The sin of gluttony

[DriftingSand]

Your inability to comprehend that worshiping a false trinity that became a human being is a violation of the first commandment is evidence that the law remains in effect and is in full force and death is still the consequence for breaking the Law.

Since you clearly don't have the ability to even describe the triune nature of God you really have no room to argue against it.

H2O is water but it can present itself as steam (gas), liquid (water), or solid (ice). All three are H2O but presented in different natures depending on the circumstances.

A white light can enter a prism but exits the prism in the three, primary colors (as well as combinations of those three, primary colors). One light ... three colors.

God is incorporeal, spirit, and has no physical shape or material form and nothing exists in the material universe comparable to God. That is the reason for the prohibition against making idols or any other material representation of God because the result is always false.

God, as defined in scripture, cannot become a human being anymore than a human being could ever become God.


Your inability to comprehend that worshiping a false trinity that became a human being is a violation of the first commandment is evidence that the law remains in effect and is in full force and death is still the consequence for breaking the Law.

thanks for proving my point.

1) The Bible says that man is created in the "image" of God.
2) The Bible says that no man has seen "the face of God."
3) Jesus (the Man) is the shell in which Christ (God) dwelt. Jesus (the flesh Man) was born at a specific time but Christ (God) is eternal.
4) God (the Father) "sits" on a throne.

So the Bible hints that God has a form. He is Spirit and He is omnipresent but He also has some form.

 

[MikeK]

Question: "Is gluttony a sin? What does the Bible say about overeating?"

Answer: Gluttony seems to be a sin that Christians like to ignore. We are often quick to label smoking and drinking as sins, but for some reason gluttony is accepted or at least tolerated. Many of the arguments used against smoking and drinking, such as health and addiction, apply equally to overeating. Many believers would not even consider having a glass of wine or smoking a cigarette but have no qualms about gorging themselves at the dinner table. This should not be!

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.” Proverbs 28:7 declares, “He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.” Proverbs 23:2 proclaims, “Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”

Read more: Is gluttony a sin? What does the Bible say about overeating?

Interestingly, people who call themselves Christians have all kinds of fits about people committing sins, all kinds of sins including drinking and smoking. Ironically, gluttony is also a sin, but Christian folks seem to ignore that sin: they are as over weight as anyone else and show no indication that they are sinning. Why is that? A sin is a sin isn't it?

While often referred to as a "sin," the condition of gluttony is a form of psychopathology personified by the character, Scrooge, in Dickens' classic, Christmas Carol. And while this condition is presently thought of in terms of eating too much it most accurately refers to the hoarding orientation.

The hoarding pathology has become so common here in the U.S. there actually is a television show (Hoarders) devoted to it. But apart from thinking of the hoarding syndrome most typically as an eating disorder the capitalistic nature of American culture has come to admire and to encourage gorging oneself with money. Simply stated, where the accumulation of wealth is concerned the concept of having enough does not exist. As decreed by Gordon Gecko in the movie, Wall Street, "Greed is good!"

The kind of greed that motivates accumulation of excessive wealth is in fact driven by the same hoarding pathology that causes some to gorge themselves with food and others to compulsively retain everything they acquire in their daily experience, including garbage items. They literally pack their homes from floor to ceiling with every material thing they can acquire.

The fact is greed is not good. It is a sickness.

 

[Iceweasel]

Churches create dogma. It weighs them down and separates them. God cares about your heart, not your hat.

Can you imagine an animal sacrifice prior to walking into the sanctuary?
A fine Kosher meal after the service? It is not that we are picking and choosing sins.
It is that different rules and regulations apply to different people.
Peter and Paul had the same issue of discerning what was Germain to this group and what pertained to the other. Paul did not school the Gentiles in Jewish tradition, or put them under the Law for a reason. They weren't Jews. Peter appealed to those that were already under the Law.

