I'm not one to argue theology, but Clarity might have been. Before she disappeared, she was leaning toward your point of view DarKnyht (at least, if I'm reading it correctly: that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of god.)

But this sentence here

DarKnyht wrote:When I look at the facts, the historical possibility I am coming up with seems to fit much better than what you propose.

I'd like some clarification. "Better than [KonThaak] supposes"? Am I right in saying you think his belief isn't as good as yours? Your reasoning is higher? You said it yourself. "We can't find the absolute truth of the matter."

So why are you saying your possibility is any more real than his is?

While you can draw lines from there and come to your own conclusions, you cannot claim that another man is less Christian than you because his lines and conclusions are different than your own. You cannot deny Christ from those who love him, just because they love him a different way than you. You cannot negatively judge others just for being--or believing--different than you.

[quote=KonThaak]Now I think jist of what you are implying is that I should believe that everyone's lifestyle, beliefs, and perceptions on truth claims are equal... Your beliefs and mine are equal, and all truth is relative".

DarKnyht wrote:Now most people would call that the picture perfect definition of intolerance on my part. So it might be good to clarify what that word really means. The definition of tolarance according to Webster is "to recognize and respect [other's beliefs, practices, and so forth] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]" Paul put it as "[Love] endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:7).

So I think the mistake is that you are implying that truth is inclusive, that it gathers together claims that oppose each other. The fact however is that all truth is exclusive - at least to some degree - for it must exclude as false that which is not true. If Washington D.C. is the capital of the US, then all other cities cannot be. Accepting that doesn't make you tolerant or intolerant, it just makes you either right or wrong.

DarKnyht wrote:The same thing holds for Christianity. Christians are either correct or mistaken about how God has revealed Himself in the world. If they are correct, then there is really no other way to God but through Christ. If they are wrong, then Christianity is false. It isn't a question of tolerance, but of truth.

Your claim has it's roots in the tradition of the Ebonites. They likewise believed that Jesus was just a man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (I've skimmed through this fascinating topic)but has KonThaak claimed anything of the sort? Sure, he seems to insinuate that claim, but is he the one claiming it?

If anyone is making a mistake (as I might be) I think you are DarKnyht. Why can't Christanity and other faiths coexist as equally true? Why is Christianity THE ultimate "truth"?

If you haven't yet, spend some time in the Orient.

There are no such things as binaries.

Good thing we don't have any supernasties to destroy or to do anything productive like that.

Oh, trust me, we do.

It's just getting this fetcher to take the bait that's the hard part.

DarKnyht wrote:John 10:25-33: "Jesus answered, 'I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice, I know them and they follow me. I give them 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.'

Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which one of these do you stone me?'

'We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

You forgot 10:34-38: "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

First off, though, before I go into 34-38, and help you put your cherry into the proper context, let me examine this cherry you've picked... At no point does he actually say "I am God". Even with the following passage, which I provided, he doesn't say "I am God". The Jews accuse him of saying it, and he feels the need to clarify further. "I and [the] father are one" can just as easily be taken as metaphor for "That which [the] father strives for, I strive for as well."

Furthermore, he references God calling men gods... I don't see this as being literal, either. Again, I see this as a message that men have power over their own laws, which is what Jesus seems to be striving for with his "son of man" statements.

Growing up, I was always taught, "I and *our* father are one; that that I can do, any man can do." Now I understand that a bit more. I think I was taught that out of a children's Bible I had, but I don't remember, anymore.

John 5:16-18 records this: "So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to the very day, and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

19: Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.["]

John 5:22-24: "Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as the honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Why do you keep cutting off just where you can use an individual quote to prove your point?

30: ["]By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

John 14:1 records him making himself an object of worship: "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me."

I beg to differ... To trust in someone is different than to worship them. This chapter of John, in its entirety, is Jesus speaking to his disciples, and saying that he will be going to God's home, soon, and will be preparing a place for all of them. Every time he references God, he continues to establish a difference between himself and God... He doesn't say "In *my* house" in 14:2, nor in 14:10 does he say "I *am* [the] father", he says "I am *in* [the] father"... Again, he establishes that his goals and God's goals are the same.

This chapter also contains the "way/truth/light" passage we've already been debating... I bring it up only for one minor issue that I failed to bring up before. "If you really knew me, you would know my father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." This is not necessarily the "I am God" that you have previously claimed it to be... He establishes all throughout this chapter that he and God are driving for the same goals; here, it is simply a reiteration of that statement. "If you know me, you know Father as well, because we're both achieving the same goals. You might as well consider yourselves as knowing him, because for all intents and purposes, you already do."

In Matthew, Jesus teaches and speaks in His own name. By doing so, He elevated the authority of His words directly to heaven. Instead of repeating the prophets by saying, "Thus saith the Lord," Jesus repeated, "but I say to you."

Give me passages in context, please... However, looking at this, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the passages you are referencing, in fact, are him disputing the claims of the Pharisees. "I know the laws say this, but I say to you to follow the spirit of the law, instead of the letter."

Likewise it is written in the OT and quoted by Jesus, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you hall serve." Yet you find multiple times that Jesus accepted people worshipping him. (Matt. 8:2, John 9:38, Matt. 14:33, John 20:27-29). In contrast the disciples wouldn't allow it (Acts 10:25,26, Rev. 19:10)

Matt 8:1-4, a man comes to Jesus and kneels, asking to be healed, and Jesus does so. I don't see worship; I see begging. In Matt 8:5-13, a Roman centurion heals his own servant/slave (with Jesus' permission).

John 9 is the story of a blind man whose vision was restored... Jesus quite potentially claims to be the "son of man" here, but again, makes no claim to be God. The now-no-longer-blind man worships Jesus, yes, but it does not say he worshiped him *as God*. The Pharisees were there; had the man been worshiping Jesus as God, they would have stoned him. Very possibly, this entire chapter is a parable, rather than a literal story that happened.

Matt 14 is the story of when Jesus feeds an extremely large crowd with a handful of fishes and loaves, then walks on water to meet his disciples. It does say they worship him, and praise him as *the "son of God"*, not *as God himself*. Because they believed him to be the son of that which is divine, to worship Jesus in any way is still appropriate.

As long as we're picking apart bits and pieces of Jesus' apparent resurrection, I'm amused to see you omitted John 20:17, in which Jesus claims he is "going to my father and your father, my God and your God", implying not only that he is *not* God, but, again, that all men are the sons of God. But enough picking apart... The story in question is the infamous "Doubting Thomas" story, which I very much believe was a barb from John's contemporaries to the literalistic Thomas' contemporaries... Here, the followers of John are shooting a barb at Thomas' camp, saying that Thomas (and those who follow his ways) wouldn't believe Jesus had risen unless he was there... The Book of John very neatly condemns Thomas here, saying, basically, "everyone is blessed but you, ha ha!"

While we're on this subject, I took the liberty of looking up the verb "to worship"... After doing a bit of research, I am left wondering which of several forms of "worship" were performed in each of these scriptures. At least one form of worship was considered appropriate to perform on saints, and I am left believing that it may be *this* form of worship that was performed, else Jesus would have been stoned rather than crucified.

As it is, one potential definition of the word "worship" (as a verb) are "to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing)"...

You also must remember that most English translations of the Bible translate the name of God as "LORD" or "Jehovah". This was a sacred name to the Jewish people just like the name "I AM". Jesus uses these identifiers to himself. You also note that Jesus always refers to "My Father" and "Your Father", never once does he use "Our Father". Throughout the gospel He distungishes between himself and others.

What about the "Lord's Prayer"?

Now, a Christian is taught to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Christ and the apostiles did not call upon everyone to exercise blind faith, but rather an intelligent faith. That faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the evidence.

I have always been taught that to believe in something because of empirical evidence is to have knowledge, and to believe in something despite a lack of empirical evidence is to have faith... We lack empirical evidence that Jesus believed himself to be God. One can therefore have faith that Jesus is God, but lack the justification to condemn those who believe otherwise.

We will never have historical evidence to establish the absolute truth. Instead what we can have is a historical possibility. When I look at the facts, the historical possibility I am coming up with seems to fit much better than what you propose. When I look at what Christ, the apostiles, Paul, James and the other recordings of the early church says, I see no break or vast change in the views they held.

I don't quite get what you mean here... "Absolute truth" is almost never something that can be established by history. History is almost always written by the winners. The Bible is a rare, miraculous case where the opposite is true. As the Bible was being written, it was written by the losers, looking at things from a historical viewpoint, and yet today, we have this much of the Bible. Regardless of the fact that it is steeped in bias and misleading "facts", we still have it. I see that as a greater miracle than anything "recorded" in it.

