Navigation | Atheos Researcher
September 4, 2008
Mormons believe in the oneness of God and the Trinity: Mosiah 15:1-5 “…AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.”
Read: 2 Nephi 7:12, 8:13-14, 11:26, 11:36, 11:39, 11:43 and 11:78.
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
There are some undeniable reasons to think that Luke [anonymous] relied on Josephus. I would research some of these detail similarities.
Luke-Acts by use of ‘historical items, subjects, and language’ seems to be using Josephus as a foundation. I recommend reading the below books for a more detailed understanding of this topic. I would compare the tale of the census under Quirinius: Jewish War book 2: chapter 117 & 118, Antiquities book 18: chapter 1 to 8 and Luke 3:1. I would compare the use of the same rebels: The Egyptian, Theudas, and Judas the Galilean. I would compare the mentioning of a famine in the reign of Claudius: Antiquities book 3: chapter 320, book 20: chapter 5: 1 to 3, and book 20: chapter 101 with Acts 11:28 to 29. I would compare the tale of the Samaritans used by Luke 9:52-53 and the tale by Josephus in Antiquities book 20: chapter 6: 1. I would compare the language in Luke, saying Christian teachings were ‘handed down’ [paradidomi] and Josephus, saying Jewish teachings were ‘handed down’ [paradidomi]…they are both borrowing from the same Greek ideals of handing down sequence of philosophical schools. I would compare Josephus’ use of schools [haireseis] to depict the various sects of Judaism [exclusive to Josephus at the time] to Luke’s same use of schools [haireseis] to depict the same sects of Judaism. This is a quick summary of the thesis: I recommend reading the below books.
Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason
The Passover Plot: A New Interpretation of the Life and Death of Jesus by Hugh J. Schonfield
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
PaRDeS [Peshat Remez Drash Sod] This is an acronym created from the initials of the 4 approaches to Jewish exegesis.
1/ Peshat [plain] is the simple or direct meaning of the passage.
2/ Remez [hints] is the allegorical meaning beyond just the literal sense.
3/ Derash [to seek] is the comparative meaning; you compare words and structures in the passage to other analogous passages. [Midrashic]
4/ Sod [secret] is the inspirited or (reveled) meaning of the passage.
The most important approaches when it comes to comparative religion are the Peshat meaning of the passage. The Peshat meaning is the most straightforward understanding of the passage: If the final interpretation contradicts the Peshat meaning of the passage then the interpretation is considered defective. For example [If Isaiah says clearly that Israel is the Suffering Servant then that is the intended meaning of the passage and anything that contradicts this meaning is a defective interpretation] Jewish Exegesis
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
If Jesus was the Moshiach [Messiah] then there would be NO question: Jeremiah 31 plainly shows that Jesus was not the Moshiach.
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
Synopsis: If we gaze at the context of the passage [John 8:58] it is simple to see that Jesus is quoting from Exodus 3:14 [when God appeared to Moses]. So, fundamentally…’I am’ is just another name for God. Jesus is not saying ‘I am God,’ he is quoting Exodus: before Abraham was God. “I say to you, before Abraham was God was [I am].” If we take the whole conversation in context then you would observe: The Jews gave authority to Abraham while Jesus was giving authority to God alone. Jesus says, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. It is my father who honors me, of whom you say that he is your God.” Jesus is clearly saying he is not God in this passage. I could go further into the context: Jesus says [John 8:38-39], “I tell you what I have seen in the Father’s presence; then do what you have heard from the Father.” They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham.” Jesus once more points out that the Jews wrongly look to Abraham when they should be looking to God alone. Jesus [John 8] obviously separates himself from God, giving God the authority alone and him the subordinate [following his fellow Jews/Israelites of the Hebrew Scriptures].
Jesus does not claim to be God; actually, Jesus throughout the Greek Scriptures separates himself from God as the only authority.
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
“The reference to James as the brother of Jesus; Josephus described how the high priest Ananus took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in 62 CE to organize a mob to stone James. McDowell mentions this passage because Josephus identifies James as “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.“
1 – It is known that religious types call themselves, ‘brother’ ‘sister’ ‘mother’ and ‘father.’