Yes, Paul brought the message to the Gentiles. Jesus couldn't be bothered. Or interested in writing anything down. The spin for those problems lack credulity.
Yep, stone throwing is out. But the point was the picking and choosing of what needs forgiving and what doesn't. And it varies over time and culture. It's a fact, you can accept or deny it but it won't change anything.

I never believed the sin is sin thing and don't know where it comes from. So raping and murdering a child is as sinful as drinking to excess? I don't think so.
Why are you bleating this story? I am well aware of the theology.

That simply does not apply to those covered in the blood of Christ. Christ's blood is not temporary, but eternal. He paid for our sins. The punishment was death. So He died. Jesus is the sacrifice we put our hands on. Because He died, we live.
An exchange took place. Because we transferred our sins onto His head, now there is nothing to condemn us for. He wore our sins, we wear His righteousness. Period. It is finished.

Compared to mercy and forgiveness, the Law is useless. It kills. Don't place yourself under it. It takes your eyes off of Christ and on to yourself, and that frustrates our Father, because the Law is not perfect, but His Son is.

Do good for Christ's sake. He whittled the whole thing down to 1 rule, if one is anxious about their own righteousness:



Start and end with that Law....... Your fork will become a non issue.

I'm not anxious, don't believe in righteousness and don't need to be saved from a bronze age belief system and the fictitious threats. Thankyouverymuch.

If you aren't anxious, then you weren't the one being addressed.

Yes, Paul addressed the Gentiles. Because Christ was busy dying for our sins, coming back from the grave to prove immortality, and interceding on our behalf. How rude.

The fact that you think you don't need saved doesn't negate the fact that you do. All it means is you have passed on the gift of salvation, and have decided to plead your case at the White Throne Judgement. I hope for the best for you when your case is called.

Rude? No. Just wildly inconsistent. But it is just a story cobbled together from numerous sources. You have passed on the gift of reason and rationality, no need to feel sorry for me.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Nothing you said is correct. All the books in the Bible were written by 150 AD and most likely before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

If you are correct, then what do we tell Israel to do with those pesky stone tablets that Ezekiel carved and was buried with. How did all of the numerous sources pen an exact copy of those tablets before they were unearthed?

If numerous sources wrote the book, then you can too, using the same heptadic and gemetria structure that God used by way of Matthew. How did numerous sources independent of one another, maintain the structure when bringing all of their works together? Before 150AD, before the structure was discovered?

Once you have mastered the art God used to write through Matthew. And John, and James, and Peter.......... then explain how numerous sources knew what the other numerous sources were writing.

How could they have known that specific words - whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament - were not going to be used by numerous other writers? The Gospel of Matthew includes words that he said were used no where else in the Bible. To make that claim, Matthew had to have all of the books in front of him. And Matthew must have been written last.

EXCEPT
It just so happens, that the Gospel of Mark exhibits the same phenomenon. The same is found in Luke. And in John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul...........
Each would have had to write after the other in order to contrive the vocabulary.

Only one author would know what words He had already used. God wrote the Bible.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nothing you said is correct. All the books in the Bible were written by 150 AD and most likely before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Prior of 70 AD is unlikely. It surely would have been mentioned given the significance and Christianities' ties to Judaism.

If you are correct, then what do we tell Israel to do with those pesky stone tablets that Ezekiel carved and was buried with. How did all of the numerous sources pen an exact copy of those tablets before they were unearthed?

Do you have a link for that one? They used papyrus then parchment.

If numerous sources wrote the book, then you can too, using the same heptadic and gemetria structure that God used by way of Matthew. How did numerous sources independent of one another, maintain the structure when bringing all of their works together? Before 150AD, before the structure was discovered?

They did it the old fashioned way. They copied some stories in their own words. Or at least someone did, we don't know authorship for certain. Luke is a first hand account and likely the author but none of the stories line up exactly right. Yes, I know there are eyewitness differences but it's supposed to be by the hand of God and all. If Jesus had bothered to write stuff down there would be no discrepancies, or need for any other books for that matter.

