from David. Two gospels, two different lineage's. Not a contradiction... ok.

And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.

I will answer this. The most common answer is that one is a top down lineage and the other is reversed. It gets confusing. The answer was posted a while back in this thread.. you can google it if you wish.

You are entirely correct, it gets confusing when you attempt to explain things that don't make sense.

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

"God, why have thou forsaken me"? Those words?

He went to hell. Then to heaven. Hell is the absence of God, he was therefore forsaken at that point.

Not a tough one.

Ah so you subscribe to Matthew then.

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

Contradiction

[daddy1gringo]

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

"God, why have thou forsaken me"? Those words?

He went to hell. Then to heaven. Hell is the absence of God, he was therefore forsaken at that point.

Not a tough one.

Ah so you subscribe to Matthew then.

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

Contradiction

Sorry, no contradiction at all. Matthew and Mark mention one thing that Jesus said on the cross, Luke lists 3 others, and John 3 more. These are the well-known "seven last 'words'". The one in Luke is generally considered the last because the phrasing (και φωνησας φωνη μεγαλη ο ιησους ειπεν πατερ εις χειρας σου παραθησομαι το πνευμα μου και ταυτα ειπων εξεπνευσεν) carries more of a sense of sequentiality than that in John (οτε ουν ελαβεν το οξος ο ιησους ειπεν τετελεσται και κλινας την κεφαλην παρεδωκεν το πνευμα), but the wording in neither passage denotes that there could not be other things done or said in between. None of the other 5 even suggest it. Try again.

[AAFitz]

37 pages in are you guys any closer to god?

We're one page closer!

And 22 days closer....if he exists....

[PLAYER57832]

Jesus lineage from David. Two gospels, two different lineage's. Not a contradiction... ok.

And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.

I will answer this. The most common answer is that one is a top down lineage and the other is reversed. It gets confusing. The answer was posted a while back in this thread.. you can google it if you wish.

You are entirely correct, it gets confusing when you attempt to explain things that don't make sense.

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

"God, why have thou forsaken me"? Those words?

He went to hell. Then to heaven. Hell is the absence of God, he was therefore forsaken at that point.

Not a tough one.

Ah so you subscribe to Matthew then.

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

You will have to explain what you think is wrong with that. Christian doctrine has always held the spirit and body to be distinct. "Giving up the spirit" is just another way of describing death, or the spirit leaving the body.

[daddy1gringo]

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

You will have to explain what you think is wrong with that. Christian doctrine has always held the spirit and body to be distinct. "Giving up the spirit" is just another way of describing death, or the spirit leaving the body.

I think he's talking about the idea that these 2 verses claim something different as the last words, which I dealt with. Looking again though, the "Or even John..." indicates maybe it's something else. Whatup mac?

[pmchugh]

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

"God, why have thou forsaken me"? Those words?

He went to hell. Then to heaven. Hell is the absence of God, he was therefore forsaken at that point.

Not a tough one.

Ah so you subscribe to Matthew then.

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

Contradiction

Sorry, no contradiction at all. Matthew and Mark mention one thing that Jesus said on the cross, Luke lists 3 others, and John 3 more. These are the well-known "seven last 'words'". The one in Luke is generally considered the last because the phrasing (και φωνησας φωνη μεγαλη ο ιησους ειπεν πατερ εις χειρας σου παραθησομαι το πνευμα μου και ταυτα ειπων εξεπνευσεν) carries more of a sense of sequentiality than that in John (οτε ουν ελαβεν το οξος ο ιησους ειπεν τετελεσται και κλινας την κεφαλην παρεδωκεν το πνευμα), but the wording in neither passage denotes that there could not be other things done or said in between. None of the other 5 even suggest it. Try again.

Nope not buying it, John's verse implies he said "It is finished" precisely as he "gave up his spirit" which as player rightly says means when he died. If you were remotely honest with yourself you would see that both Luke and John claim to have recorded what Jesus said right before he died, at least in every single translation in existence.

