| Author | Comment |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
19:47 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | "Now Back in the 1830's or so Joseph Smith, through revelation, did a "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible... in other words, he fixed any mis-translations/mis-copying that has happened over the past 6 thousand years. And if you think about it, over 6000 years there will be many many mis-translations, especially with limited knowledge of certain languages at certain times. And with hand-copying there are certainly going to be mistakes."
The problem wwith this statement B is that if you have ever taken any foreign languages in school (and i mean any) you will know that there are many things that cannot be truly translated. ever. that's the problem with the bible, is that it was originally written in Hebrew, so in order to understand everything written, one must speak hebrew.
BTW, what happened to not getting into dewbates?
|
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
19:52 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | The problem wwith this statement B is that if you have ever taken any foreign languages in school (and i mean any) you will know that there are many things that cannot be truly translated. ever. that's the problem with the bible, is that it was originally written in Hebrew, so in order to understand everything written, one must speak hebrew.
This is exactly why it makes sense. He translated it through revelation. He did not know hebrew. EDIT - ok i think i know what you're getting at.. you mean it can't be expressed in english... but it can most certainly be close enough. and this further makes it make sense because translators back in the day could have taken the wrong path when translating.
BTW, what happened to not getting into dewbates?
i'm not getting into any debates. (and i don't want to debate whether or not i'm getting into debates...) i'm informing.
[Edited by Barrett on 04-Mar-04 04:54]
---
-Barrett A |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
19:56 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | I think i must also add to this debate what some call the "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, this is a bit long, but here goes (reference is at end)
In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.(emphasis: web author)"
Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.
Here are some of the key claims Jesus made about himself.
Jesus could look at a crowd of people angry at his claims to share God's nature and ask, "Which of you can point to anything wrong in my life?" Even more amazing is that none of them could give a reply! No human being has ever lived a sinless life, except for Jesus.
John 8:28-29 "So Jesus said, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know who I am and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.'"
John 8:46-47 "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Not one of several ways, but the one and only way. Not to teach the way, but to be the way to God. Nobody has ever made claims like that before and backed them, but Jesus did through his love, balanced life, and miracles.
John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."
Matthew 11:27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Note: No other world religious leader, such as Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammed ever made this claim.
Jesus claimed to have pre-existed the people he spoke with. The apostle John--who shared bread with Jesus--wrote that Jesus was with God in the very beginning, and that "all things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." (John 1:1-5)
John 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."
This is a claim distorted by groups like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
One of the reasons that the Jewish leaders were so angry with Jesus was his continual practice of forgiving people's sins. The religious leaders understood clearly that since sins were rebellion against God Himself, only God could forgive sins.
Luke 5:20-21 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said, 'Friend, your sins are forgiven.' The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, 'Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?'"(emphasis: web author)
Luke 7:48-49 "Then Jesus said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' The other guests began to say among themselves, 'Who is this who even forgives sins?'"
He didn't just tell people how they could find everlasting life, or deepen their own life experience. He actually claimed to give life himself.
John 6:40 "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."
John 10:28-30 "I give [my followers] eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 11:25 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die...'"
If you're still not satisfied, go to:
http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/claims.htm
(where i got it all from)
EDIT: sorry if it's a bit long [i mean a lot, not a bit], but i gotta make believers outta you guys somehwow
[Edited by Lunchbox on 04-Mar-04 04:59] |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
20:02 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | just for clarification
This is a claim distorted by groups like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
which claim? how is it distorted?
(i will get involved if a debate involves my religion specifically)
---
-Barrett A |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
20:10 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | the claim that says Jesus pre-existed with people he spoke with.
P.S.-did u actually read the whole thing? |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
20:12 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I stopped having an interest in this thread after it turned into a religious debate. You see, I'm an atheist. |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
20:34 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | but how is the claim distorted?
Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.
let's rephrase that a bit...
Joseph Smith could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or a Prophet. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and martyrdom while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists?