Further, errors translated from the less than perfect Septuagint found their way into the NT.

The Hellenization of the Hebrew culture is what brought Christianity into being. Most Jews couldn't even speak Hebrew by then.

Once you have mastered the art God used to write through Matthew. And John, and James, and Peter.......... then explain how numerous sources knew what the other numerous sources were writing.

How could they have known that specific words - whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament - were not going to be used by numerous other writers? The Gospel of Matthew includes words that he said were used no where else in the Bible! To make that claim, Matthew had to have all of the books in front of him. And Matthew must have been written last.

The letters were copied and traveled around, that's how they knew of other works. There's no evidence everything was written at the same time, quite the opposite in fact. Plus, why did none of the gospel writers, who supposedly traveled with Jesus, get the message that it was for gentiles as well. Jesus didn't make that clear? Saul/Paul had to come along and straighten them out?

EXCEPT
It just so happens, that the Gospel of Mark exhibits the same phenomenon. The same is found in Luke. And in John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul...........
Each would have had to write after the other in order to contrive the vocabulary.

Only one author would know what words He had already used. God wrote the Bible.

God was forgetful in places then and borrowed stuff from a Greek translation of the OT. More important to me is that neither Josephus or Philo bothered accounting for any of it. Both were contemporaries, Josephus more the historian, documenting minutia of all sorts, but didn't bother with nightfall during the day, the temple curtains being ripped apart or all the dead neighbors coming back to life and walking around.

Philo knew some of the characters and even lent Herod (I forget which) some money at one point. He had been writing Greek thought and applying it to Judaism (sound familiar). Surely he would have taken an interest. I know it's hard to accept, been there done that.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Wease, I think you have that backwards. If the books were written after 70 AD, the destruction of the Temple would have been mentioned. They were written before that happened.

God should have told Moses about papyrus. If he had thrown papyrus down he could have just picked it back up.

Luke is one of the accounts that is not first hand. He became a disciple after Christ's death. Much of what he wrote came from Christ's mother.

You'll have an opportunity to enlighten Jesus on His error. He may have just been too tired after all the healing and curing, feeding, and those speaking engagements to write it all down. Luckily for us, the people He entrusted to write it down for Him, were well qualified. Book keepers and all. If He had written it down it would have been destroyed in the 100 year attempt to wipe out Christianity, after Christ died. They burned everything Christian they could find, including the people who wrote about it. Would you have corroborated any of it if you were Josephus? I wouldn't. Even Peter didn't want to admit knowing Jesus out of fear before he received the Spirit. I wouldn't want to be hung on one of the crosses that stretched as far as the eye could see with followers of Christ hanging from them. Especially if I wasn't a Christian. Josephus was Jewish. Another reason not to record what the Jews were being blamed for.
The best evidence we have comes from the most unlikely source. A Jewish Temple source that was written after the Temple burned to the ground, by an eye witness to the accounts given under oath at the Temple regarding Christ's return.

And Yes, Paul did have to set them straight.

There is no old fashion way. We have enough of the originals and the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove no one wrote it over in their own words. If numerous writers wrote, then they each also had to sneak and find the dead Sea Scrolls, change them and hide them again. How many writers do you think out of the numerous, were able to find them and the matching ancient ink and the same papyrus, change them, and rebury them for our generation? 1? 7? All of the numerous?
The DSS's crushed the myth of numerous writers and various time frames. So does the heptadic system, and the gemerian system. It can't be copied by one man let alone numerous ones.
And so does knowing what vocabulary is or isn't going to be used by the others.
^
In order to add that little twist, numerous writer's would have had to stay alive long enough to be the last writer. All of the numerous would have to be last in order to know what words hadn't been used by any one else.

