Comments for Vridar http://vridar.wordpress.com A humanist's musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:59:57 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Appealing to Faith in a Search for Truth, Playing Tennis Without a Net by Ben http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/appealing-to-faith-in-a-search-for-truth-like-playing-tennis-without-a-net/#comment-7328 Ben Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:59:57 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4313#comment-7328 That's clever. I approve. That’s clever. I approve.

]]> Comment on Paul and the Stoics – 1 by rey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/paul-and-the-stoics-1-2/#comment-7327 rey Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:05:55 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4254#comment-7327 The major flaw I see here is the assumption that "Paul" is one person as opposed to at least two, and author and a later editor. To be workable you'd have to differentiate which Paul was influenced by the stoics. Was it Paul the author or Paul the editor? Was Paul the editor adding or obscuring the stoicism? Etc. Because it is clear the same guy who wrote Romans 9 did not write Romans 1 and 2, and so on. The major flaw I see here is the assumption that “Paul” is one person as opposed to at least two, and author and a later editor. To be workable you’d have to differentiate which Paul was influenced by the stoics. Was it Paul the author or Paul the editor? Was Paul the editor adding or obscuring the stoicism? Etc. Because it is clear the same guy who wrote Romans 9 did not write Romans 1 and 2, and so on.

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by stephan huller http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7326 stephan huller Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:36:46 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7326 The official explanation of the development of the gospels goes entirely against nature and what is natural. One would expect an original gospel ascribed to 'Mark' to have an understanding that Mark received a heavenly revelation like Moses or Mohammed. And yet it does the exact opposite. I won't get into how this was accomplished - in short the Dialogues of Adamantius, Tertullian etc already say that the earliest tradition ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to 'God' and so the receiver of the revelation is a mere 'vessel' etc. - nevertheless anyone who has ever read Irenaeus WITH A CRITICAL EYE (that excludes most anyone who has ever bothered to read this Church Father) it is apparent that this original 'supernatural' explanation has been extended by means of a Holy Spirit associated with four winds (owing to the natural association of 'winds' and 'spirit' in ancient languages) and four mostly imaginary or invented apostolic 'witnesses.' The unmistakable point is that when Christianity ceased to be a Middle Easter or Semitic religion it stopped needing to make sense. The word 'apostle' no longer means anything. It isn't rooted in the concept of a messianic figure like Moses (who is consistently identified as 'the Apostle' in Samaritan writings). The original paradigm of what a messiah is supposed to appear like has been utterly thrown into the trash and a new 'spiritual' doctrine - undoubtedly developed through Montanism - a 'democratization' of the original understanding of the 'chosen one' and his appointed relationship with God to the point that anyone and everyone could make up 'prophetic truths' and then an immediate contradiction of this tendency in the age of Irenaeus to a limit of four such 'apostles' and a recognition that prophesy DID extend into the contemporary age but was now limited to the period up to the day Irenaeus established the 'new edition' of the New Testament canon. I think there is this three stage process and the same thing happened in Islam - i.e. the revelation of Mohammed passing through voices that were later identified as ghulut http://books.google.com/books?id=P4oL0uGlMS8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=heresies+islam+exaggerator&source=bl&ots=kd1XbaTtMv&sig=jWscvUSC5C1v5OrEu2YdppiE5kk&hl=en&ei=gHr0SoncM4rGMdWo5egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=heresies%20islam%20exaggerator&f=false The official explanation of the development of the gospels goes entirely against nature and what is natural. One would expect an original gospel ascribed to ‘Mark’ to have an understanding that Mark received a heavenly revelation like Moses or Mohammed. And yet it does the exact opposite.