To say he could have said one and then the other would also imply that the other Gospels did not know his last words, for if they did why would they not mention it? Either they deliberately mislead the reader on his last words or they do not agree on his last words. Take your pick.

[daddy1gringo]

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

Contradiction

Sorry, no contradiction at all. Matthew and Mark mention one thing that Jesus said on the cross, Luke lists 3 others, and John 3 more. These are the well-known "seven last 'words'". The one in Luke is generally considered the last because the phrasing (και φωνησας φωνη μεγαλη ο ιησους ειπεν πατερ εις χειρας σου παραθησομαι το πνευμα μου και ταυτα ειπων εξεπνευσεν) carries more of a sense of sequentiality than that in John (οτε ουν ελαβεν το οξος ο ιησους ειπεν τετελεσται και κλινας την κεφαλην παρεδωκεν το πνευμα), but the wording in neither passage denotes that there could not be other things done or said in between. None of the other 5 even suggest it. Try again.

Nope not buying it,

You can choose to “buy” or “not buy” whatever you will, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

John's verse implies he said "It is finished" precisely as he "gave up his spirit”

Wrong. John 19:30 “…ο ιησους > ho ioesus > Jesus/ ειπεν>eipen>said/ τετελεσται>tetelestai>”it is finished”, or “paid in full”/ και>kai>and – strong “and” sometimes translated “also” or “and also”/ κλινας>klinas>he bowed or inclined/ την κεφαλην>tein kephalon>the head/ παρεδωκεν>paradoken>he gave, yielded, surrendered, from παρα>para>with, or near, and διδωμαι>didomai>to give/ το πνευμα>to pneuma>the spirit, the same word also means “breath” (and “wind”) The “with that” that they stuck in in whatever translation you used isn’t in there. It was somebody’s idea of how to make the narrative go better. It’s also not there in the King James, New King James, English Standard or New American Standard versions; the more literal translations

So it says, ”Jesus said “tetelestai” and also inclined his head and surrendered his spirit.” Hmm, let’s look at Luke.

και φωνησας φωνη μεγαλη>kai phonesas phone megale>and (also) having cried with a loud (great) voice/ ο ιησους ειπεν>ho iesus eipen>Jesus said/ πατερ>pater>father/ εις χειρας σου>eis cheiras sou>into hands yours/ παραθησομαι>parathesomai>I yield, entrust, or surrender, from παρα>para>with, and τιθημι>titheimi>to place, connoting to lay something down in a horizontal position/ το πνευμα μου>to pneuma mou> the spirit (or breath) mine/ και ταυτα ειπων>and this having said/ εξεπνευσεν>exepneusen>”breathed his last” or “gave up the ghost”, from εξ>ex>out, and, once again, πνευμα>pneuma>breath or spirit.

Sounds like after shouting something, (tetelestai?), he inclined his head and surrendered his spirit, just like John said.

If you were remotely honest with yourself you would see that both Luke and John claim to have recorded what Jesus said right before he died,

If you were remotely honest with yourself you would see that they did no such thing.

at least in every single translation in existence.

Now that’s interesting. Did you read “every single translation in existence”? Of course not. By the way, how many translations did you check before making that assertion?

To say he could have said one and then the other would also imply that the other Gospels did not know his last words, for if they did why would they not mention it?

I see, you know exactly what they had in mind . Tell me why do you think it would be of urgent importance to Luke and John to make sure everyone knows exactly which of the things Jesus said on the Cross was the last one. Was that essential for the spiritual welfare of the people for whom they were writing these accounts? Or were they just trying to make sure they had it ready for Reader’s Digest’s next trivia quiz on famous last words?

Each of the Gospels was written at a particular time, from a particular point of view, for a specific purpose.