Philosophers pondered the meaning of the sun losing it's light from noon till 3pm. while Christ hung on the cross. That they could do without including the dreaded Christianity in their theories.
A fact, by the way, that was predicted and recorded by a Prophet of God long before it happened. Which of the numerous writers were also predictors of the future? Especially something as bizarre as the sun not shinning for 3 hours starting at mid day.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wease, I think you have that backwards. If the books were written after 70 AD, the destruction of the Temple would have been mentioned. They were written before that happened.

God should have told Moses about papyrus. If he had thrown papyrus down he could have just picked it back up.

Luke is one of the accounts that is not first hand. He became a disciple

You'll have an opportunity to enlighten Jesus on His error. He may have just been too tired after all the healing and curing, feeding, and those speaking engagements to write it all down. Luckily for us, the people He entrusted to write it down for Him, were well qualified. Book keepers and all. If He had written it down it would have been destroyed in the 100 year attempt to wipe out Christianity, after Christ died. They burned everything Christian they could find, including the people who wrote about it. Would you have corroborated any of it if you were Josephus? I wouldn't. Even Peter didn't want to admit knowing Jesus out of fear before he received the Spirit. I wouldn't want to be hung on one of the crosses that stretched as far as the eye could see with followers of Christ hanging from them. Especially if I wasn't a Christian. Josephus was Jewish. Another reason not to record what the Jews were being blamed for.
The best evidence we have comes from the most unlikely source. A Jewish Temple source that was written after the Temple burned to the ground, by an eye witness to the accounts given under oath at the Temple regarding Christ's return.

And Yes, Paul did have to set them straight.

There is no old fashion way. We have enough of the originals and the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove no one wrote it over in their own words. If numerous writers wrote, then they each also had to sneak and find the dead Sea Scrolls, change them and hide them again. How many writers do you think out of the numerous, were able to find them and the matching ancient ink and the same papyrus, change them, and rebury them for our generation? 1? 7? All of the numerous?
The DSS's crushed the myth of numerous writers and various time frames. So does the heptadic system, and the gemerian system. It can't be copied by one man let alone numerous ones.
And so does knowing what vocabulary is or isn't going to be used by the others.
^
In order to add that little twist, numerous writer's would have had to stay alive long enough to be the last writer. All of the numerous would have to be last in order to know what words hadn't been used by any one else.

Philosophers pondered the meaning of the sun losing it's light from noon till 3pm. while Christ hung on the cross. That they could do without including the dreaded Christianity in their theories.
A fact, by the way, that was predicted and recorded by a Prophet of God long before it happened. Which of the numerous writers were also predictors of the future? Especially something as bizarre as the sun not shinning for 3 hours starting at mid day.

I had asked about the stone tablets you referred to from Ezekiel, not Moses. No one puts all the books' timeline before 70AD. I do believe most were but the point was there was about a generation for works to be in circulation. I never heard of Mary being behind most of Luke's account. Where do you get that?

Your argument that Jesus was too tired to write down the most important message in man's history or that it would have been destroyed lacks credulity as I mentioned before. It makes no sense. The rest of the books, including those not included in the canon, were preserved but Jesus' wouldn't have been? How does that work.

What Jewish eyewitness after the Temple's destruction are you talking about? You continuously make wild ass claims to support your beliefs and ignore what you want.

Paul taught what Jesus couldn't be bothered with about the message being for all of man, even though Jesus lived and traveled with the group Paul needed to "straighten out" first? That isn't believable by any stretch. Your beliefs are designed to support your beliefs and ignore rationale.

What New Testament books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? You don't know what you're talking about. They do prove that the Jews were fastidious about copying prior works, something NT scribes weren't encumbered with. I do believe if there was a Jesus character he was likely an Essene rabbi though. That would make sense to me and the story, as was typical of the day, was embellished as it went along.

Dismissing the lack of any mention of a solar eclipse by claiming it was predicted somewhere in the OT isn't an answer, just another evasion.
The more you learn the more faith you will need to hold onto your beliefs.

 

[hobelim]

I do believe if there was a Jesus character he was likely an Essene rabbi though. That would make sense to me and the story, as was typical of the day, was embellished as it went along.