As for seeing no discrepancy in the views of the "early church", keep in mind that the "early church" had literally hundreds of different factions within it. Some of these factions opposed each other very violently, but they all claimed to follow Jesus and God. After the bloodbath of Alexandria, many of them were destroyed or swallowed into the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, and both churches sought to wipe out as many of the earliest beliefs as possible that didn't accord with what they believed. Regardless of their best efforts, though, we still have opposing views such as the early Gnostic views and scriptures. We still have accounts of the priest Arius, who wrote in the early 4th century that the "son of God" was not "God the father", and that there was, in fact, a time when Jesus did not exist. There are plenty of views of the "early church" that directly oppose the views that were adopted by a biased and politically driven and influenced church.

Now when we talk about a christian's faith, you must understand that christian faith is fully opposed to the average "philosophical" use of the term. Christians from the begining did not accept the cliche' "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe it enough." Simply put, the value of christian faith is not in the one believing, but in the one who is believed in, its object.

I don't believe that at all. Jesus preached to follow the spirit of a law, not the outdated philosophies of a historically corrupt church. I truly believe he would tell us differently, were he here now. He condemned the Pharisees for being a corrupt "direct line to God", and we had corrupt priests claiming to be the "direct line to God by right of Jesus" not very long after his death... The church that was erected in his name performed the same crimes he condemned, just now it was in his name.

Jesus wept from beyond the grave from five minutes after he had ascended to Heaven.

John Warwick Montgomery put it this way: "If our 'Christ of faith' deviates at all from the biblical 'Jesus of History,' then to the extent of that deviation, we also lose the genuine Christ of faith. As one of the greatest Chrstian historians of our time, Herbert Butterfield, has put it: 'It would be a dangerous error to imagine that the characteristics of an historical religion would be maintained if the Christ of the theologians were devorced from the Jesus of history'"

Speaking on a purely historical context, Paul, the earliest writer of the New Testament, wrote after Jesus' death. The deeds recorded in every other book were recorded after Jesus' death. We have no historical concept of who Jesus was or what he believed. All we have left are the hand-me-down messages from Jesus to his disciples to their contemporaries.

The entire New Testament is a game of Telephone, and while we can glean, on a personal level, our own views of a theological Jesus, we cannot use the Bible, with all its biases, as a historical view of Jesus.

Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is trying to sell you into a church.

So a christian cannot say "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" The historical facts reported in Scripture are essential to a Christian. That is why Paul wrote, "If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty... And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:14, 17).

I have already called Paul's legitimacy to question... He wrote from his own perspective, the perspective of a man who never walked with Jesus. I can try and give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that something snapped in him, and he truly was trying to follow Jesus to the best of his abilities...but here he is wrong.

If Christ is not risen, we still carry away a very important message, a message that love is the most important driving force on this world.

Paul can say whatever he wants... He was not there. He did not hear the words of Jesus. When Jesus spoke, Paul was a Pharisee, a vehement and violent opponent of the Christian movement. Paul has no right to make claims on behalf of Jesus, nor does he have the right to qualify *my personal beliefs*, or the beliefs of any individual living today.

When it comes to Christianity the events are attached to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New Testament writers knew.

Excuse me, but again I'm calling you on this... We can see from an historic timeline that Paul did not write his first epistle until 19 years after Jesus had died... Mark was not composed until around 40 years after Jesus' death. Luke and Acts were composed some 15-25 years after Mark, as was Revelations and Matthew. John was composed more than seventy years after Jesus' death.

Considering that the average life expectancy in those days was roughly 20-30 years old (estimate taken from wikipedia; if you care to dispute it, you can show other *historical* evidence), I very highly doubt that any writers of the New Testament personally knew Jesus.

In fact, at the time they challenged people to question the witnesses that still lived.

Witnesses can be biased, and their responses to questions can reflect that bias... Likewise, questioners can be biased, and can phrase questions to shape answers to reflect that bias as well. This still fails to reflect a "historic Jesus".

Not only that but they turned the tables on their critics and said "You also know about these things. You saw them; you yourselves know about it." Who in their right mind does that if what they claim is not true, because the critics will happily make you look like a fool. But back then the critics could not refute their claims.

"I also happen to know you beat your wife. You were there, you know you did it!"

You may not even be married, but once I make a statement like that, I establish myself as an authority on the situation, and nothing you say will weasel your way out of the position in which I have put you. When I phrase something like that, I can say anything I please, and twist every answer you give, to make you out as a liar.

KonThaak wrote:While you can draw lines from there and come to your own conclusions, you cannot claim that another man is less Christian than you because his lines and conclusions are different than your own. You cannot deny Christ from those who love him, just because they love him a different way than you. You cannot negatively judge others just for being--or believing--different than you.

Now I think jist of what you are implying is that I should believe that everyone's lifestyle, beliefs, and perceptions on truth claims are equal... Your beliefs and mine are equal, and all truth is relative". Now most people would call that the picture perfect definition of intolerance on my part. So it might be good to clarify what that word really means. The definition of tolarance according to Webster is "to recognize and respect [other's beliefs, practices, and so forth] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]" Paul put it as "[Love] endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:7).

So I think the mistake is that you are implying that truth is inclusive, that it gathers together claims that oppose each other. The fact however is that all truth is exclusive - at least to some degree - for it must exclude as false that which is not true. If Washington D.C. is the capital of the US, then all other cities cannot be. Accepting that doesn't make you tolerant or intolerant, it just makes you either right or wrong.

Note, I did not use the word "tolerance"... You have said that in order to claim to be Christian, a man must accept Jesus as God, and if they don't accept Jesus as God, then no amount of following Jesus' words and works will give them the right to call themselves "Christians".

I have refuted that claim, and provided enough evidence to show that a man who believes may believe differently than you...yet you still try to convince me that you have "the one, true way", and that everyone who believes differently than you lacks some fundamental "truth"...

The fact of the matter is, "truth" is not only exclusive, it is also relative. In spirituality, every "truth" is different for every person... What is true for me is clearly not true for you, and what is true for you is clearly not true for me. We both have faith. Yet you would seek to limit my faith and the faiths of others... I could condemn you for that, but I instead seek only for you to acknowledge that the practice which you suggest is both wrong and damaging.

The same thing holds for Christianity. Christians are either correct or mistaken about how God has revealed Himself in the world. If they are correct, then there is really no other way to God but through Christ. If they are wrong, then Christianity is false. It isn't a question of tolerance, but of truth.

You are wrong. If Christ were not divine, a person can still walk away with something. If they can walk away with nothing without Christ's divinity, then they have failed to hear his teachings, his message of love and acceptance, the two laws he gave to us, and his definition of God.

Remember, his two laws were to love your fellow man and to love God, and his definition of God was "love"... Nowhere does he say, "a man must worship me in name and believe in my miracles to get into Heaven, and this is one of my laws that must be followed to the letter instead of in spirit." Nowhere.

Your claim has it's roots in the tradition of the Ebonites. They likewise believed that Jesus was just a man.

My claim has its roots in common philosophy. I never said Jesus was "just a man" at all... I never said anything about who Jesus was.

I simply stated that we lack empirical evidence to show that Jesus believed he was God. I will thank you to stop twisting my words.

For the record, I am not sure where I stand with my belief on who and what Jesus was, but I was raised to believe that there was a clear distinction between "son of God" and "God himself".

I would offer Jesus' words as my final challenge, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority" (John 7:17).

More cherry picking... Let's see...

Here Jesus is speaking to the Jews and the Pharisees of the temple, and challenging them to denounce that he is *from God*. Just looking at your quote, I see him creating a distinction between himself and God ("whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority"), and in 18 and 19, he is attacking the standing of the Pharisees to speak for God, because the Pharisees obviously do not keep to the laws they supposedly upheld.

Again, this fails to establish Jesus as God... It also fails to spell out that to worship Jesus as God is the only way to save oneself.

I fully believe that if any man comes to the claims of Jesus Christ wanting to know if they are true, willing to follow His teachings if they are true, he will know. But one cannot come unwilling to accept, and expect to find out. Pascal put it like this, "The evidence of God's existence and His gift is more than compelling, but those who insist that they have no need of Him or it will always find ways to discount the offer." God's offer of salvation is open to anyone, it is the individual man that decides whether or not to accept it.

While I hate to reference a movie, I believe "Dogma" had the best way to put it... People kill over beliefs and supposed knowledge. Having faith is not about having either of these things. We cannot know for empirical fact anything about Jesus' life or times, and we cannot condemn others for their faiths when their faiths run different than your own. It is better to have an idea of what you believe...

This does not mean that blind faith is acceptable. Blind faith is believing in what a church tells you, simply for the fact that the church told you to believe so. One must constantly challenge one's faith, question it, poke it, prod it, and discover what one truly believes, and if one's faith is established as complete and whole before this journey is started, then their faith lacks a foundation.

One whose faith lacks foundation will find their faith washed away by the tides, as Paul claims.

I do not claim to be a Christian. For myself, I want nothing to do with the entire mess that bearing that title brings. For myself, I believe that following the teachings of Jesus has led me to the path of druidry. For myself, despite the religion I claim, I still try to follow Jesus, and in many ways, I *am* a Christian, whether I want the title or not. For myself, I hope that there will be a day when I would not be ashamed to call myself a Christian, under my own terms of following the spirit of Christ.

