Talarico the future?

[Doublehalf]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

God the "Father" has no human body.  The bible directly says God "is spirit."  He is uncreated and infinite.  He is the creator that people pray to.  The bible narrates God with both masculine (King, Father, He) and feminine (comforting like a mother in Isaiah 66:13, laboring like a woman in Isaiah 42:14) attributes and character.

God as "Jesus Christ" has a male human body.  He died for your sins and "rose again."

God the "Holy Spirit" has no human body.  This is like a guide that can live within each human body.  What helps you know right from wrong, gives strength, and so on.  When I asked what that feeling of "tingling spine" when you feel joy (in church or elsewhere) is... I was told it was the holy spirit.

Together, those three forms... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... make up the one true God (the Trinity).

 

I just don't think someone needs to believe in god to know the different between right and wrong. I also think the term father is used to make something unexplainable just more relatable to humans.

Additionally, many people that have experienced UAP in their personal lives also talk about bright lights and smells of sulfur, heat etc...

Also aren't many religions largely based on astrological signs, specifically the Sun due to its light and life giving properties? Isn't it possible this is what was written and translated thousands of years prior? Why would the Roman's and other civilizations have other gods and spirits they worshipped before Christianity burst onto the scene? Wouldn't the one Christian god always have been present? And please don't site Adam and Eve...

 

Edited March 6 by Doublehalf

[red viking]

Just now, Doublehalf said:

I just don't think someone needs to believe in god to know the different between right and wrong.

Correct. The basic teachings of right and wrong span almost all cultures throughout world history. 

[jross]

18 minutes ago, red viking said:

Very ironic then that so many idiots think they know the exact nature of God, based upon what human beings wrote thousands of yrs ago, and NONE was written by people alive at the time of Jesus. Just accepting what they wrote down as fact. 

Comical. 

Your criticism is directionally accurate (concerns about time passage) and factually incorrect.  No books are believed to have been written while Jesus was alive but multiple understood to have been written by people alive during and beyond Jesus span, including eye witnesses.

 

[red viking]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

Your criticism is directionally accurate (concerns about time passage) and factually incorrect.  No books are believed to have been written while Jesus was alive but multiple understood to have been written by people alive during and beyond Jesus span, including eye witnesses.

 

110% Wrong. They were generally believed to have all been written AT LEAST 50 yrs after he died. 

Zero credible evidence that actual authors directly knew Jesus. 

Alive at the time? Probably not but if they didn't know him anyway, the credibility is severely degraded either way. 

Edited March 6 by red viking

[jross]

2 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I just don't think someone needs to believe in god to know the different between right and wrong.

Neither do I.

The golden rule predates the Hebrew bible.  I reason that to be selfish is logical and treating others the way you want to be treated is an outcome of that in a larger society.  To be a dick to others will end society or yourself.

But I do believe the 10 commandments and the teachings in the new testament are a great guideline for life.

[Doublehalf]

1 minute ago, jross said:

But I do believe the 10 commandments and the teachings in the new testament are a great guideline for life.

No doubt, I think there are tons of books that have been written that are great guidelines for life. There is a whole section at Barnes and Noble for self help haha.

[jross]

Just now, red viking said:

110% Wrong. They were generally believed to have all been written AT LEAST 50 yrs after he died. 

There are more books than the Gospels in the New Testament.  Who wrote them and were they alive when Jesus was alive?  You have more research to do.  This doesn't change your direction but will correct your statements.

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

There are more books than the Gospels in the New Testament.  Who wrote them and were they alive when Jesus was alive?  You have more research to do.  This doesn't change your direction but will correct your statements.

Zero credible evidence that they knew Jesus and were also likely not alive given the timing of at least a half century. 

Those are the simple facts. 

Edited March 6 by red viking

[jross]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

Zero credible evidence that they knew Jesus and were also likely not alive given the timing of at least a half century. 

Those are the simple facts. 

What makes you so sure?  I'm not sure myself and just go with the scholars that studied it, including the early Christian leaders that support the claim.