If jesus was a rabbi they would not have asked, "how can an untrained man have such learning."


The only mention of what Jesus was doing between the ages of 12 and 30 is summed up by the passage, 'he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.'

The wilderness is code for uncivilized non Jewish areas and the wild beasts is code for the Romans.

Jesus was running around with the romans presumably doing what romans do in roman areas..

Jesus was not some solitary aesthetic in the desert. He was partying with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters sticking it to the man.. It was all over town...thats why when he claimed to be the messiah he seemed like a nutjob to trained rabbis who said, 'we know this man is a sinner."

 

[Iceweasel]

I do believe if there was a Jesus character he was likely an Essene rabbi though. That would make sense to me and the story, as was typical of the day, was embellished as it went along.

If jesus was a rabbi they would not have asked, "how can an untrained man have such learning."

The only mention of what Jesus was doing between the ages of 12 and 30 is summed up by the passage, 'he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.'

The wilderness is code for uncivilized non Jewish areas and the wild beasts is code for the Romans.

Jesus was running around with the romans presumably doing what romans do in roman areas..

Jesus was not some solitary aesthetic in the desert. He was partying with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters sticking it to the man.. It was all over town...thats why when he claimed to be the messiah he seemed like a nutjob to trained rabbis who said, 'we know this man is a sinner."

The Essenes were not part of the orthodoxy and would have likely not been trained to think/teach like them. I don't know how much is true, there no evidence to support anything supernatural, but using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning.

 

[hobelim]

I do believe if there was a Jesus character he was likely an Essene rabbi though. That would make sense to me and the story, as was typical of the day, was embellished as it went along.

If jesus was a rabbi they would not have asked, "how can an untrained man have such learning."

The only mention of what Jesus was doing between the ages of 12 and 30 is summed up by the passage, 'he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.'

The wilderness is code for uncivilized non Jewish areas and the wild beasts is code for the Romans.

Jesus was running around with the romans presumably doing what romans do in roman areas..

Jesus was not some solitary aesthetic in the desert. He was partying with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters sticking it to the man.. It was all over town...thats why when he claimed to be the messiah he seemed like a nutjob to trained rabbis who said, 'we know this man is a sinner."

The Essenes were not part of the orthodoxy and would have likely not been trained to think/teach like them. I don't know how much is true, there no evidence to support anything supernatural, but using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning.

Maybe so, but not using the bible to understand the stories written would be silly.

If Jesus was living as I pointed out that scripture suggests then when Jesus started teaching the righteous understanding and application of law it would have seemed like he rose from the dead, literally, since living in sin was death.

There is a way to understand each and every miracle of Jesus that does not require a belief in the supernatural that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality.

 

[Iceweasel]

If jesus was a rabbi they would not have asked, "how can an untrained man have such learning."

The only mention of what Jesus was doing between the ages of 12 and 30 is summed up by the passage, 'he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.'

The wilderness is code for uncivilized non Jewish areas and the wild beasts is code for the Romans.

Jesus was running around with the romans presumably doing what romans do in roman areas..

Jesus was not some solitary aesthetic in the desert. He was partying with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters sticking it to the man.. It was all over town...thats why when he claimed to be the messiah he seemed like a nutjob to trained rabbis who said, 'we know this man is a sinner."

The Essenes were not part of the orthodoxy and would have likely not been trained to think/teach like them. I don't know how much is true, there no evidence to support anything supernatural, but using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning.

Maybe so, but not using the bible to understand the stories written would be silly.

If Jesus was living as I pointed out that scripture suggests then when Jesus started teaching the righteous understanding and application of law it would have seemed like he rose from the dead, literally, since living in sin was death.

There is a way to understand each and every miracle of Jesus that does not require a belief in the supernatural that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality.

No one said not to read or understand the stories. All you know is what was accepted into the canonized version by vote. Which miracle doesn't require a belief in the supernatural? I do believe in the supernatural but don't try to shape it to conform to preconceived beliefs.