I won’t get into how this was accomplished – in short the Dialogues of Adamantius, Tertullian etc already say that the earliest tradition ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to ‘God’ and so the receiver of the revelation is a mere ‘vessel’ etc. – nevertheless anyone who has ever read Irenaeus WITH A CRITICAL EYE (that excludes most anyone who has ever bothered to read this Church Father) it is apparent that this original ’supernatural’ explanation has been extended by means of a Holy Spirit associated with four winds (owing to the natural association of ‘winds’ and ’spirit’ in ancient languages) and four mostly imaginary or invented apostolic ‘witnesses.’

The unmistakable point is that when Christianity ceased to be a Middle Easter or Semitic religion it stopped needing to make sense. The word ‘apostle’ no longer means anything. It isn’t rooted in the concept of a messianic figure like Moses (who is consistently identified as ‘the Apostle’ in Samaritan writings).

The original paradigm of what a messiah is supposed to appear like has been utterly thrown into the trash and a new ’spiritual’ doctrine – undoubtedly developed through Montanism – a ‘democratization’ of the original understanding of the ‘chosen one’ and his appointed relationship with God to the point that anyone and everyone could make up ‘prophetic truths’ and then an immediate contradiction of this tendency in the age of Irenaeus to a limit of four such ‘apostles’ and a recognition that prophesy DID extend into the contemporary age but was now limited to the period up to the day Irenaeus established the ‘new edition’ of the New Testament canon.

I think there is this three stage process and the same thing happened in Islam – i.e. the revelation of Mohammed passing through voices that were later identified as ghulut http://books.google.com/books?id=P4oL0uGlMS8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=heresies+islam+exaggerator&source=bl&ots=kd1XbaTtMv&sig=jWscvUSC5C1v5OrEu2YdppiE5kk&hl=en&ei=gHr0SoncM4rGMdWo5egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=heresies%20islam%20exaggerator&f=false

]]> Comment on Destroying a story to save a geographic reference. (Eddy & Boyd’s ‘Jesus Legend’) by rey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/destroying-a-story-to-historicizea-story/#comment-7325 rey Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:34:48 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=1547#comment-7325 Or if I might venture a conjectural emmendation, instead of "other side to Bethsaida" what about "other side OF Bethsaida." It looks to me as though a river separates Bethsaida into a Gaulonite and Galileans side. None of this solves anything, however, without first acknowledging that "Nazareth" is Bethsaida whenever it is presented as Jesus' hometown. Or if I might venture a conjectural emmendation, instead of “other side to Bethsaida” what about “other side OF Bethsaida.” It looks to me as though a river separates Bethsaida into a Gaulonite and Galileans side. None of this solves anything, however, without first acknowledging that “Nazareth” is Bethsaida whenever it is presented as Jesus’ hometown.

]]> Comment on Destroying a story to save a geographic reference. (Eddy & Boyd’s ‘Jesus Legend’) by rey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/destroying-a-story-to-historicizea-story/#comment-7324 rey Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:10:21 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=1547#comment-7324 Actually it looks to me like you and these apologists both have misundertood the passage, for the feeding of the 5000 was in a desert place belonging to Bethsaida. He tells them to row to the other side "over against Bethsaida" (not go to Bethsaida, which is where they are starting from) and then they row to the other side, Gennesaret, just like he said. But the fact that the feeding of the 5000 is so soon afterr the rejection in Nazareth and that it is situated as though it were in the wilderness right out of Nazareth when it is actuall right out of Bethsaida, shows the Catholics have systematically replaced Bethsaida with Nazareth whenever it is referred to as Jesus' hometown. Actually it looks to me like you and these apologists both have misundertood the passage, for the feeding of the 5000 was in a desert place belonging to Bethsaida. He tells them to row to the other side “over against Bethsaida” (not go to Bethsaida, which is where they are starting from) and then they row to the other side, Gennesaret, just like he said. But the fact that the feeding of the 5000 is so soon afterr the rejection in Nazareth and that it is situated as though it were in the wilderness right out of Nazareth when it is actuall right out of Bethsaida, shows the Catholics have systematically replaced Bethsaida with Nazareth whenever it is referred to as Jesus’ hometown.

