Part 35 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

The Book of Hebrews describes how the writers adapt the Hebrew Scriptures to Christian thinking. Again they are using what they have been taught to believe. They had little choice. We have information that was not available to them at the time. History and Archaeology. They even have a mysterious Melchizedec, king of 'Salem' - Priest of the most High God. Bit odd when the Most High God has only just made himself known to Abraham.

They transfer Davids position/experience in Psalm 2 to fit Jesus, and they do so with many things throughout the book.

And yes, I have studied THOROUGHLY.

 

The book of Hebrews explains the Old and New Covenant. Many bible scholars believe Jesus appears throughout the Old Testament. Everything points to Jesus. The ark is a picture of Jesus. The prophets spoke of the Messiah. Actually, the bible is about Jesus the Messiah.

 

Because they might learn something they don't want to know.

 

Oh I do and have for over 60 years.

 

Cool. Good for you.

 

I see...it must be quite nice to have a book you get to let other people figure out for you and pick the version they come up with that you like most.

 

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

 

sorry you have to be incorrect here bible says Hittites where there and you're saying the bible doesn't say the Hittites are there when Abraham was.

Gen 23:10 And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying,

also
Esau married a Hittite which wasn't 400 years after Abraham

the bible says "Chaldees" a Semitic language of the ancient Chaldeans not "Chaldea" or the like as in Babylon, which doesn't mean the nation or empire of the Chaldea had to be in existence to refer to a people by their language. the English spoke English before there was an England. if you want to refer to the people of the land then of what is now Iraq you refer to the Chaldees. you read your version into the text that doesn't support what you want to think of it.

Abraham came from what is now Iraq to what is now Samaria after his father passed he went to what is now Israel and from there went to Egypt for a time if the man could travel that far just where in Egypt couldn't he go to? it was a prince that spotted his wife and they could have been escorted from there to anywhere.

your studies seem to suck if you ask me. its full of assumptions that are not valid, and your statements on just what the bible says is even incorrect though the text is in front of you.

 

You've obviously been well indoctrinated. Unless you study you will never learn the real truth.

Nothing in the OT points to Jesus except in Christian belief. People use the Bible as the finale authority that explains it all. But |Jewish History and religion also includes the period between the Babylonian exile and return and the coming of Jesus. If you include the Maccabees which partially fills that gap you have a completed OT. The 2nd part of the book of Daniel was written during this period, and completes the death of the anointed one High Priest Onias III who was a pious man who condemned Menelaus in public for taking sacred items to bribe Syrians. He was assassinated at the secret orders of Menelaus and Andronicus.

 

Very good. I believe the Bible is a portrait of Jesus.

 

The Bible says that Abraham bought land from the Hittites. But history shows that the Hittites did not appear until 400 years after Abrahams time (Which is generally accepted as 2100/2000 BCE since Ur was destroyed soon after this.

The Chaldeans were part of the Neo Babylonian Empire 1000 years after Abraham. The Sumerians of Abrahams time spoke a different language, having originated from further East.

Supposed Abraham with all his flocks would have watered and fed them in the Nile Delta which was fertile. Normally Pharaohs ruled in that delta from Memphis. Depending what exact
date this supposed story took place, the Pharaohs could have been ruling from Thebes, hundreds of miles up the river Nile. If you know Egypt of the time, and to some degree today, there is a narrow fertile area along the river. Someone with an entourage as large as Abrahams, with herds etc, would not be welcome along the banks, eating the foodstuff of the population.

That someone would have noticed a beautiful 75 year old woman and recommended her to Pharaoh - who had a chief wife and other secondary wives, almost certainly young and nubile, takes a large amount of believing. Treaties in those days were often sealed by the giving of daughters to the other side. The Hittites did this centuries later with the Pharaoh of the time. There's a 'letter' in existence which shows this.

Why didn't Terah, Abrahams father, go straight to Palestine as he intended. Why did he go up the Euphrates to Haran?. He could have gone straight across the desert to Canaan along a well known road of the time for travellers coming from the East, through Ur, to the Mediterranean?