Luke was a Greek physician who traveled a bit with Paul. He wrote to provide an understanding of who Jesus was and what he did, to the Greeks and other Gentiles that he and Paul were preaching to. He was not even there at the crucifixion, but states clearly at the beginning of his Gospel that he has made an investigation into the facts based on what was handed down by those who were eyewitnesses, and other accounts already written.

John was one of the 12 apostles; as far as we know he is the only one who actually was at the Cross. He wrote his gospel when he was in his 90’s, in the first few years of the second century. His primary concern was the Gnostic heresies that were going around at the time, which screwed up the truth about Jesus’ nature as the Son of God, both fully divine and fully human.

I won’t get into Matthew and Mark, but the point is that there are a great many things that one of the writers saw fit to include but another didn’t. That is far from a contradiction. One tells the story of a leper who came to Jesus for healing, another sees fit to mention that he was one of two. Actually, this is evidence of the truth of the accounts, since if they had conspired to invent the story, as is frequently claimed, those are the exact kind of things that they would have “gotten straight”.

Either they deliberately mislead the reader on his last words or they do not agree on his last words. Take your pick.

I choose neither, and I am right.

[PLAYER57832]

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

"God, why have thou forsaken me"? Those words?

He went to hell. Then to heaven. Hell is the absence of God, he was therefore forsaken at that point.

Not a tough one.

Ah so you subscribe to Matthew then.

Well, what about Luke (23:46): "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last"

Or even John (19:30): "Jesus said, It is finished. With that, he...gave up his spirit."

Contradiction

Sorry, no contradiction at all. Matthew and Mark mention one thing that Jesus said on the cross, Luke lists 3 others, and John 3 more. These are the well-known "seven last 'words'". The one in Luke is generally considered the last because the phrasing (και φωνησας φωνη μεγαλη ο ιησους ειπεν πατερ εις χειρας σου παραθησομαι το πνευμα μου και ταυτα ειπων εξεπνευσεν) carries more of a sense of sequentiality than that in John (οτε ουν ελαβεν το οξος ο ιησους ειπεν τετελεσται και κλινας την κεφαλην παρεδωκεν το πνευμα), but the wording in neither passage denotes that there could not be other things done or said in between. None of the other 5 even suggest it. Try again.

Nope not buying it, John's verse implies he said "It is finished" precisely as he "gave up his spirit" which as player rightly says means when he died. If you were remotely honest with yourself you would see that both Luke and John claim to have recorded what Jesus said right before he died, at least in every single translation in existence.

To say he could have said one and then the other would also imply that the other Gospels did not know his last words, for if they did why would they not mention it? Either they deliberately mislead the reader on his last words or they do not agree on his last words. Take your pick.

OK, here is a clarification you apparently need.

Do you have kids? If so, then you know that you can say the EXACT same thing to 5 and each will hear something different... even when you simplify in the extreme. Jesus words and teachings are far from simple. That is why we have more than one Gospel.

Each person heard the same message, but took away something slightly different. All were valid, but as an overall message. The New Testament is not intended to be examined as some kind of word for word code, particularly not the translated version which is all most of us have even read. Because people are different, each of us also takes away yet different messages. Still, by examining it all, while we may disagree on much, we agree on the fundamental.

THE truth of Christ is that he died on the Cross, that we are saved as a result. Beyond that, he gave us 2 new commandments, which he put above the others.. to love God and to love our neighbors.

[comic boy]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

[PLAYER57832]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

[natty dread]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

You can't prove a negative.

[pmchugh]

I'm getting sick with all this bible reading.

Now that’s interesting. Did you read “every single translation in existence”? Of course not. By the way, how many translations did you check before making that assertion?

Here are 18 translations, none of which leave any incident happening between him saying it is finished and him bowing his head to die: http://bible.cc/john/19-30.htm

Also I am not going to read your own translations unless you reference them.