]]> Comment on Is “intellectual parasite” too strong a term? by A Free Spirit http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/297/#comment-7323 A Free Spirit Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:48:01 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/297/#comment-7323 I have an idea for a new sort of biblical (and other religious text) hermeneutic: namely, identifying and extracting all of the passages that could involve the tinge of the writer's or the religion's self-interest. What sort of text would emerge? If you are interested, pls see my post at http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/self-interest-in-religion-and-the-related-conflicts-of-interest/ I have an idea for a new sort of biblical (and other religious text) hermeneutic: namely, identifying and extracting all of the passages that could involve the tinge of the writer’s or the religion’s self-interest. What sort of text would emerge? If you are interested, pls see my post at http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/self-interest-in-religion-and-the-related-conflicts-of-interest/

]]> Comment on Sukuh Temple in Java – different, embarrassing, erotic and largely unknown by neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/sukuh-temple-in-java-different-embarrassing-erotic-and-largely-unknown/#comment-7322 neilgodfrey Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:11:45 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4234#comment-7322 Your experience kind of confirms my suspicions that locals or Indonesians generally don't know of it at all. Presumably it's not something a Muslim government and culture wants endow with too much tourist value or even local historical interest. (An Indonesian work colleague from Jakarta told me she had never heard of it, either.) You are right in that it is best accessed from Solo. I had attempted to rely on Jogjakarta tourist offices advertizing bus trips to Candi Sukuh, but it turned out they would only run if they had a small party of people to take. I was lucky to have met someone from Solo who was able to ride me out to see it from his home town. I have a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/javatemples" rel="nofollow">photo set of various temples around Jogjakarta and Solo</a> if interested. Did not see all the same ones you saw, however. One of them I turned my back simply because I saw when I got there that it was not Candi Sukuh, which my motor bike rider had mistaken etc etc. Thanks for exchanging notes. http://tinyurl.com/javatemples Your experience kind of confirms my suspicions that locals or Indonesians generally don’t know of it at all. Presumably it’s not something a Muslim government and culture wants endow with too much tourist value or even local historical interest. (An Indonesian work colleague from Jakarta told me she had never heard of it, either.)

You are right in that it is best accessed from Solo. I had attempted to rely on Jogjakarta tourist offices advertizing bus trips to Candi Sukuh, but it turned out they would only run if they had a small party of people to take. I was lucky to have met someone from Solo who was able to ride me out to see it from his home town.

I have a photo set of various temples around Jogjakarta and Solo if interested. Did not see all the same ones you saw, however. One of them I turned my back simply because I saw when I got there that it was not Candi Sukuh, which my motor bike rider had mistaken etc etc.

Thanks for exchanging notes.