However, I speak for those who do, for those who believe but believe differently than you, who do not have a voice to speak for themselves at this time, in this place. It is their arguments I present, for some day, you may meet one, and rather than condemn them as "not being a good enough Christian", you should welcome them with open arms, as your brother.

Kolya wrote:Good thing we don't have any supernasties to destroy or to do anything productive like that.

Kolya, I'm sorry, but right now, I don't have anything better to do than protect my own, and right now, there's no immediate threats to protect them from... I would love to go after Hannah, but I don't know how to find her.

I have the spare time to argue, and something to focus on helps me stay sane while I wait for news on Hannah.

Kolya wrote:Good thing we don't have any supernasties to destroy or to do anything productive like that.

Gee, Kolya, good thing there isn't a specific section on this site where people can talk about philosophies and beliefs without having to hear that it's not relevant, or anything like that.

Oh, wait, THERE IS!!!

And DK, my dad would have loved you, seriously.

KT, as I have said all along, you have to put all scripture into the context of the culture it came from. I will just take the first of your objections and look at it today, and will try to look at the other ones later. But to start we need to look at the Psalm that Jesus referred to in John 10:34-38. I think you will see that in proper context of the culture it came from it supports my claim much better than yours.

The first line states (NASB) "A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers." The expression “to take a stand” is indicative of the serious nature of the indictment which God is about to make. God has taken His stand for the purpose of pronouncing judgment, which the second line of verse 1 indicates, “He judges in the midst of the rulers” (v. 2, NASB). God has taken His stand “in His own congregation” (v. 1, NASB). Literally this expression would be rendered, “in the congregation of God” (cf. marginal note, NASB). I agree with others that this phrase is best understood in terms of the congregation of Israel. God has taken His stand in the assembly or congregation of His people, Israel, to pronounce judgment upon them.

The second line of verse 1 identifies those whom God has determined to judge. God judges in the midst of the “gods” (v. 1, margin, NASB). The Hebrew word elohim, is rendered “rulers” in the NASB. Elohim is a common designation for God in the Old Testament. Its precise meaning here has been the subject of considerable discussion. It is not only crucial to a proper interpretation of this psalm, it is also essential for an understanding of our Lord’s use of Psalm 82:6 (where the word elohim once again occurs) in the tenth chapter of John.

There are several explanations of who the “gods” are in verses 1 and 6. The first is the view which understands the “gods” to be the mythical gods of the surrounding nations. Another is that the “gods” are the human rulers of the nations which are oppressing Israel. Yet another explanation is that the elohim are angels.

The most reasonable explanation is the view most widely held over the centuries. The “gods” referred to in Psalm 82:1 and 6 are the rulers of Israel, who have failed to carry out their responsibilities as God’s representatives in the ruling of the nation. Several lines of evidence support this interpretation:

(1) The way elohim is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The term elohim almost always refers to the one and only God, the God of Israel (Deut. 4:35,39). It sometimes refers to the so-called “gods” of the heathen (e.g. Judg. 11:24; 1 Kings 18:24). The term also occasionally identifies “… rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power …” Several passages may use elohim in this sense: (Exod. 4:16, Exod 7:1, Exod 21:6, Exod 22:8,9)

The teaching of the Bible is that man was created in God’s image to reign and to rule as a vice regent over the earth (Gen. 1:26,28; cf. also Ps. 8:6; Rom. 8:17-21; 2 Tim. 2:12). Rulers are appointed by God to carry out His purposes of restraining evil and rewarding those who do what is good (cf. Rom. 13:1-4). In this sense rulers not only act for God; they, in a sense, act as God (as “gods”):

And he said to the judges, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality, or the taking of a bribe” (2 Chron. 19:6-7).

(2) The Scriptures teach that men are responsible for the actions commanded in verses 3-4 and those condemned in verse 2. The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites to care for the needy, the helpless, and the oppressed:

“You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands” (Deut. 24:17-19; cf. also Exod. 23:2-3, 6-9; Lev. 19:15, 33-34; Deut. 1:17).

This passage suggests that all of the injustices and sufferings of Israel while in Egyptian bondage were intended to make God’s people sensitive to the plight of the weak and the oppressed.

What the Law commanded, Proverbs and the prophets reiterated: (Prov. 31:8-9, Jer. 22:3 for example.)

(3) The condemnation found in Psalm 82 is elsewhere clearly directed against Israel and particularly its leaders, both in the Old and New Testaments: (See Ps 58:1-2, Isa 3:13-15, Ezek 34:1-6, Luke 20:46-47 for examples to support this).

(4) Finally the use of the word shaphat in the Old Testament indicates that elohim refers to Israelite rulers. I am convinced that a key to the interpretation of this psalm is a proper understanding of the Hebrew word shaphat, which occurs four times (NASB: “judges,” v. 1; “judge,” v. 2; “vindicate,” v. 3; “judge,” v. 8). Unfortunately the English translation “judge” most often falls short of the much broader nuance of the Hebrew term. In the United States, our government has three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. At least in theory these three branches are separated to guard against dictatorial rule by a minority. An American thus thinks of “judging” merely as passing judgment in legal disputes, but to the Hebrew mind shaphat would encompass all three functions of governing.

The verb, “judge,” in the Old Testament has a variety of meanings: (1) To act as a ruler, whether as a congregation (Num. 18:22-28), as an individual judge (Deut. 1:16; Judg. 16:31; 1 Sam. 7:16), or as a king (1 Sam. 8:5-6; 2 Chron. 1:10-11, “rule” NASB). Messiah will rule the earth (Ps. 72:12-15; 96:13; Isa. 11:1-5) in the future. (2) To judge in cases of controversy or litigation (Exod. 18:16). (3) To punish (Ezek. 7:3,8; 16:38; 23:24). (4) To defend the rights of men, especially the helpless and the afflicted (“deliver,” 1 Sam. 24:15, NASB; “vindicate,” Ps. 10:18, NASB; “freed,” 2 Sam. 18:19, NASB).

Perhaps the breadth of the meaning of the term shaphat is best illustrated in Psalm 72, a song of Solomon which characterizes the reign of a righteous king. (In verse 4 shaphat occurs and is rendered “vindicate.”) The righteous king rules in righteousness (v. 2). He cares for the afflicted (vv. 2,4,12-14). Under him the righteous prosper (vv. 7,16), while the wicked are crushed (v. 4). To judge righteously is to rule as the righteous king described by Solomon in Psalm 72.

God has convened His court in the midst of the congregation of Israel. In particular, His grievance is with the leaders of the nation Israel. The specifics of the indictment are outlined in verse 2.

2 How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. (NASB)

Those being rebuked in Psalm 82 are, first and foremost, Israel’s rulers, who were responsible to promote justice, to punish evildoers, and to defend the weak and the oppressed. Verse 2 indicates that Israel’s leaders had failed in their responsibilities. Injustice was promoted and the wicked were honored and treated with partiality (literally, their face was lifted, almost in the sense that a benediction was pronounced on them). The expression “how long” implies unjust judgment and partiality had been long standing. Unrighteous leadership was not the exception; it was the norm.

The mood of the Psalm suggests that God’s patience with the corrupt leadership was exhausted. Verses 2-4 contain the response of the Supreme Judge of the universe, the Righteous Ruler of the earth. Partiality and unjust judgment must come to an end. More than this, righteous rule must be restored. Verses 3 and 4 state positively what those who stand in God’s place as rulers must do.

3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. (NASB)

The weak, fatherless and afflicted must be cared for and protected from wicked men since their vulnerability made them easy prey. Evil rulers not only fail to reward those who do good, and to punish the wicked, they actually prey upon the weak and the defenseless. Through Ezekiel God condemned Israel’s leaders, her shepherds, for failing to care for the flock and also for devouring it:

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them”’” (Ezek. 34:1-4).

Likewise, the Lord sternly condemned the scribes for “devouring widow’s houses” (Luke 20:46-47).

The test of a godly leader is what he does on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. Anyone will gladly come to the aid of one who has power and prestige, who is able to return the favor. Our Lord teaches that we are tested in terms of what we do for the “least of our brethren”:

“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me’” (Matt. 25:40).

God has a particular concern for those who are powerless, poor, and without adequate human protection. Any ruler who is to reflect God in His administration must have the same concern for the oppressed and the afflicted.

5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 Nevertheless you will die like men, And fall like any one of the princes.” (NASB)

It is difficult to dogmatically determine the antecedent of the pronoun “they” in verse 5. Are “they” the wicked previously spoken of in verses 2-4, or are “they” the weak and the needy who are oppressed by the wicked? Perhaps both are in view, since those who lead often infect others with their own ailments. The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons (Exod. 20:5). In the New Testament Jesus called the wicked religious leaders “blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. 15:14), who fell into the pit, along with their followers. Thus both ungodly leaders and those who follow them lack understanding, so that they grope about as in the darkness. A similar condition is described by Hosea:

So you will stumble by day, and the prophet also will stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children (Hos. 4:5-6).