Little about the Story of Abraham makes sense if you know the background. My 'assumptions' are based on known historic facts against what the Bible says.

 

Of course you do. You've been told so.

 

You believe whatever you want and so will I. Shouldn't let it appear to disturb you so much. Reveals an insecurity.

 

Well, that's fine coming from someone who relies on another to cover his 'sins'.

 

Now you're denying Scripture and the blood of Jesus washing away sin. Fascinating.

 

I am not Trevor, but do so deny
The idea of a blood sacrifice sounds medieval to me.... or worse
Worshipping torture and death is incomprehensible to me
Frankly, the only way this makes any sense
is as in the context of an alternative to the Jewish sacrifice of the lambs
And the Jews left that behind long ago
I mean, if there were some current religion based on sacrificing lambs
We would regard these people as alarmingly primative
And THAT. Is how I regard the Christian dogma of salvation through jesus blood sacrifice

 

Yeah, right. I've had Protestants saying the same thing about Catholics. I've heard them both saying the same thing Mormons.

The JW said the same thing you just said. The old laws are done and gone because of Jesus. So I guess there isn't very much difference in your beliefs.

• Pre-Jesus, god stated that homosexuals should be put to death.
• Post-Jesus, god only stated that they would not get into heaven.

These two statements show that god changed his mind. The process by which he communicated this change (made Jesus), is irrelevant.

We can look at this way:

• God made a lot of Laws
• Those Laws were written down and communicated to man.
• God changed his mind.
• He communicated the changes via Jesus.

He even thought the best way to rid the earth of evil was to kill (almost) everyone and everything. The he changed his mind.

This would all be so much easier for Christians if Marcion had his way.

 

That's good you have an opinion. However, we were discussing scripture and scripture is clear that the blood of Jesus is what cleanses us from sin. The Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of Jesus and his sacrifice. Behold, the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

 

Mormons are also a pseudo Christian cult. Much of Catholicism is legalistic and unscriptural. The law was fulfilled in Jesus and ended on the cross. Thus, a new covenant with the blood of Jesus. There is always a blood sacrifice for a covenant. Hebrews explains it very well.

 

What's fascinating? you already know I'm agnostic.

 

There is no God creature as depicted in the Bible or in any other religious fairy tale. The biblical God was simply the series of men who ruled the dominant Middle Eastern empire at a particular time. Darius was God at one time. The biblical God creature bit the dust for good when the last Babylonian Emperor croaked and the Babylonian Empire collapsed. And he's not coming back, ever.

 

Way cool, man.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so many of you to keep track of. I'll try to remember thst.

 

Previously...

Back to your latest post:

I'm sure you do try to be precise, direct and clear.
You clearly and precisely stated:

When you used the term "My God" I believe you were clearly and precisely referring to the Christian God. Your faith in that God springs in large part on the contents of the Christian Bible.

You then related that your God "can do anything above and beyond what the mind of man can imagine".
And then you said this: "Einstein said pretty much the same thing"; clearly and precisely implying that Einstein shared your views.
You reinforced that by stating "Great minds think alike" again implying that your views and beliefs regarding God and Biblically based Christianity were shared by Einstein.

Yet, the reality is that Einstein clearly rejected Christianity. The following is an excerpt of a handwritten letter Einstein sent to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind in 1954 just before his death.

So, no, your beliefs and Einstein's beliefs are not "pretty much the same". If you weren't trying to mislead, what were you doing? Is it possible that you are not not aware of Einstein's religious philosophies?

 

It looks like this thread will be shutting down soon. I'll address my post and your response in Part 36 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity.

 

You forgot something. Einstein also said this.
http://sillysutras.com/httpsillysutras-comeinsteins-belief-in-god-as-universal-intelligence/

- - - Updated - - -

Einstein believed an intelligent spirit runs the universe. Here are his words.
http://sillysutras.com/httpsillysutras-comeinsteins-belief-in-god-as-universal-intelligence/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chri....who.brings.harmony.in.the.universe/82017.htm