[El Luchador]

49 minutes ago, red viking said:

New testament was written 50 to 100 yrs after Jesus died so that's a lie 

It was organized from writings at that time. That is  completely different. Is generally accepted that there are 40 authors of 66 books that make up the entire Bible.  You choose to believe otherwise but that is not consistent with the facts.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

It was organized from writings at that time. That is  completely different. Is generally accepted that there are 40 authors of 66 books that make up the entire Bible.  You choose to believe otherwise but that is not consistent with the facts.

By who? 

I can tell you right now that is not the consensus among the global Biblical Studies community.

[jross]

20 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I just don't think someone needs to believe in god to know the different between right and wrong. I also think the term father is used to make something unexplainable just more relatable to humans.

Additionally, many people that have experienced UAP in their personal lives also talk about bright lights and smells of sulfur, heat etc...

Also aren't many religions largely based on astrological signs, specifically the Sun due to its light and life giving properties? Isn't it possible this is what was written and translated thousands of years prior? Why would the Roman's and other civilizations have other gods and spirits they worshipped before Christianity burst onto the scene? Wouldn't the one Christian god always have been present? And please don't site Adam and Eve...

 

The question is not when the Christian god came on the scene rather it is when did the Hebrew God come onto the scene.  The Hebrew god predates the Romans but there were civilizations that worshiped God(s) before our earliest known times of the Hebrew God being worshiped.  Jesus fulfilled prophecy and was the start of Christianity. 

Where did the nothingness come from that supports the big bang?  Something has always existed... and this unknown is incomprehensible to logic.  It requires faith.  To me, that is God.  Everything after... there are thousands of different explanations.

The god that created something from nothing in whatever manner... certainly could create more intelligence than humans.  The odds are strongly in favor of life outside of Earth in this universe.

So far as religion goes... Striving to follow the teachings of the New Testament is solid!

There are a few questions I've prodded at...

1. Has anybody ever proven a miracle in modern history?  (not to my knowledge)
2. What god do people see when they die and come back from death? (not unique to Christianity)
3. Can science cause people to have an after death type experience? (yes)  But does that disprove #2 (no)

In addition to why would God allow other Gods to be worshiped by civilizations before Hebrews... why did God inspire men to author some of the anti-golden-rules in the Old Testament "in his name"?  

The God that created something from nothing is capable of anything.  But does one want to worship a God described in the Old Testament?  The same God of the New Testament?  Was the Old Testament just mistaken?  It is not followed now but why was it ever?

[El Luchador]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

By who? 

I can tell you right now that is not the consensus among the global Biblical Studies community.

That there are 66 books by 40 authors? I think you are mistaken. The Catholic Church has 73 but like I said it is generally accepted. 

Are you literally saying that the letters written to the churches and to each other are fake?  

How do you conclude that Paul didn't write his experiences? 

[uncle bernard]

We don't know the authors of the Gospels. The names were likely added a couple hundred years later as the Christian canon was being established.

Luke-Acts was likely written by the same person/people. Most evidence suggests Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke-Acts were written years later based on versions of Mark circulating. Those three make up the "synoptic" gospels because they largely tell the same story. John is its own thing and the youngest. It's possible the author(s) of John knew the synoptic texts, but did not follow their structure. Hard to know.

While it's true that Mark was written decades after Christ, I think it's pretty likely that it was using more contemporary sources that were already circulating.

The other major author of the New Testament would be Paul, who did not know Jesus.

The individual books of the Bible took shape much like the Bible itself - slowly over time as a result of combining various different source materials.

[El Luchador]

57 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I just don't think someone needs to believe in god to know the different between right and wrong. I also think the term father is used to make something unexplainable just more relatable to humans.

Additionally, many people that have experienced UAP in their personal lives also talk about bright lights and smells of sulfur, heat etc...

Also aren't many religions largely based on astrological signs, specifically the Sun due to its light and life giving properties? Isn't it possible this is what was written and translated thousands of years prior? Why would the Roman's and other civilizations have other gods and spirits they worshipped before Christianity burst onto the scene? Wouldn't the one Christian god always have been present? And please don't site Adam and Eve...