The lack of knowledge and understanding referred to in Psalm 82:5 is explained in the Book of Jeremiah:

“For My people are foolish, they know Me not; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know” (Jer. 4:22).

“Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?” declares the Lord. “But your eyes and your heart are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, and on shedding innocent blood and on practicing oppression and extortion” (Jer. 22:15b-17).

Israel’s leaders, who are brought to the judgment bar of God in Psalm 82, do not know God. Their ignorance and lack of knowledge is evidenced by their injustice and oppression of the afflicted and needy.

Since the nations were to be established on righteousness and justice (Prov. 16:12; 24:3; 25:5; 29:14), when the wicked rule the foundations are shaken (Ps. 82:5). When the Lord reigns the world is firmly settled:

The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved (Ps. 93:1).

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity (Ps. 96:10).

Verse 6 is crucial, both to this psalm and to the argument which our Lord bases upon its citation in John 10. “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.’” Earthly rulers must be reminded of the fact that they are to act in God’s place. They are to exercise power in His name. They are also to act in accord with His character and His commands. As the apostle Paul put it, an earthly ruler is “… a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4). If we do what is good we will “… have praise from the same” (Rom. 13:3). Earthly rulers are only “god-like” when they rule as God would rule.

Verse 6 also serves to remind human magistrates that they are in a position of authority because God appointed them (cf. Rom. 13:1). Often, when human rulers obtain power and prestige, they forget the source of their authority. Thus Nebuchadnezzar had to be humbled by living as a beast:

“King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:31b-32).

It is possible that the second line of verse 6 is the kind of (synonymous) poetic parallelism which merely restates the thought of the first in different words. I am inclined to think that the second line builds upon the first. While the first line addresses only the rulers, the second broadens the scope of God’s warning to include the entire community of Israel (“all of you”). Now, of course, this may mean “all of you rulers.” I am inclined to think that the condemnation of the earlier verses is being broadened to include all of the people of Israel. After all, how can men be leaders unless there be followers? Many passages place responsibility for just rulers and just rule on all of Israel, not just on its leadership.

“You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice” (Exod. 23:1-2).

“You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the word of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut. 16:18-20).

These passages teach that the responsibility for godly leadership rests upon the community. The people as a whole have an obligation to make sure that godly leaders are appointed. They must resist peer pressure and stand alone, if necessary, in upholding righteousness.

I believe that while God appoints certain men to lead, He expects all of His people to be leaders when it comes to doing what is right. God created man to rule over His creation (Gen. 1:26, 28). Even after the fall of man and the flood, man was still commanded to rule, since he remained a creation in God’s image (Gen. 9:1-7). If Israel would but obey, God promised to make His people a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6). While this did not happen in Israel’s day, it is a promise partially fulfilled in the church (1 Pet. 2:5) and will be completely fulfilled in the Kingdom which is to come (cf. Rev. 1:6; 20:6). Not only did Israel as a nation have its rulers, Israel was to rule as a nation, seeking to practice and to promote God’s righteousness on the earth. In Hosea 4:6, Israel, as a nation, is rejected by God as His priest among the nations (cf. Exod. 19:6).

The expression “sons of the Most High” is, I believe, virtually equivalent to “son of God”. This phrase, while it applies specifically to Messiah, also refers to those who rule. God established a special relationship with David when He appointed him as king of Israel. The relationship between God and David was one of a father and a son:

“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you” (2 Sam. 7:14-15).

Clearly, the father-son relationship here is between God and David and his sons (all of whom, except Christ, will sin). Sonship, ultimately, is conferred upon the Messiah, who will rule over the earth in righteousness:

I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Thy possession’ (Ps. 2:7-8).

Ultimately God will reign in the person of His Son, the Messiah. For now, He reigns through His “sons,” the “gods” who are appointed to reign in His stead. It must also be said, God is to reign in and through His people collectively. We who belong to Him are all His sons, destined to reign with Him in the future (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6), but also to actively promote righteousness now.

The kings of ancient days were frequently worshipped as “gods” (cf. Acts 12:22-23). Perhaps they viewed themselves as “gods,” too, but in a sense different from that conveyed in verse 6. Let such “heady” rulers remember they are only men and they will die like mere mortals.

Interestingly, the word “men” in verse 7 is adam in the Hebrew. He was created in the image of God and destined to rule over God’s creation. Had Adam obeyed God and carried out his calling, he would have lived forever. Due to his disobedience he failed to enjoy the high calling that was his. Let the rulers appointed by God learn from this. In spite of the dignity and power bestowed on them, they will be judged like men (and like Adam). They are, after all, mere men. In their pride this can easily be forgotten, just as we see in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:28-37) and Herod (Acts 12:18-23). Like the princes before them who failed to remember their responsibility before God, the ungodly rulers of this Psalm will fall. The word “fall” in the second line of verse 7 may, as A. R. Fausset suggests, signify “God’s judgment by a violent death.” Such warning should serve to humble those who rule arrogantly. A high calling does not necessarily result in a glorious conclusion. Let those who have such a calling carry out their task with humility and diligence.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations. (NASB)

Despite all the warnings of the first seven verses, the psalmist realizes that righteous rule will only prevail on the earth when God Himself reigns in the person of His Son, Messiah. Verse 8 concludes this psalm with a petition that the God who possesses the earth might establish righteousness fully and finally: “Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations.” This is the equivalent of what we read in the New Testament: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 7:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).

The psalmist turns from the general subject of righteous rule to the specific solution: the Righteous Ruler. Only when He comes will there be a rule that is truly righteous. Here is the messianic hope of the Old Testament saint. Even the great kings like David and Solomon fell short of God’s ideal. Messiah Himself must come before the ideal government will become a reality.

Now that we have put the Psalm itself into the perspective of the Jewish people of the time, let's look at Jesus's use of it and what it implies.

John’s purpose in writing his gospel is explicitly stated to be that of convincing his readers of the deity of Christ (20:30-31). In order to do this John recorded a series of signs (cf. 20:30) which led to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus was not only God, but also Israel’s Messiah. As the evidence mounts in this gospel, so does the opposition. While the disciples soon began to believe in Jesus (cf. 1:49; 2:11), the scribes and Pharisees quickly rejected Him, especially after the cleansing of the temple (2:14-22). Early on, the Jewish rulers sought to put Jesus to death, and each new confrontation with Him only added to their determination (5:18).

With this growing opposition there was an accompanying polarization among the people. The division became wider and wider: “The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’” (6:52) As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him any more (6:66).

And there was much grumbling among the multitudes concerning Him; some were saying, “He is a good man”; others were saying, “No, on the contrary, He leads the multitude astray.” Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews (7:12-13).

Therefore some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, “Is this not the man whom they are seeking to kill? And look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they? (7:25-26).

They were seeking therefore to seize Him; and no man laid his hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come. But many of the multitude believed in Him; and they were saying, “When the Christ shall come, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?” (7:30-31).

Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?” … So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him (7:40-41, 43).

There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, “He has a demon, and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?” Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” (10:19-21).

While some had come to believe Jesus was the promised Messiah, many had chosen to follow their leaders in rejecting Him. The feeding of the five thousand and giving sight to the man born blind failed to convince the critics of our Lord. While they attributed His miracles to demonic powers (8:48; 10:20), His teaching they considered outright blasphemy. In John 8:58 Jesus claimed to be the “I AM” of the Old Testament, and therefore the Jews attempted to stone Him (8:59). Jesus’ claims continued. In chapter nine He taught that He was the “light of the world” (v. 5). In chapter ten He said, “I and the Father are one” (v. 30).

One of the central issues involved in the conflict between our Lord and the religious leadership of the nation was who had the authority to lead. They quickly noted that Jesus was gathering disciples and baptizing them, even more than John the Baptist (John 4:1-2). Jesus claimed His authority to judge came from the Father (5:22,27,30). Jesus accused his opponents of judging “according to appearance” rather than “with righteous judgment” (7:24). He then accused the Jewish leaders of judging “according to the flesh” (8:15), while He judged according to truth (8:16,26). When the blind man was given sight, the judgment controversy again surfaced:

And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind.” Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” (9:39-40).

In John 10 our Lord boldly spoke forth, identifying Himself as the Messiah and the Good Shepherd. He also made it clear that the religious leaders who had rejected Him were the evil shepherds, like those depicted centuries earlier by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 34). God promised to come and to judge between the sheep, and to set up one shepherd over His flock:

Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, “Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, until you have scattered them abroad, therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another. Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd” (Ezek. 34:20-23).

When our Lord announced that He was the Shepherd, the good One, He identified Himself as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He also identified His opponents, the religious leaders of the nation Israel, as the shepherds who dominated and abused the flock, rather than caring for the weak and the sickly (Ezek. 34:1-4). No wonder they reacted to Jesus’ teaching so violently and wanted to stone Him (John 10:31,39).