http://tinyurl.com/javatemples

]]> Comment on Sukuh Temple in Java – different, embarrassing, erotic and largely unknown by mcduff http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/sukuh-temple-in-java-different-embarrassing-erotic-and-largely-unknown/#comment-7321 mcduff Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:29:01 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4234#comment-7321 We went there in 1979. Had quite an adventure getting there because the locals at Jogja did not know it at all, although my memory says we actually left from Solo...whatever. But one bemo driver said he did and so we set off in the general direction. It soon became obvious that he had no idea where it was, he kept stopping and asking locals if they knew the place and the locals all obligingly pointed in various directions and so we continued on. In fact thanks to Bill Dalton's "Indonesian Handbook" I think we had a better idea than the driver. Of course we kept picking up and dropping off locals along the way and as is often the case travelling the trip was as important a part of the experience as the destination. After wheezing our way up a mountain engine complaining and various lights on the dash flashing frantically we actually found the place and said goodbye to the driver who told us a bus at the bottom would take us back to Solo, I'm pretty sure we were based in Solo at the time. We were the only people there and really enjoyed the silence, the fertility of the place and the 'fertility' of the carvings themselves. I remember the headless fella with his handful in your photo above and the lingan/yoni inside the temple. Getting down was easy, just start walking with gravity on your side for a change and grab the bus at the bottom. Although while we were waiting we get thoroughly drenched when one of those Javanese thunderstorms erupted and we were caught in the open. Had a great day, really enjoyed it as we enjoyed the whole of that 2 months in Java. Incidentally we were, of course, highly impressed with Borobodur but also a couple of small Buddhist temples, still being used for worship, near the Borobodur approach. Candi Parwon and Candi Mendut, the latter if I recall correctly having a Buddha inside. Nice photos by the way and thanks for reviving some nice memories of our trip of thirty years ago. Blimey seems like yesterday in some ways. We went there in 1979.
Had quite an adventure getting there because the locals at Jogja did not know it at all, although my memory says we actually left from Solo…whatever.
But one bemo driver said he did and so we set off in the general direction. It soon became obvious that he had no idea where it was, he kept stopping and asking locals if they knew the place and the locals all obligingly pointed in various directions and so we continued on.
In fact thanks to Bill Dalton’s “Indonesian Handbook” I think we had a better idea than the driver.
Of course we kept picking up and dropping off locals along the way and as is often the case travelling the trip was as important a part of the experience as the destination.
After wheezing our way up a mountain engine complaining and various lights on the dash flashing frantically we actually found the place and said goodbye to the driver who told us a bus at the bottom would take us back to Solo, I’m pretty sure we were based in Solo at the time.
We were the only people there and really enjoyed the silence, the fertility of the place and the ‘fertility’ of the carvings themselves. I remember the headless fella with his handful in your photo above and the lingan/yoni inside the temple.
Getting down was easy, just start walking with gravity on your side for a change and grab the bus at the bottom. Although while we were waiting we get thoroughly drenched when one of those Javanese thunderstorms erupted and we were caught in the open.
Had a great day, really enjoyed it as we enjoyed the whole of that 2 months in Java.
Incidentally we were, of course, highly impressed with Borobodur but also a couple of small Buddhist temples, still being used for worship, near the Borobodur approach.
Candi Parwon and Candi Mendut, the latter if I recall correctly having a Buddha inside.
Nice photos by the way and thanks for reviving some nice memories of our trip of thirty years ago.
Blimey seems like yesterday in some ways.

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by Ben http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7320 Ben Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:41:24 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7320 "with only rare exceptions" Well there you go. What more does an apologist need? hehe Ben “with only rare exceptions” Well there you go. What more does an apologist need? hehe

Ben

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by rey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7319 rey Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:08:22 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7319 What I find really strange is that the Catholic church actually destroyed gospels that did narrate in the first peron like the gospel of Peter and the gospel of the 12 apostles. Sure they may have been docetic, but so were Paul's letters before Catholic editing. Why didn't they just edit the gospel of the 12 apostles, Catholicize it, and shove it in the canon? Strangely, they wanted these birds-eye view gospels and to establish a notion of them all being somehow dictated by the spirit rather than as eye witness accounts. They clearly chose the wrong method of presentation, but they can never admit it. What I find really strange is that the Catholic church actually destroyed gospels that did narrate in the first peron like the gospel of Peter and the gospel of the 12 apostles. Sure they may have been docetic, but so were Paul’s letters before Catholic editing. Why didn’t they just edit the gospel of the 12 apostles, Catholicize it, and shove it in the canon? Strangely, they wanted these birds-eye view gospels and to establish a notion of them all being somehow dictated by the spirit rather than as eye witness accounts. They clearly chose the wrong method of presentation, but they can never admit it.