 

[GISMYS]

The Essenes were not part of the orthodoxy and would have likely not been trained to think/teach like them. I don't know how much is true, there no evidence to support anything supernatural, but using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning.

Maybe so, but not using the bible to understand the stories written would be silly.

If Jesus was living as I pointed out that scripture suggests then when Jesus started teaching the righteous understanding and application of law it would have seemed like he rose from the dead, literally, since living in sin was death.

There is a way to understand each and every miracle of Jesus that does not require a belief in the supernatural that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality.

No one said not to read or understand the stories. All you know is what was accepted into the canonized version by vote. Which miracle doesn't require a belief in the supernatural? I do believe in the supernatural but don't try to shape it to conform to preconceived beliefs.

So you think the Roman soilders did not make sure JESUS was dead? They put a spear into his chest=JESUS's body was really dead but not his spirit. JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD three days later and it is reported over 500 people saw Him very much alive.

 

[hobelim]

The Essenes were not part of the orthodoxy and would have likely not been trained to think/teach like them. I don't know how much is true, there no evidence to support anything supernatural, but using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning.

Maybe so, but not using the bible to understand the stories written would be silly.

If Jesus was living as I pointed out that scripture suggests then when Jesus started teaching the righteous understanding and application of law it would have seemed like he rose from the dead, literally, since living in sin was death.

There is a way to understand each and every miracle of Jesus that does not require a belief in the supernatural that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality.

No one said not to read or understand the stories. All you know is what was accepted into the canonized version by vote. Which miracle doesn't require a belief in the supernatural? I do believe in the supernatural but don't try to shape it to conform to preconceived beliefs.

in the gospel of John there are exactly seven miracles. In the revelation of John there are exactly seven seals placed on scripture which prevents everyone from 'looking inside', comprehending..

Every single miracle can be interpreted in a way that does not require a suspension of disbelief that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality, the only constant and reliable constraint on any possible interpretation of stories and miracles that supposedly happened on earth..


Changing water into wine in John 2:1-11
Healing the royal official's son in Capernaum in John 4:46-54
Healing the paralytic at Bethesda in John 5:1-18
Feeding the 5000 in John 6:5-14
Jesus' walk on water in John 6:16-24
Healing the man born blind in John 9:1-7
Raising of Lazarus in John 11:1-45


If you look and look and keep on looking you will find it and the seals placed on scripture like a cipher will be broken and you will look and see what has been hidden inside and everything will be opened to you..

"The kingdom of Heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again."

can you dig it?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Wease, I think you have that backwards. If the books were written after 70 AD, the destruction of the Temple would have been mentioned. They were written before that happened.

God should have told Moses about papyrus. If he had thrown papyrus down he could have just picked it back up.

Luke is one of the accounts that is not first hand. He became a disciple

You'll have an opportunity to enlighten Jesus on His error. He may have just been too tired after all the healing and curing, feeding, and those speaking engagements to write it all down. Luckily for us, the people He entrusted to write it down for Him, were well qualified. Book keepers and all. If He had written it down it would have been destroyed in the 100 year attempt to wipe out Christianity, after Christ died. They burned everything Christian they could find, including the people who wrote about it. Would you have corroborated any of it if you were Josephus? I wouldn't. Even Peter didn't want to admit knowing Jesus out of fear before he received the Spirit. I wouldn't want to be hung on one of the crosses that stretched as far as the eye could see with followers of Christ hanging from them. Especially if I wasn't a Christian. Josephus was Jewish. Another reason not to record what the Jews were being blamed for.
The best evidence we have comes from the most unlikely source. A Jewish Temple source that was written after the Temple burned to the ground, by an eye witness to the accounts given under oath at the Temple regarding Christ's return.

And Yes, Paul did have to set them straight.