When accused of blasphemy, Jesus based His defense on the statement quoted from Psalm 82:6: “I said, you are gods.” This was no time for clever tricks or weak arguments. When Jesus referred to this psalm, He did so, I believe, because no passage argued His case more forcefully. It is not just that one verse, but the argument of the entire psalm upon which Jesus rested His defense. Psalm 82 warned the unrighteous judges (leaders) of Israel of God’s impending judgment upon them. When Jesus appealed to this psalm He not only identified Himself as the fulfillment of verse 8, He also identified them as the fulfillment of verses 1-7. The warning of the psalm was being fulfilled in their midst. God had finally come to judge the “gods.” How much better the name God suited Jesus than the title “gods” suited the scribes and the Pharisees.

To have understood the message of Psalm 82 and our Lord’s application of it would have been to bow the knee to Him as the Son of God, the promised Messiah. To reject this message was to reject the Messiah, which, in fact, many did. No one better interpreted or applied Psalm 82 than our Lord. No one better fulfilled it than He.

As I said before with the witnesses, the relevance of Psalm 82 to the people of our Lord’s day is now obvious. The people must ascertain the person and character of the Righteous Judge. Either the religious leaders were correct (and Jesus must be put to death) or Jesus is God’s Righteous Ruler (and the Jewish leaders must be rejected). Even today, men must make the same decision. Either we bow the knee now to the Lord Jesus as our Savior, or we will bow the knee to Him as our Judge (Phil. 2:9-11). Let us do so now, so that we will not stand before Him condemned.

Ethan Skinner wrote: "Better than [KonThaak] supposes"? Am I right in saying you think his belief isn't as good as yours? Your reasoning is higher? You said it yourself. "We can't find the absolute truth of the matter."

What I am saying is that we can look at the historical evidence until the cows come home and never have absolute truth of what happened. However, we can look at the evidence and come to the most likely conclusion that the facts support. What I am saying is that the evidence supports my theory much better than KT's when put into the proper context of the historical evidence.

I am not claiming that my reasoning is higher, but I am claiming to have taken the culture of the time into account. I try my best to take into consideration the context and meaning behind words such as "You are 'gods'". We all too frequently read something like that and apply our own viewpoints to it, but it wasn't said with our values and viewpoint taken into consideration. It was stated during a specific point in time and has to be looked at with our best understanding of the views the audience would have held.

Your claim has it's roots in the tradition of the Ebonites. They likewise believed that Jesus was just a man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (I've skimmed through this fascinating topic)but has KonThaak claimed anything of the sort? Sure, he seems to insinuate that claim, but is he the one claiming it?[/quote]

What KT is claiming, that Jesus was just a man who offered a way is the error that the Ebonite faction of Christianity made. They wanted to believe that Christ was a good man and taught good things to be listened to, but they denied the Deity of Christ. They were removed from the church because of this belief. From the beginning, Christianity taught the deity of Christ.

Ethan Skinner wrote:If anyone is making a mistake (as I might be) I think you are DarKnyht. Why can't Christanity and other faiths coexist as equally true? Why is Christianity THE ultimate "truth"?

Christianity and other faiths cannot co-exist as equally true because the claims that Christ made. His claim was that He alone was the way to salvation, and to reject Him is to reject God. So when you ask someone if they belief what a Christian believes, you are asking them whether or not the claims of Christ are true. As I said before, either Jesus was right and is the only way to Salvation or He was a madman that deserved to be killed.

To better contrast the views, lets look at Hinduism and Christianity. Peter Kraft puts it better than I can, and I think illustrates why they cannot be viewed as equal truths:

1. Hinduism is pantheistic, not theistic. The doctrine that God created the world out of nothing rather than emanating it out of His own substance or merely shaping some pre-existing material is an idea that simply never occurred to anyone but the Jews and those who learned it from them. Everyone else either thought of the gods as part of the world (paganism) or the world as part of God (pantheism).

2. If God is in everything, God is in both good and evil. But then there is no absolute morality, no divine law, no divine will discriminating good and evil. In Hinduism, morality is practical; its end is to purify the soul from desires so that it can attain mystical consciousness. Again, the Jews are unique in identifying the source of morality with the object of religion. Everyone has two innate senses: the religious sense to worship, and the moral sense of conscience; but only the Jewish God is the focus of both. Only the God of the Bible is absolutely righteous.

3. Eastern religions come from private mystical experiences; Western religions come from public revelations recorded in a book and summarized in a creed. In the East, human experience validates the Scriptures; in the West, Scripture judges experience.

4. Eastern religions are esoteric, understandable only from within by the few who share the experience. Western religions are esoteric, public, democratic, open to all. In Hinduism there are many levels of truth: polytheism, sacred cows and reincarnation for the masses; monotheism (or monism) for the mystics, who declare the individual soul one with Brahman (God) and beyond reincarnation (“Brahman is the only reincarnator”). Truth is relative to the level of experience.

5. Individuality is illusion according to Eastern mysticism. Not that we're not real, but that we are not distinct from God or each other. Christianity tells you to love your neighbors; Hinduism tells you you are your neighbors. The word spoken by God Himself as His own essential name, the word “I,” is the ultimate illusion, not the ultimate reality, according to the East. There Is no separate ego. All is one.

6. Since individuality is illusion, so is free will. If free will is illusion, so is sin. And if sin is illusion, so is hell. Perhaps the strongest attraction of Eastern religions is in their denial of sin, guilt and hell.

7. Thus the two essential points of Christianity — sin and salvation — are both missing in the East. If there is no sin, no salvation is needed, only enlightenment. We need not be born again; rather, we must merely wake up to our innate divinity. If I am part of God. I can never really be alienated from God by sin.

8. Body, matter, history and time itself are not independently real, according to Hinduism. Mystical experience lifts the spirit out of time and the world. In contrast, Judaism and Christianity are essentially news, events in time: creation, providence, prophets, Messiah, incarnation, death and, resurrection, ascension, second coming. Incarnation and New Birth are eternity dramatically entering time. Eastern religions are not dramatic.

9. The ultimate Hindu ideal is not sanctity but mysticism. Sanctity is fundamentally a matter of the will: willing God's will, loving God and neighbor. Mysticism is fundamentally a matter of intellect, intuition, consciousness. This fits the Eastern picture of God as consciousness — not will, not lawgiver.

Hopefully that clears things up a little. I must admit that this is difficult for me because the topics are quickly becoming very broad and as I have said many times, it has only been a few months since I have started digging deeply into my faith. While I am finding that I have a huge appetite for it, there is only so much free time in a day.

Here's how most things get settled.

Whose book gets published first is the winner. Go.

I like your style, Kolya.

Way to trivialize a deep and fascinating discussion, guys.

DarKnyht wrote:KT, as I have said all along, you have to put all scripture into the context of the culture it came from. I will just take the first of your objections and look at it today, and will try to look at the other ones later. But to start we need to look at the Psalm that Jesus referred to in John 10:34-38. I think you will see that in proper context of the culture it came from it supports my claim much better than yours.

...How dare you. How fucking dare you. This pisses me off on so many levels...

First off, how dare you accuse me of failing to put things into proper context. All along, you've been pulling individual passages out of their original context, and I have been putting them back into context, and pointing out why your logic has been fallacious.

You have accused other Christians of pulling passages out of context, and using those passages to justify their beliefs, yet you do the same. You have said that we will never find the "absolute truth", yet you present these out-of-context passages and quotes as if they are indisputable, universal, generalized rules that all men of all places must follow--the "absolute truth" that you claim we will never have.

Finally, I have been arguing for the fact that there are other views than yours, and each is legitimate. I have not advocated a single view of Jesus--that he is God, that he is the son of God but separate from God, nor that he was just a man. I have not advocated a single idea in the history of Christianity, save for the two laws passed down from Christ, and Jesus' definition of God from John. The arguments I have presented have all been rebuttals of yours, and while the arguments advocate a certain point of view, they have been presented for the purpose of showing that the same passages in the Bible can be understood different ways by different people. That you would throw that in my face by claiming this is some kind of pissing contest to see who has the bigger Christian balls hanging between their legs, by claiming that your views are "much better" than mine, is both horrendously offensive and at the same time galling.

Because my wife is sick, I'm going to just summarize my arguments...

I'll be honest, I barely skimmed through most of your arguments, but what I saw led me to believe that the entire post was more of the same... Passages presented to convince me that you're right, when in fact, even in context, these passages do not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is, in fact, God. They state that Jesus came here to do God's work, but due to the bias and politics involved in writing them, they cannot prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they cannot be taken completely literally, due to how long after Jesus' death they were written. I don't have time to address them all directly, but skimming through it, all I really saw were more than enough quotes and annotations to give me a headache as bad as my wife's.

As I said before with the witnesses, the relevance of Psalm 82 to the people of our Lord’s day is now obvious. The people must ascertain the person and character of the Righteous Judge. Either the religious leaders were correct (and Jesus must be put to death) or Jesus is God’s Righteous Ruler (and the Jewish leaders must be rejected). Even today, men must make the same decision. Either we bow the knee now to the Lord Jesus as our Savior, or we will bow the knee to Him as our Judge (Phil. 2:9-11). Let us do so now, so that we will not stand before Him condemned.