]]> Comment on Response to creationist Jonathan Sarfati by neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/response-to-creationist-jonathan-sarfati/#comment-7317 neilgodfrey Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:06:14 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4221#comment-7317 For related posts see my archive <a href="http://vridar.wordpress.com/category/science-evolution/" rel="nofollow">Evolution, Science</a> For related posts see my archive Evolution, Science

]]> Comment on The Voyage That Shook the World by neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/the-voyage-that-shook-the-world/#comment-7316 neilgodfrey Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:04:09 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=3627#comment-7316 See also my <a href="http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/response-to-creationist-jonathan-sarfati/" rel="nofollow">Response to Creationist Jonathan Sarfati</a> See also my Response to Creationist Jonathan Sarfati

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7315 neilgodfrey Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:49:21 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7315 While I understand where each of you is coming from, Keith's point has a validity in its own right. Ancient historians, with only rare exceptions, did very often cite their sources to add credibility to their claims. Teachers (philosophers, theologians) would sometimes go as far as writing in the names of their "chief source of information". Mark's anonymity and failure to cite a source, whether believers accept the argument or not, should be addressed squarely (not ad hoc) in any discussion of historicity. While I understand where each of you is coming from, Keith’s point has a validity in its own right. Ancient historians, with only rare exceptions, did very often cite their sources to add credibility to their claims. Teachers (philosophers, theologians) would sometimes go as far as writing in the names of their “chief source of information”. Mark’s anonymity and failure to cite a source, whether believers accept the argument or not, should be addressed squarely (not ad hoc) in any discussion of historicity.

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by Ben http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7314 Ben Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:13:44 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7314 Keith, I was just falling back on the interpretative tradition as far as Neil's argument here goes and clearly what's been said by him on this post would roll off of a somewhat informed Christian like water. If you want to bring up other considerations, that's fine. I can play devil's advocate there, too. You've made an argument from silence based on modern conceptions of accountability. That doesn't prove the gospel authors did anything dubious, or that it wasn't Mark who wrote Mark based off Peter's testimony. Naturally I have a response to this, but you are free to offer yours just for fun. :D Ben Keith,

I was just falling back on the interpretative tradition as far as Neil’s argument here goes and clearly what’s been said by him on this post would roll off of a somewhat informed Christian like water.

If you want to bring up other considerations, that’s fine. I can play devil’s advocate there, too.

You’ve made an argument from silence based on modern conceptions of accountability. That doesn’t prove the gospel authors did anything dubious, or that it wasn’t Mark who wrote Mark based off Peter’s testimony.

Naturally I have a response to this, but you are free to offer yours just for fun. :D

Ben

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by keith http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7313 keith Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:32:24 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7313 Ben wrote--"...if I were a Christian, I would just assume that Peter was the eyewitness who told Mark about what he thought happened..." And why would Mark, who himself seems to have been a very minor player in early Christianity, not clearly indicate that this information came straight from one of the most significant people in the Christian community? That's a detail that's worth squeezing in somewhere, don't you think? Ben wrote–”…if I were a Christian, I would just assume that Peter was the eyewitness who told Mark about what he thought happened…”

And why would Mark, who himself seems to have been a very minor player in early Christianity, not clearly indicate that this information came straight from one of the most significant people in the Christian community? That’s a detail that’s worth squeezing in somewhere, don’t you think?

]]> Comment on Sukuh Temple in Java – different, embarrassing, erotic and largely unknown by nick http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/sukuh-temple-in-java-different-embarrassing-erotic-and-largely-unknown/#comment-7312 nick Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:46:56 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4234#comment-7312 After Napoleon completely took over Holland. Raffles governed/maintained the Dutch Indies for a brief time. It was during that time expeditions uncovered the Borobudur complex. I was at Candih Sukuh some time ago. Is it not a Hindu complex. The prevalent religion before Islam. There are similar erotic statutes in Nepal. Most disturbing statues from Pompei are underneath in the vaults of the Naples museum. Hidden from the Christian eye. After Napoleon completely took over Holland. Raffles governed/maintained the Dutch Indies for a brief time. It was during that time expeditions uncovered the Borobudur complex. I was at Candih Sukuh some time ago. Is it not a Hindu complex. The prevalent religion before Islam. There are similar erotic statutes in Nepal.