There is no old fashion way. We have enough of the originals and the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove no one wrote it over in their own words. If numerous writers wrote, then they each also had to sneak and find the dead Sea Scrolls, change them and hide them again. How many writers do you think out of the numerous, were able to find them and the matching ancient ink and the same papyrus, change them, and rebury them for our generation? 1? 7? All of the numerous?
The DSS's crushed the myth of numerous writers and various time frames. So does the heptadic system, and the gemerian system. It can't be copied by one man let alone numerous ones.
And so does knowing what vocabulary is or isn't going to be used by the others.
^
In order to add that little twist, numerous writer's would have had to stay alive long enough to be the last writer. All of the numerous would have to be last in order to know what words hadn't been used by any one else.

Philosophers pondered the meaning of the sun losing it's light from noon till 3pm. while Christ hung on the cross. That they could do without including the dreaded Christianity in their theories.
A fact, by the way, that was predicted and recorded by a Prophet of God long before it happened. Which of the numerous writers were also predictors of the future? Especially something as bizarre as the sun not shinning for 3 hours starting at mid day.

I had asked about the stone tablets you referred to from Ezekiel, not Moses. No one puts all the books' timeline before 70AD. I do believe most were but the point was there was about a generation for works to be in circulation. I never heard of Mary being behind most of Luke's account. Where do you get that?

Your argument that Jesus was too tired to write down the most important message in man's history or that it would have been destroyed lacks credulity as I mentioned before. It makes no sense. The rest of the books, including those not included in the canon, were preserved but Jesus' wouldn't have been? How does that work.

What Jewish eyewitness after the Temple's destruction are you talking about? You continuously make wild ass claims to support your beliefs and ignore what you want.

Paul taught what Jesus couldn't be bothered with about the message being for all of man, even though Jesus lived and traveled with the group Paul needed to "straighten out" first? That isn't believable by any stretch. Your beliefs are designed to support your beliefs and ignore rationale.

What New Testament books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? You don't know what you're talking about. They do prove that the Jews were fastidious about copying prior works, something NT scribes weren't encumbered with. I do believe if there was a Jesus character he was likely an Essene rabbi though. That would make sense to me and the story, as was typical of the day, was embellished as it went along.

Dismissing the lack of any mention of a solar eclipse by claiming it was predicted somewhere in the OT isn't an answer, just another evasion.
The more you learn the more faith you will need to hold onto your beliefs.

Which is why my beliefs are written in stone so to speak. My beliefs confident.

Ezekiel's stone tablets, 66 in all, belong to the Institute of Jerusalem. I referred to Moses because he also used stone. Papyrus and parchment are one of several mediums used by ancients. They also used wood planks. They also used wax and acid to etch into stone and wood.

Had the books in the Bible been written after 70 AD, the destruction of the Temple would certainly have been mentioned. None of the mostly Jewish writers refer to the destruction. And it was a big deal, worthy of writing about. Keep in mind that all of the disciples but John were killed between 30 and 75 years after Christ, so if they had something to say, they said it before and not after they died.

My response about Jesus being too tired was tongue in cheek. Had Christ Himself had no confidence in the ones He chose to write down and carry on His message, He would have done it himself. But there was no need. The Holy Spirit was in charge of their pens.

Christ was Jewish. His followers were Jewish. These disciples were being trained in a religion that was completely foreign to them. They only had Jesus for 3 years. It's no stretch to understand that there would be points of contention, especially when two different religious groups were being tended to. Peter and Paul came to agreement quickly, when led by the Spirit.

You are absolutely correct about Jews being fastidious in their writing. Peter was a Jew. Paul, James, Mark, Matthew, all fastidious Jewish writers. Scribes, Jew or Gentile had a litany of rules to follow when copying text. They were very adept at their work, or they didn't work.

"If there was a Jesus character" tells me your research is nil. Not just the Jewish accounts, but Thallos, Josephus, Tacitus, Tranquillus, Pliny the Younger, all refer to Him. That your imagination has turned your Jesus character into an Essene, is well............ all in your mind. I am afraid the same goes for your understanding of the DSS.