Again, Jesus never commands us to bow to him. He does not command us to worship his name or be damned. He does not say that only Christians will be saved. He does not warn us that we must do anything but love... Love our fellow man, and have love for love itself.

You lack the empirical evidence to prove your points, because the Bible is steeped in far too much bias and politics, and was written too long after the fact, to prove anything empirically.

I choose to believe in Jesus' message, and beyond that, I don't care who or what he was... There, you got my view in, finally. I don't care whether or not Jesus was just a man. It doesn't make any difference to me, because his message was the same either way, and his message is worth following with conviction.

DarKnyht wrote:

Ethan Skinner wrote: "Better than [KonThaak] supposes"? Am I right in saying you think his belief isn't as good as yours? Your reasoning is higher? You said it yourself. "We can't find the absolute truth of the matter."

What I am saying is that we can look at the historical evidence until the cows come home and never have absolute truth of what happened. However, we can look at the evidence and come to the most likely conclusion that the facts support. What I am saying is that the evidence supports my theory much better than KT's when put into the proper context of the historical evidence.

What he's saying, Ethan, is that he's just another fundamentalist Christian who thinks he's right, because he sees things one way, and he can't stand the possibility that others might have legitimate views on the matter.

I am not claiming that my reasoning is higher, but I am claiming to have taken the culture of the time into account.

And yet, I am the one who was constantly putting his quotes into context...

I try my best to take into consideration the context and meaning behind words such as "You are 'gods'". We all too frequently read something like that and apply our own viewpoints to it, but it wasn't said with our values and viewpoint taken into consideration. It was stated during a specific point in time and has to be looked at with our best understanding of the views the audience would have held.

And yet, scholars have disagreed over points in the Bible since right after it was written, so much so that entire sections of the Bible were removed by the papacy in the Medieval periods...but yet, DK would present to us some fantasy of an "early church" which was unified, and untroubled by multitudes of factions within the organization.

Your claim has it's roots in the tradition of the Ebonites. They likewise believed that Jesus was just a man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (I've skimmed through this fascinating topic)but has KonThaak claimed anything of the sort? Sure, he seems to insinuate that claim, but is he the one claiming it?

What KT is claiming, that Jesus was just a man who offered a way is the error that the Ebonite faction of Christianity made.

I have never made that claim. Again, I will thank you for not putting words in my mouth. The closest thing I have come to advocating for the purpose of arguing is that Jesus was the son of God, and that there was a distinction between son and father.

They wanted to believe that Christ was a good man and taught good things to be listened to, but they denied the Deity of Christ. They were removed from the church because of this belief. From the beginning, Christianity taught the deity of Christ.

He admits that there was at least one splinter faction within Christianity, but because they were expelled from the church, he dismisses them as not mattering. I suppose he also dismisses the Gnostics and all other forms that the early papacy (who were driven more by politics than out of faith) deemed "heretics".

Next thing you know, he'll be condoning the cold-blooded murder of those who disagree with him, or don't study their Bibles in the right way...

Ethan Skinner wrote:If anyone is making a mistake (as I might be) I think you are DarKnyht. Why can't Christanity and other faiths coexist as equally true? Why is Christianity THE ultimate "truth"?

Christianity and other faiths cannot co-exist as equally true because the claims that Christ made. His claim was that He alone was the way to salvation, and to reject Him is to reject God.

And yet, I have disagreed with this argument from the beginning.

If you're so sure that Christianity cannot coexist with other religions, then there are entire fields of Christian Buddhists, Christian Wiccans, Christian Druids and a whole slew of others out there who need to be disillusioned... Others have found ways of making two religions coexist, and use each religion to find peace. Why do you reject this so vehemently?

So when you ask someone if they belief what a Christian believes, you are asking them whether or not the claims of Christ are true. As I said before, either Jesus was right and is the only way to Salvation or He was a madman that deserved to be killed.

Hello, Mr. Black-and-White. I am a shade of gray. Nice to meet you!

To better contrast the views, lets look at Hinduism and Christianity. Peter Kraft puts it better than I can, and I think illustrates why they cannot be viewed as equal truths:

This oughtta be good...

1. Hinduism is pantheistic, not theistic. The doctrine that God created the world out of nothing rather than emanating it out of His own substance or merely shaping some pre-existing material is an idea that simply never occurred to anyone but the Jews and those who learned it from them. Everyone else either thought of the gods as part of the world (paganism) or the world as part of God (pantheism).

The Mayans and the Egyptians were unique from everyone else in the world in that they both developed the concept of "zero" before everyone else in the world, and independently of each other. Both groups worshiped gods who looked down on them, and each god represented an aspect of life on Earth. Both groups built pyramids as temples and tombs. Shall we hold them higher than all other groups in the world for these unique traits?

2. If God is in everything, God is in both good and evil. But then there is no absolute morality, no divine law, no divine will discriminating good and evil. In Hinduism, morality is practical; its end is to purify the soul from desires so that it can attain mystical consciousness. Again, the Jews are unique in identifying the source of morality with the object of religion. Everyone has two innate senses: the religious sense to worship, and the moral sense of conscience; but only the Jewish God is the focus of both. Only the God of the Bible is absolutely righteous.

Only a poorly-read fundamentalist Christian would buy into this. Righteousness is in the eye of the beholder... Joshua from the Old Testament is held as being righteous, for following the orders of God to destroy the city of Jericho, but as I understand it, the city had done nothing against the Jews. God (supposedly) just simply decided that it must be destroyed, and Joshua was the one who was chosen to do it...or so Joshua claimed. News flash: In modern society, if a man kills another man because "God told him to do it", the killer is locked in a loony bin, not given a medal for being righteous and just.

3. Eastern religions come from private mystical experiences; Western religions come from public revelations recorded in a book and summarized in a creed. In the East, human experience validates the Scriptures; in the West, Scripture judges experience.

That's funny... I could've sworn that Hinduist dogma was recorded in vast numbers of books translated across the hundred or so different languages in India. The Hindis are so dogmatic that until recently, they had a caste system which divided the people. They have scriptures saying what must not be done, and what must be done, and what should be done.

On another note, Confucianist and Buddhist teachers who have studied the New Testament praise Jesus' wisdom, and believe him to be enlightened.

4. Eastern religions are esoteric, understandable only from within by the few who share the experience

Didn't try very hard to understand it, did ya? There is no religion in the world more simplistic than Taoism... The works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are so amazingly easy to follow that the only way you could *not* understand it is if you were reading it with your eyes closed while shouting "I'm not listening I'm not listening I'm not listening!!!"

Likewise, Buddhism isn't terribly hard to understand, either. The concept that there is a state of mind in which we can attain absolute peace and tranquility, and achieve enlightenment through peace... This state can be reached through meditation, and can be very difficult to achieve, but the concept itself is rather disgustingly easy to follow.

The principle of Shinto is that there are resident spirits in areas, called kamis (loosely translated as "gods", though more modern times usually translate the word as "angels", as most of Japan has converted to a cross between Christianity, Shinto, and Buddhism), which aid us and answer our prayers. There is very little thought of the afterlife, though there is talk of a beautiful paradise and of "an unclean place". Again, doesn't really take rocket science to figure it out.

DK, your source is a disgrace to the field of religion, but I'll go on anyway...

Western religions are esoteric, public, democratic, open to all.

I guess that's why they all say they are the "one true religion" and say that you must believe the way they do, or you'll go to Hell... Gotta love the buzz words like "democratic" thrown in there just to make it sound better.

In Hinduism there are many levels of truth: polytheism, sacred cows and reincarnation for the masses; monotheism (or monism) for the mystics, who declare the individual soul one with Brahman (God) and beyond reincarnation (“Brahman is the only reincarnator”). Truth is relative to the level of experience.

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with this? I have heard rumors that there are sects of Christian Hindus who believe that Brahman is God, by the by, but I haven't really looked into it.

5. Individuality is illusion according to Eastern mysticism. Not that we're not real, but that we are not distinct from God or each other. Christianity tells you to love your neighbors; Hinduism tells you you are your neighbors. The word spoken by God Himself as His own essential name, the word “I,” is the ultimate illusion, not the ultimate reality, according to the East. There Is no separate ego. All is one.

Quantum physics has labeled all reality as illusion. Matter as we know it does not exist, but rather, is made up of energy vibrating at a subatomic level. So we don't exist...and yet, we do.

I love how your source takes every opportunity to make the eastern philosophy sound horrible, DK... This was honestly the best guy you could find for the job? Look up Huston Smith, sometime, and stop reading biased, politically-driven BS and presenting it to us as something important...when the guy doesn't even know what he's talking about.

The eastern philosophy is not that we *are* all one, but that we *strive to be* one with the universe. We should not hate each other, because someday, we will be together. That hatred will drive us apart, and keep us from our goal of being one with all.