Do you have kids? If so, then you know that you can say the EXACT same thing to 5 and each will hear something different... even when you simplify in the extreme. Jesus words and teachings are far from simple. That is why we have more than one Gospel.

Yes but my kids would not claim to be beyond contradiction. Here you actually admit that the Gospels message changes between writers and in doing so admit it is perfectly possible for it to contradict itself.

THE truth of Christ is that he died on the Cross, that we are saved as a result. Beyond that, he gave us 2 new commandments, which he put above the others.. to love God and to love our neighbors.

Ironic that you think this is a good thing. Is loving God more important than "Thou shalt not kill". Also why is loving your neighbour important at all?

Contradiction number 3, lets get this show on the road...

Has anyone seen God?

[comic boy]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

You can't prove a negative.

Exactly
Its just a ruse to disguise the weakness of her argument , most people grow out of such tactics in primary school

[PLAYER57832]

Do you have kids? If so, then you know that you can say the EXACT same thing to 5 and each will hear something different... even when you simplify in the extreme. Jesus words and teachings are far from simple. That is why we have more than one Gospel.

Yes but my kids would not claim to be beyond contradiction. Here you actually admit that the Gospels message changes between writers and in doing so admit it is perfectly possible for it to contradict itself.

You missed the point.

The comparison is not to the kids being beyond contradiction, it is to you being inconsistant. The point is, you said the exact same thing to them and they hear differently. So, too, is the Gospel given by one person, Jesus.. but heard by different people.

THE truth of Christ is that he died on the Cross, that we are saved as a result. Beyond that, he gave us 2 new commandments, which he put above the others.. to love God and to love our neighbors.

Ironic that you think this is a good thing. Is loving God more important than "Thou shalt not kill". Also why is loving your neighbour important at all?

#1. Murder is just one way of NOT loving they neighbor.
#2. Its not actually "thou shalt not kill", though that is often how Christians interpret it.. its really "don't murder" (look to Jewish texts for the distinction)
#3. Because we live with and among other people.

Contradiction number 3, lets get this show on the road...

Has anyone seen God?

Explain the context.

[PLAYER57832]

Friday 17th Feb 20.30 ......Still no God

Prove that.

You can't prove a negative.

Exactly
Its just a ruse to disguise the weakness of her argument , most people grow out of such tactics in primary school

Oh, you mean atheist tactics?

Because that is the game you play... "prove your position"

We cannot.. but well, you are supposed to just accept that we are right and you are wrong because we don't happen to like any proof you provide.

[pmchugh]

Do you have kids? If so, then you know that you can say the EXACT same thing to 5 and each will hear something different... even when you simplify in the extreme. Jesus words and teachings are far from simple. That is why we have more than one Gospel.

Yes but my kids would not claim to be beyond contradiction. Here you actually admit that the Gospels message changes between writers and in doing so admit it is perfectly possible for it to contradict itself.

You missed the point.

The comparison is not to the kids being beyond contradiction, it is to you being inconsistant. The point is, you said the exact same thing to them and they hear differently. So, too, is the Gospel given by one person, Jesus.. but heard by different people.

I'm confused. Is it possible for one of the disciples to have heard wrongly?

THE truth of Christ is that he died on the Cross, that we are saved as a result. Beyond that, he gave us 2 new commandments, which he put above the others.. to love God and to love our neighbors.

Ironic that you think this is a good thing. Is loving God more important than "Thou shalt not kill". Also why is loving your neighbour important at all?

#1. Murder is just one way of NOT loving they neighbor.
#2. Its not actually "thou shalt not kill", though that is often how Christians interpret it.. its really "don't murder" (look to Jewish texts for the distinction)
#3. Because we live with and among other people.

Same difference, is loving God more important than not murdering people? If an evil dictator loved God and killed millions of innocent people, would that be worse than a great leader who saved millions of innocent people but did not love God?

Contradiction number 3, lets get this show on the road...

Has anyone seen God?

Explain the context.

It's a simple question.