2 – How was the high-priest able to have ‘James’ stoned to death without the support of the Roman prefect?
3 – Tacitus in error makes Pilate a Procurator instead of a Prefect (Interpolation).
4 – Pilate says nothing of ‘James.’ Pilate, a Roman prefect concerned with keeping order would have a rather good idea from informants who was walking about with multitudes of followers. If multitudes of followers had gathered anywhere in Judaea, Pilate would have been sending messages to the governor in Syria to send a legion of two.
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
General: what Muslims believe about Jesus, son of Maryam (Mary) based on the Quran. Jesus was an Aaronite from the house of Aaron a descendant of Levi (appointed priestly tribe). Jesus who was an Aaronite, a descendant of Levi, was the Messiah by appointment of being a priest whom continued where the office of the Levitical priests had discontinued. The Hebrew “Mashiyach”, literally and originally means ‘anointed one’ and commonly is applied to Levitical priests and Israelite Kings whom are appointed into office. Jesus had a miraculous birth but, the Quran teaches it was like Adam’s (whom God spoke into existence by a simple word). In Islam Adam’s creation is held greater than Jesus’ and his relationship with God was more personal rather than impersonal with Jesus.Jesus as a part of being the Messiah is appointed as a prophetic messenger and as a forerunner for another prophetic messenger to come after him for all mankind. Jesus was also given a scripture called the Injeel to authenticate the Torah and to abolish some of its laws (of course the Gospels known today have been corrupted). Jesus like other prophets before him brought proofs as a sign from God to validate their prophet-hood as being sent by God. Jesus by the will and permission of God performed miracles: heal the blind, cure the sick and raise the dead. Jesus was not the son of God and did not share in the divinity of God. Jesus was saved by God and was not killed or crucified but, made it appear that he was. Jesus was being accused of blasphemy, a false prophet and an imposter Messiah by the Israelites.
The majorities of Muslims believe (traditionally) that after being saved from his enemies God raised Jesus up physically from the earth and is preserving him to come in the future to re-establish Islamic-Shariah upon the earth and to kill the false Messiah that will come who will persecute and oppress the world.
Other Muslims believe that after being saved from his enemies, Jesus died a natural death later and was not raised up physically but spiritually to a place of honor like all prophets before him and no second coming (Quran teachings).
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
The author/s of Isaiah is referring to a sign to King Ahaz.
[The sign was to reassure King Ahaz that God would protect him and his kingdom from the warring kingdoms of Israel in the North and the Syria]. A sign that Jesus would be born 5 centuries later does King Ahaz no good.
Isaiah 7:16: “Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.” The crisis will be resolved right after the birth of the child and ‘evil’ is a sign for the age of the child when this event will occur. The Greek Scriptures never reference this point.
The Hebrew word for virgin is bethuwlah. It is used some 38 times as compared to the lone time the word almah is used in Isaiah 7:14 for virgin. Isaiah [author/s] used bethuwlah for virgin in 23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5.
It seems the writer/s had no problem using the word when he wished to emphasize the term virgin.
When you look at the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 the author places emphasis that the women is already pregnant and the prophecy will come soon.
Supplementary: In 7:14 Isaiah used the word, “almah.” Isaiah had already used bethulah to specifically pointer, a virgin 5 other times yet decided to use almah only once to marker a virgin?
No, Isaiah used the correct term for 7:14, a young woman.
Now, most young women are virgins, but not all virgins are young women thus bethulah is not completely synonymous with almah.
Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8 all use almah to refer to a young women, and maidens.
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
John 10:30 “I and [my] Father are one.”
The Greek word ‘hen’ meaning ‘one,’ is used but we can look into other scriptures to help convey the meaning of this verse. I would like to add John 10:30 doesn’t say Jesus is and God are the same being.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].
If Jesus is God does this mean that we can be God as well?
John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
It seems we can be God as well.
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet
BourdonFromHeaven said, “We have established in other threads that “being Jewish” is more of a religion then an “Ethnicity” given the fact that groups like Ashkenazic and Sephardic exist. The commonality that binds the various groups into “Jewish” is their religious beliefs and ideals, not headwear, food or customs.”
Filed by Frank at September 4th, 2008 under Religion
No comments on this post yet