 

I disagree. Our laws and our morals are very much superior to the non Christian world. We developed law and punishment that were Bible influenced. Go to a Muslim country and tell me about the natural instinct for justice and morality.

[jross]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

We don't know the authors of the Gospels. The names were likely added a couple hundred years later as the Christian canon was being established.

Luke-Acts was likely written by the same person/people. Most evidence suggests Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke-Acts were written years later based on versions of Mark circulating. Those three make up the "synoptic" gospels because they largely tell the same story. John is its own thing and the youngest. It's possible the author(s) of John knew the synoptic texts, but did not follow their structure. Hard to know.

While it's true that Mark was written decades after Christ, I think it's pretty likely that it was using more contemporary sources that were already circulating.

The other major author of the New Testament would be Paul, who did not know Jesus.

The individual books of the Bible took shape much like the Bible itself - slowly over time as a result of combining various different source materials.

When was Paul alive and who did he know that knew Jesus?

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

That there are 66 books by 40 authors? I think you are mistaken. The Catholic Church has 73 but like I said it is generally accepted. 

Are you literally saying that the letters written to the churches and to each other are fake?  

How do you conclude that Paul didn't write his experiences? 

Yes, I know the Bible has 66 books according to Protestant canon. Those 66 books were not written by "40 authors." That is not the scholarly consensus. Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, for example.

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

When was Paul alive and who did he know that knew Jesus?

He was a contemporary of Jesus and knew followers of Jesus, but he makes no claims to have known Jesus or seen him personally (not included the conversion event), so he would be a secondhand source only repeating what he'd heard.

For the record, Jesus definitely existed. There's general consensus about that. What exactly happened to him is up for debate.

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Yes, I know the Bible has 66 books according to Protestant canon. Those 66 books were not written by "40 authors." That is not the scholarly consensus. Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, for example.

How do you know that? How can you claim he didn't and not know who did?  

I am not a Bible scholar or an apologist but I do have solid basic knowledge.

[uncle bernard]

Just now, El Luchador said:

How do you know that? How can you claim he didn't and not know who did?  

I am not a Bible scholar or an apologist but I do have solid basic knowledge.

I've studied the Bible at the graduate level with a famous Bible scholar. There is a lot of debate in the scholarly community about authorship, and plenty of room for disagreement, but nobody thinks the gospels were written by guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John or that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch outside of the Church, who affirms that due to tradition, not textual evidence.

This is why the Bible is filled with so many blatant factual contradictions. A character will be introduced multiple times with different backgrounds. That's because the books are made up of multiple sources compiled and edited together by religious communities over time. Whether that impacts the "truth" of the overall text is up to you.

For example, Genesis very clearly has multiple authors/source texts. Look no further than the multiple names for God and the very clear influence of the older Mesopotamian epics (Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, Enuma Elish).

It's a deeply fascinating subject. I'd recommend starting to read up on the JEDP/Documentary Hypothesis. This account has been complicated/critiqued, but it's the foundation of source criticism and will give you a general feel for how it works. The Hebrew Bible in particular is really cool because you can start to see the shape of real Jewish history in the texts (impact of the Babylonian exile, for example). And the way later books take up and indirectly comment on earlier texts is really interesting too (and something the authors of the Gospels duplicated in their texts). For example, the way that King David's narrative follows Jacob's in Genesis to connect him to the father of the 12 tribes.

[Caveira]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

Lmfao. Yah, that's why his approval ratings are at record lows. He's a disaster and polls and recent election results prove it. Incompetent pedophile slime bag. 

This is cnn.  

CNN reports that President Trump is MORE popular than Barack Obama and George Bush at this point in his presidency 

 

 

[uncle bernard]

38 minutes ago, Caveira said:

This is cnn.  

CNN reports that President Trump is MORE popular than Barack Obama and George Bush at this point in his presidency 

 

 

Did you even watch the video? He's more popular among Republicans, not overall. The point of the segment is to show how his endorsement helps in primaries.

Your media literacy/reading comprehension is terrifying.

Edited March 6 by uncle bernard

[1032004]

This might be the best political ad of all time