6. Since individuality is illusion, so is free will. If free will is illusion, so is sin. And if sin is illusion, so is hell. Perhaps the strongest attraction of Eastern religions is in their denial of sin, guilt and hell.

This makes so much sense, now... This moron is one of those hellfire-and-brimstone preachers who drove me away from the church in the first place! No wonder I'm filled with the urge to set him on fire...

At any rate, as already stated, individuality in the east is not an illusion, and neither is free will. We can act as we will, but if we act poorly, we deny ourselves a better life in our next incarnation, and may come back in a worse life. If there were a definition of Hell in Hindi, that would be it. Just because they don't call it "sin" or "Hell" doesn't mean they don't have their own versions.

7. Thus the two essential points of Christianity — sin and salvation — are both missing in the East. If there is no sin, no salvation is needed, only enlightenment. We need not be born again; rather, we must merely wake up to our innate divinity. If I am part of God. I can never really be alienated from God by sin.

This guy keeps treating all the different religions of the east as one! Is he talking about Hinduism or Buddhism, now? Who knows? Who cares?

And wait... What's he talking about "we need not be born again"? I was under the impression that most modern Christians advocate a policy of being "born again", except instead of being literally being born again as in eastern theology, they mean some form of spiritual "rebirth"...

His lack of good grammar makes it difficult to understand him, too. Don't worry, though; I found this page which made it all make sense.

8. Body, matter, history and time itself are not independently real, according to Hinduism. Mystical experience lifts the spirit out of time and the world. In contrast, Judaism and Christianity are essentially news, events in time: creation, providence, prophets, Messiah, incarnation, death and, resurrection, ascension, second coming. Incarnation and New Birth are eternity dramatically entering time. Eastern religions are not dramatic.

News? NEWS??? Since when are Christianity and Judaism considered "news"? And why does he notably leave out Islam when speaking of western theologies? For that matter, why does he treat Judaism and Christianity like they're the only valid western viewpoints to hold? I refer again to the link I just posted...

Again, this is just a bunch of BS presented to put a negative spin on all eastern religions, by lumping them all in with Hinduism.

9. The ultimate Hindu ideal is not sanctity but mysticism. Sanctity is fundamentally a matter of the will: willing God's will, loving God and neighbor. Mysticism is fundamentally a matter of intellect, intuition, consciousness. This fits the Eastern picture of God as consciousness — not will, not lawgiver.

Yes, and when Jesus remonstrated the Pharisees, it was for their adherence to the law based on letter rather than spirit. To better oneself through eastern means is to result in the same kind of person that Christianity supposedly strives towards: a man who is at peace with the divine, the world around him, and his fellow man.

Thanks for sullying the entirety of the East, though...

You continue to condemn those who are different from yourself. You continue to judge negatively your fellow man. Did not Jesus teach not to judge the splinter in your brother's eye before removing the log from your own?

KT I dare say you didn't put the quote "you are 'gods'" into the context of the scripture because you didn't. When you read it you assume that psalmist was calling mankind gods and thus Jesus was implying we were everyone is a god and Jesus is just a way. I cannot say whether it was because you are already convinced that this is the answer, or if it just you didn't understand the hebrew that it was written in.

However, the explanation I gave was taking the original hebrew in context by comparing it to where the same hebrew words were used elsewhere. Likewise, Jesus would have quoted that scripture doing the same thing. It was not a flippant answer to the crowds and pharisees, it was him calling the religious leaders out for not doing was God told them to do (take care of the poor and oppresssed). Likewise, when he quoted it, it called to them the entire passage not just three words.

If you want to get technical there is a chance that he may of even quoted the exact Hebrew. Like I showed that psalm is about the corrupt rulers who God replaces with a judge one. At that time they took it to be the Messiah, the son of man. Thus like I pointed out, it didn't imply the opposite of what he just had said ("I and the Father are one), instead it backed it up.

You know, when it comes down to it I really don't care what you believe. If you want to believe a spaceship came to the earth millions of years ago to stick prisioners here to be part of a cosmic explosion that created you I am fine with that, it is your choice. That is the free will the creator gave you. I cannot claim to have the free choice I have if you do not have the same free choice. My job is just to tell you the Good News, it is up to you what you do with it.

If you want to believe that Jesus was just "a way, a truth, and a life" that is fine as far as I am concerned. Again, that is your personal choice. If you really want to get down to it, I wasn't solid on my belief in the diety of God until six months ago. I always was told there was a trinity, but never had anyone bother to show me the evidence of the trinity. When I finally got curious enough I opened the Bible, got the hebrew and greek texts and started looking. As I looked at the passages in question and put them into the culture of the time it was written the evidence became apparent to me. The key was putting the scripture into historical context.

My only issue is that you are misrepresenting what the Christian faith is. That muddying of the information is wrong, and it is my job as a Christian to clarify where you are misrepresenting my faith. If I was Hindu and my faith was misrepresented I would do the same thing.

And yet, scholars have disagreed over points in the Bible since right after it was written, so much so that entire sections of the Bible were removed by the papacy in the Medieval periods...but yet, DK would present to us some fantasy of an "early church" which was unified, and untroubled by multitudes of factions within the organization.

I advise that you brush up on your knowledge of textual criticism. With the Dead Sea Scrolls they have a large part of the old testiment with very little variation. As for the New Testament, we have just in Greek (complete and fragmented) 5,656 copies. If you add in all other translations of the Bible, there are a total of 24,970 copies dating from 2nd century to the 15th. To compare, the Iliad only had 643 copies, the earliest of which dates in the 13th century and textual critics claim to have it more or less right.

To quote Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum and second to none in authority in talking about this issue states in The Bible and Archaeology:

"The interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earlist extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testiment many be regarded as fully established."

Dockery, Mathews, and Sloan concluded the following [Dockery, FBI, 176]:

"It must be said that the amount of time between the original conposition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature.... Although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading."

Now all of that excludes all the places that First and Second century Christians quoted the bible. Taking just their quotes, we could more or less rebuild the New Testiment. With all of that taken into consideration I find it hard to believe that the Bible was altered during Medival times.

As for the non-canocial texts, all of them were written 200-300 years after the fact. They were written by factions that held false doctrine compared to the earlier church. No serious textual critic dates them as early as the canonical texts. Those that do have to give the NT very late dates and the non-canoical texts extremely early dates to make it possible. The evidence however, doesn't support their claims.

As for Eastern religions versus Christianity and Judaism, everything I stated is fact. I wasn't belittling them, but stating clearly the differences between the two. The question was why both couldn't be truth (which is a Hindu belief by the way), and I was answering why the two cannot be the same (each has truths that are not compatible). Again if you wish to believe in an Eastern religion that is your choice as far as I am concerned. I only care when you attempt to say that they and Christianity are the same thing because they are in fact not.

I guess it is enough to say I believe I am done with this discussion. It became apparent weeks ago that you are not going to change your opinion. Simply put, we need to agree to disagree.

concrete_Angel wrote:Way to trivialize a deep and fascinating discussion, guys.

Lake Baikal is deep and fascinating.

Unless two gorillas thumping their chests at each other is deep and fascinating, I don't think this conversation is all that deep or fascinating.

It's something they should take to private messages for now. If it ever was deep and fascinating, it's not anymore.

I realized I need to clarify an earlier statement. When I say that I must correct when someone misrepresents the faith, I am referring to the foundations of the faith. If you want to argue baptism, communion, whether gays belong in church, if the pope is the head of the church, or any other non-foundational issue I say have at it. There have been differences of opinion on these issues almost since the begining. The earliest recorded was a disagreement between Paul and Peter.

But to misrepresent the foundation of a religion is wrong, no matter the religion. If it is because of a lack of knowledge, it should be corrected. If it is because a diliberate misrepresentation, it should be rebuked.

I am stopping my participation in this discussion because as I said I realize that no matter what is presented, there will be a yes but that follows. I fully intend on inveestigating KT's claims of the aramiac Jesus used, it is just that right now it is out of my expertise and I cannot find any scholar who has written the subject. I still believe that even without that one passage, there is a mass of evidence piled up the other way.

It was my intent to go and look at the other places KT said I cherry picked, but I don't think that would change anything so I will do so on my own for myself. I am sure that even with the additions that it will make no difference. Say this because the book of John which we were quoting was written with the intent of showing the devinity of Jesus. It opens with "In the beginning was the Word (logos) and the Word (logos) was with God. He was with God in the Beginning."

That is a diliberate echo of Gensis 1:1 to link God's action in behalf of the world through Jesus Christ with his first work, the creation of the world. Word or in Greek logos was a term used not just for the spoken word but the unspoken word, the word still in the mind - the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational principle that governs all things.

The Jews, however, used it to refer to the "word" of God by which he created the world and governs it. Of the law the rabbis said that it was "created before the world," that it "lay on God's bossom while God sat on the throne of glory," that it was devine, that it was God's "firstborn" through whom he "created the heaven and the earth," that it is "light" and "life" for the world and that it is "truth". This Jewish use of logos as that which comes from God to fulfill his purpose in and for the world appears to lie behind the heavily frieghtened affirmation with which John begins his Gospel. When it says "with God," the Word was different from the Father. "was God" is stating that Jesus was God in the fullest sense.