[Edited by Barrett on 04-Mar-04 05:37]
---
-Barrett A |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
20:46 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | Well, Elijah was a great prophet as far as religious ideals go, why not bring in him, too?
Although I do realize Jesus is considered a prophet, and was in fact called on in the Bible. I lack quotes off the top of my head, but I'm pretty positive.
And allyn, I don't have religious beliefs either, I just was as a child when brainwashing was easy. Also, I've gone to pareochal schools all my life so knowledge of this stuff seeps in. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
20:57 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | This first part kind of applies to something earlier in the debate. Someone made a statement about slavery 200 years ago (I think it was Z, but I'm not sure) and how maybe 200 years from now people will look back and won't believe that we treated homosexuals in such a manner, like we can't accept the idea of slavery. (Or something along the lines of that.)
Just one thing I'd like to add to that. For the United States to get past slavery, as a whole, it had to pass through a Civil War. How many hundreds of thousands died, were wounded or maimed in one way or another? How many millions suffered grief and loss? How many millions (in our day) of dollars were spent? (And this is just in one country.) Yes, we are past slavery. But look at the cost.
So is this thread shifting towards a religious focus now?
[Edited by BullFrog on 04-Mar-04 05:59]
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
21:19 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "I can see no benefit in Nazism, but can see one in Social Darwinism. The human race would become the best, socially, that it could be. Unfortunately, we'd probably lose most of our humanity along the way."
There are actually lots of flaws in Social Darwinism. It pits human against human in a struggle for dominance and creates strong individuality, this doesn't account for the fact humans behave unlike other species, we create complex organizations and government and mostly cooperate. Also, social darwinism requires no morals, almost all humans have some set of morals.
"if he were a lunatic...how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and martyrdom while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists..."
This is waaaaay oversimplification. He could have very strongly believe he truely was the son of God, which does not require him to be a lunatic, which would allow him to debate (this is shrouded in myth and legend too).
Lots of very determined people have not been liars and died for their cause (i remember one advocater of women's rights in britain threw herself in front of the king's horse in a race). Suicide bombers in the Middle East die for their cause, they could say no too.
btw, not all lunatics froth at the mouth and jabber mess. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
21:29 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "This first part kind of applies to something earlier in the debate. Someone made a statement about slavery 200 years ago...For the United States to get past slavery, as a whole, it had to pass through a Civil War."
That was me, slavery was the main cause, but it wasn't the only cause of the Civil War. Also, the North wasn't all that worried about black freedom. Many Northerners didn't like slavery, but would actually be more adverse to living with a Black person than a Southerner.
"also BTW, i meant in real life for the moderation thing. Murder is not good in moderation, and although issues can be made about killing people because they're suffering more here on earth, my english teacher called it eucanasia"
It's euthanasia, like kevorkian, or however his name is spelt. You may have meant only in real life, but I believe the quote applies to more than just events, but also to thoughts. About murder: what about capital punishment, war, or killing of people that are just incorrigible? Also, without knowing what murder/rape/nazism is (moderation in knowledge), one can't work to prevent it. |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
21:44 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | what point(s) are you trying to make I am a little confused, they seem to be good though. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
07:08 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | "slavery was the main cause, but it wasn't the only cause of the Civil War"
I feel the main cause of the civil war had to do with the joining and leaving of States. The southern States at that time were uptset that they could all vote against a law, but the North would always be able to outvote them.
That was a problem, because both the north and the south had very different views on topics. Especially the economy.
The southern states thought that since they could just be annexed into the United States, they assumed it would be just as right for that State to Succcede from the US.
The south wanted to Succede from the US and form the Confederate States, while the North wanted them to stay in the Union.
That is what the main cause of the war was. However, slavery was drastically interwined in the economy, and thus it was a major part of the start of the war but not really the main reason. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
09:23 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | True, slavery wasn't the only cause of the Civil war. However, we still had to go through a war to finally get over it. Slavery probably would've died off anyway if people had left it alone. But there's really no way to know now...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