Most disturbing statues from Pompei are underneath in the vaults of the Naples museum. Hidden from the Christian eye.

]]> Comment on Response to creationist Jonathan Sarfati by neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/response-to-creationist-jonathan-sarfati/#comment-7311 neilgodfrey Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:38:32 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4221#comment-7311 Have updated my response to Sarfati at http://tinyurl.com/jsarfati Have updated my response to Sarfati at http://tinyurl.com/jsarfati

]]> Comment on The Medieval Origins of the “Christ paid the penalty for us” Gospel. by Theodore A. Jones http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/fsd-2/#comment-7310 Theodore A. Jones Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=3231#comment-7310 There has been for quite some time much discussion about why Jesus was crucified. I think we all should make note that Jesus made the promise that if we would continue in his words that this is the way to discover what is really true about why he was crucified. I was reading my Bible the other day and remembered this verse "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Dt. 29:29 There is something very important for us to understand about Jesus' crucifixion. For the actual true reason why he was to be crucified was a closely held secret and was not revealed to the Lord's apostles until after he was crucified and had ascended back to his Holy father. Paul tells us the same thing in 1 Cor. 2:7&8, and there is another thing Paul said that is also very very important for us to understand that is part of what had been a secret for so very long. "It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Rom 2:13 Paul is talking about 'this law' that was mentioned in Dt. 29:29, and it is only by Jesus crucifixion that this law exist. For another part of this secret that God held to himself that was revealed to Paul by God's spirit is what Paul said about 'this law'. "The law was added so that the trespass might increase." Rom. 2:13 And you know what? Over in Heb. 7:12b it is written that there has been a change of God's law. And the reason God made a change to his law is because of a binding oath he placed upon himself that requires God to do something by Jesus' life having been taken by bloodshed. This oath, Heb. 6:17&18, and 'this law' are the two immutable things. And what they mean were God's secret that God's spirit taught to the apostles of Jesus after Jesus was crucified. "And for your life blood, meaning Jesus' lifeblood, I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Gen . 9:5 NIV These things are the keys into the kingdom of the Living God. And the only Way you can get into God's kingdom is by faith. Even if your faith is as small as a mustard seed by obeying 'this law' confessing with your mouth directly to God that you are truly sorry Jesus life was taken by bloodshed and be baptized into this Way. You will receive the promise of the forgiveness of ALL your sins. But if you refuse obey the Lord this Way you commit a sin for which there is no forgiveness possible. Amen. There has been for quite some time much discussion about why Jesus was crucified. I think we all should make note that Jesus made the promise that if we would continue in his words that this is the way to discover what is really true about why he was crucified. I was reading my Bible the other day and remembered this verse “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Dt. 29:29 There is something very important for us to understand about Jesus’ crucifixion. For the actual true reason why he was to be crucified was a closely held secret and was not revealed to the Lord’s apostles until after he was crucified and had ascended back to his Holy father. Paul tells us the same thing in 1 Cor. 2:7&8, and there is another thing Paul said that is also very very important for us to understand that is part of what had been a secret for so very long.

“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous
in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who
will be declared righteous. Rom 2:13

Paul is talking about ‘this law’ that was mentioned in Dt. 29:29, and it is only by Jesus crucifixion that this law exist. For another part of this secret that God held to himself that was revealed to Paul by God’s spirit is what Paul said about ‘this law’.

“The law was added so that the trespass might increase.” Rom. 2:13

And you know what? Over in Heb. 7:12b it is written that there has been a change of God’s law. And the reason God made a change to his law is because of a binding oath he placed upon himself that requires God to do something by Jesus’ life having been taken by bloodshed. This oath, Heb. 6:17&18, and ‘this law’ are the two immutable things. And what they mean were God’s secret that God’s spirit taught to the apostles of Jesus after Jesus was crucified.