My final question to everyone is this: Why would someone that is writing a testimony open with a proclamation like this and then imply later that Jesus was just a man. To me it does not make sense and it would only serve to create a contradiction.

BTW: Kolya never heard of Lake Baikal, where is it and how deep is it?

It's over a mile deep being formed in an ancient rift valley and holds almost a quarter of the world's fresh water. It's over 25 million years old. It's home to numerous endemic plant and animal species such as the Baikal Seal. It's the deepest, oldest, and among the most unique ecosystems on the planet.

Not to mention the supernatural found on Olkhon, a large island in the lake, and the lake's depths.

DarKnyht wrote:My final question to everyone is this: Why would someone that is writing a testimony open with a proclamation like this and then imply later that Jesus was just a man. To me it does not make sense and it would only serve to create a contradiction.

The Bible is contradictory. It's first lines contain two back-to-back creation stories. They're cosmological oral myths that eventually were written down. The Gospel writers wrote for specific and particular audiences. And they didn't know Jesus. We can't take any of it strictly literally.

Follow the message. Not the words.

Don't go too deep and don't try to be too fascinating. That makes things unnecessarily complicated and leads to the longest posts that accomplish pretty much nothing.

Magdalena wrote:The Bible is contradictory. It's first lines contain two back-to-back creation stories. They're cosmological oral myths that eventually were written down. The Gospel writers wrote for specific and particular audiences. And they didn't know Jesus. We can't take any of it strictly literally.

Follow the message. Not the words.

In a handful of lines, you've said what I've been trying to say for weeks, now... May I offer you a sincere Thank you.

DK, I, too, am done with this sham of a debate... I did not enter into it to change your mind about faith, I have entered into it to remind you of what the foundation of Christianity is supposed to be: the two laws Jesus handed to us, the Golden Rule which clarifies those laws, and his definition of God as "love". I did not seek to turn you away from Christianity, I did not seek to misrepresent Christianity, and to be honest, I felt that you were being heavy-handed in your representation of your faith.

Since you got your parting shots, I leave you with two of my own...

First, it was not formally decided by the mainstream "early church" that they would proclaim Jesus as God until 381, during the First Council of Constantinople. Before then, the Arian movement, founded by the priest Arius, claimed that Jesus was separate from God. This caused more dissension in the early church than any other movement that the mainstream church labeled as "heresy"...and the early church was quick to label everything they didn't agree with as "heresy", which is important to note because there is an important difference between "heresy" and "blasphemy". Heresy is an act against the mainstream church; blasphemy is an act against God. They did not question whether the heretics were Christians (though they attack them--sometimes violently--for believing differently than themselves, or believing "wrong"). They did not accuse them of blasphemy against Christ or God. Labeling groups and movements as heretical was basically their way of maintaining their power in what was essentially a mad scramble for control over the early church.

And secondly... Jesus says that when an individual says he is teaching us of God, we can tell for ourselves whether that man is truly from God or whether he is teaching for his own sake. You have established that your "early church" comprises the earliest Christian writers who fell into a specific mainstream viewpoint, and you dismiss all other viewpoints from those days, such as the Gnostics or Ebonites to continue using the splinter groups already mentioned, as being "not Christian enough". You have further established that the views represented by this "early church" are, for all intents and purposes, infallible, because, for all intents and purposes, they lived closer to Jesus' time, and they had a lot of "evidence" to support their claims and arguments.

So, let's see if they hold up to Jesus' challenge...

The early church was known for excommunicating anyone they didn't like, expelling them from the church. In some cases, historians agree that activists within the mainstream church generated quite a bit of false propaganda against those that didn't agree with them. The proto-orthodox church (as the historians seem to call them) are also believed to have resorted to murder and violence against those who opposed them and their viewpoints. They made credos and declarations after declaring other groups heretics, in response to "heretical" viewpoints, with the sole intention of driving mainstreamers against the heresies they had just banned.

The early papacy declared itself divine by right of its relationship with Jesus several centuries before they declared Jesus as being God. This divinity within the papacy is something that Jesus neither approved nor condoned.

The proto-orthodox movement ultimately self-destructed at the bloodbath at Alexandria, which displays evidence of hidden persecutions within the church, and a great deal of violent tendencies that they managed to hide from the outside world.

Jesus leaves us with two laws, the Golden Rule to clarify those laws, and a definition of God to clarify one of those laws.

First, did they love their neighbor? I don't believe they displayed any evidence of having compassion for their fellow man. I fail to see that they were capable of loving anything other than the power they reaped from brainwashing their followers with promises of a beautiful afterlife if they'd just blindly follow along...

Secondly, did they love God? Keeping in mind that Jesus defined that "God is love", I'm going to say that no, they did not. There was no evidence of compassion towards their enemies, and so there is no evidence that they embraced the ideal of love in any way, shape or form.

Even moving beyond the two laws of Jesus... Did they embrace the spirit of the law, or enforce the letter of the law? By far, they held the letter of the law as being *far* more important than the spirit in which the law was made. The Pharisees had been ousted from power, the Scribes cast down with them, and that paved the way for a new religious ruling class: the Christian priests and bishops, as were put into practice in roughly 140 AD. By the judicious nature in which they persecuted their fellow Christians, dictating who was Christian enough and who was not, they failed to embrace the spirit of Christ's teachings, and thus, failed to truly capture the essence of Christ himself.

DK, if you want your views of Jesus to be promoted by a litigious, hateful, biased, power-hungry cult, then fine. Myself, I don't believe they had the right to utter the name of Jesus, let alone teach about him. I hold as highly suspect any arguments they produce, and I do not believe that the "fundamentals" that they dictate are the true fundamentals of what Christ held as important.

You can, of course, feel free to disagree, but as you have said, I am done arguing. I didn't get into this debate to have a spiritual pissing contest, but since you dragged me down into it, this is my final word on the matter.

Magdalena wrote:Unless two gorillas thumping their chests at each other is deep and fascinating, I don't think this conversation is all that deep or fascinating.

It's something they should take to private messages for now. If it ever was deep and fascinating, it's not anymore.

Kind of the reason why there's a philosophy section in the first place. This stuff isn't relevant to our work, so it's not in the important areas. It's here. Don't like it? Stop reading it, and focus on the job at hand. Case closed.

concrete_Angel wrote: Don't like it? Stop reading it

If I don't like something I'm going to tell you I don't.

After that maybe I'll stop reading it.

Well, go on. I'm not holding a gun to your head shutting you up. Try saying how you REALLY feel, why don't you?

Already did.

Easy, Angel... Let her be. She has as much of a right to speak her mind as we do, and I'll be honest, it got pretty nasty there at the end... She's not totally wrong in her assessment of the debate.

Seeing as the last "debate" ended up getting erased from all mortal memory around here, I have a right to encourage anything that doesn't start an all-out fistfight. And you guys were doing so well, too. I guess it was nice while it lasted.

The last "debate" was rightly erased. It was nothing but a flame war, and I already apologized for my part in it. I imagine if we had been there in person rather than having the Internet between us, it would've been a fistfight. Besides, it was supposed to be a discussion about politics, and due to comments made by the other party, both parties quickly made it personal, and that never bodes well for anything.

In this debate, I got tired of veiled insults I perceived all through my opponent's messages...even if he didn't intend for them to be there. It wasn't the insults themselves that bothered me--it was the fact that I was arguing that there are multiple legitimate and acceptable views regarding religion, and my opponent made claims about my beliefs as a result of my arguments.

I just wanna say right here and now that I never once mentioned my own personal beliefs. I never promoted them. I never presented them as the only true way. My opponent, however, sought to attack and debase my views, even though I never actually presented them, and in so doing misrepresented me and my beliefs...and even that wasn't what upset me. The only thing that upset me was that I was trying to debate Christianity as an abstract, and my opponent sought only to make it personal when he couldn't debate against my arguments. That's what got to me, and why I lost my temper there at the end.

It looks like I am again looking to apologize for losing my temper...

(And I'm still rather hot over his misrepresentation of Hinduism and eastern philosophies... I mean, seriously... If you're going to say Christianity is better than Hinduism, at least pick something besides sin and Hell as a reason for why Christianity is better... For example, target Hinduism's caste system, and compare it to Christ's lessons of compassion and inclusiveness. I don't mean to say that Christianity is better, but fercryinoutloud, the guy who wrote that BS was an absolute moron... And then he went and said that it's only right to defend your religion when it's being misrepresented...but apparently, it's okay to misrepresent other religions, so long as--okay, I'll stop, now.)

concrete_Angel wrote:Seeing as the last "debate" ended up getting erased from all mortal memory around here, I have a right to encourage anything that doesn't start an all-out fistfight. And you guys were doing so well, too. I guess it was nice while it lasted.

Funny. I was trying to prevent a fist-fight, too.

Instead you almost started one.

I knew I liked your style.