“And for your life blood, meaning Jesus’ lifeblood,
I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each
man too, I will demand an accounting for the life
of his fellow man.” Gen . 9:5 NIV

These things are the keys into the kingdom of the Living God. And the only Way you can get into God’s kingdom is by faith. Even if your faith is as small as a mustard seed by obeying ‘this law’ confessing with your mouth directly to God that you are truly sorry Jesus life was taken by bloodshed and be baptized into this Way. You will receive the promise of the forgiveness of ALL your sins. But if you refuse obey the Lord this Way you commit a sin for which there is no forgiveness possible. Amen.

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by Ben http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7309 Ben Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:34:36 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7309 haha, a fair audience on these issues is kind of like Narnia. Someday I might stumble into one through a random wardrobe or icebox. One story in particular struck me as so obviously contrived that I came to an obvious skeptical conclusion that I later abandoned. When John the baptist leaps in the womb because he knows via the Holy Spirit that the messiah is in the womb next door (like that even computes in those baby neurons), it was just so obvious it was some quaint morale tale that as a 15 year old I had no problem confronting my incredulous pastor about it. I do wish I'd stuck with those kind of evaluations, but unfortunately I took the scenic route back to common sense. You use Mark 6:45-53, but if I were a Christian, I would just assume that Peter was the eyewitness who told Mark about what he thought happened and filled in whatever Jesus details to make sense of things from his perspective. Some things can be plausibly overlooked and some are just..."uh...wow." I'd just like to see the best examples on display. Ben haha, a fair audience on these issues is kind of like Narnia. Someday I might stumble into one through a random wardrobe or icebox.

One story in particular struck me as so obviously contrived that I came to an obvious skeptical conclusion that I later abandoned. When John the baptist leaps in the womb because he knows via the Holy Spirit that the messiah is in the womb next door (like that even computes in those baby neurons), it was just so obvious it was some quaint morale tale that as a 15 year old I had no problem confronting my incredulous pastor about it. I do wish I’d stuck with those kind of evaluations, but unfortunately I took the scenic route back to common sense.

You use Mark 6:45-53, but if I were a Christian, I would just assume that Peter was the eyewitness who told Mark about what he thought happened and filled in whatever Jesus details to make sense of things from his perspective. Some things can be plausibly overlooked and some are just…”uh…wow.” I’d just like to see the best examples on display.

Ben

]]> Comment on Eye-Witness or Bird’s-Eye Gospel Narratives by neilgodfrey http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/eye-witness-or-birds-eye-gospel-narratives/#comment-7308 neilgodfrey Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:08:54 +0000 http://vridar.wordpress.com/?p=4218#comment-7308 Agreed. I would never suggest such an argument should be presented as a case for non-historicity of the narratives to any "hardened believer", even though I personally might think it does point in that direction. The gospels really are very short and spare narratives (even in their resurrection accounts) compared with contemporary lit, and they are (to me) clearly constructed as bare-bones (narrator-all-knowing) illustrations of moral and theological lessons. As for supernatural encounters, we recognize two types of course -- those that others see as mere coincidences or lucky circumstances, and those that result from some mental illusion or fabrication. In the real world, those latter are the ones that invariably invite a strong interest in all the details. Thanks for the encouragement to take on a "fair audience" only :-) Agreed. I would never suggest such an argument should be presented as a case for non-historicity of the narratives to any “hardened believer”, even though I personally might think it does point in that direction. The gospels really are very short and spare narratives (even in their resurrection accounts) compared with contemporary lit, and they are (to me) clearly constructed as bare-bones (narrator-all-knowing) illustrations of moral and theological lessons.

As for supernatural encounters, we recognize two types of course — those that others see as mere coincidences or lucky circumstances, and those that result from some mental illusion or fabrication. In the real world, those latter are the ones that invariably invite a strong interest in all the details.

Thanks for the encouragement to take on a “fair audience” only :-)

]]>