There weren't just a few scrolls, they found a full library of ancient writings. And as you made the point, the writings were so fastidious, not one word was changed. As for New Testament references, meet Jesus via the DSS:

"Shoot of Jesse" (King David's father) the "Branch of David," he was "pierced" and "wounded."
The same scroll says that the Messiah was a "leader of the community" who was "put to death." And they called Him "the scepter".
And then of course there is the "Son of God" scroll which is the same as Luke 1: 32-35.
and then there are nine fragments that mirror the writings of the disciples:

"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself. . ."
"And he saw them toiling in rowing; . . ."
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar. . .
"And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship. . .
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. . ."
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. . ."
"For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer. . ."

You can also find those passages in Mark, Acts, Romans, James. No embellishment found.

Lastly, study to show your self approved. When is the last time you saw a 3 hour eclipse? Astronomical calculations also rule out a solar eclipse for the 30 & 33 AD. Modern technology refutes eclipse.
But if you want to go with that explanation for the darkness, riddle me this:

The Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of Christ was on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?

And as for my wild ass claim about the Jewish account, It's been posted here. I'll go find it because I don't want to have to retype it.

Sorry about the length of this post Weas, but you asked....

 

[The Irish Ram]

I found it. Nicodemus was the creme de la creme of the Pharisees. The only person the Jews set above him was the High Priest. He didn't understand the things Jesus said, so he would sneak out of the Temple at night to question Christ. He ended up a believer. Here's what he and some others wrote down pertaining to the event of Christ's return.
Here is my earlier post:

When Christ died, He didn't ascend, He descended.

Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Christ was never buried in the earth, and He wasn't sleeping but conscious and proclaiming to those also in the heart of the earth, who He was.
Remember Christ telling the thief that he would be in Paradise? When Christ died He went to Abraham's bosom, also called Paradise, where the souls of those who followed God waited for Christ to break through the barrier of death. Abraham's bosom has also been translated as Abraham's side, because on the other side, separated by a deep chasm, were those souls that had relied on their sun god, or themselves, and did not believe or heed the prophets God had sent them.
Luke 16:19-31

As beloved as they were, and as well kept as God kept them until Christ's arrival, no one goes to the Father except through Christ. So they had to wait. Once Christ took possession of the keys to the gate of death, there is no need to wait. We go straight up.
And in the coming rapture, rising along with the living in Christ, those souls having died after Christ, will reunite with their bodies at the same time, because we are coming back from Heaven with Christ when He returns for good.
The trip, according to the Bible, happens in a twinkling of the eye, < the Biblical time used to describe the coming rapture. That is not a blink, it's the time it takes light to reach the back of our eye. Scientists measured it at 11/100th of a sec.

Christ proclaimed who He was to those on the other side. But, He did not empty out Hades. Only those in Abraham's arms came back with Him. Not all graves opened when Christ died, just those who were going to need their bodies back. They all stayed here, (about 12,000 men + the women and children that the Jews didn't count) on earth for forty days, and they all ascended with Christ, to Heaven.

Matthew 27:52-53 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Christ led the resurrection and the ascension. Like a train. They were two separate events.
Eph.4:7-9

Here are some accounts of the two events from antiquity manuscripts outside of the Bible:


Clement of Alexandria:

"But those that had fallen asleep, descended dead, but ascended< (to Jerusalem) alive. Many bodies of those that slept, plainly as having been transferred to a better state."

The fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus speak of the Resurrection:

" This event was also an indication of the fact that when the Holy body of Christ descended into Hades, many souls ascended,
<(from Hades to Jerusalem, not to Heaven yet) and were seen in their bodies the heavy and terrestrial part, having been rendered immortal, was borne up to Heaven, after the resurrection." <(the ascension to Heaven)

Of all the antiquity accounts in the Ante-Nicene Library, The Latin version of Nicodemus is the most
complete. In a Jewish court of Law, a fact is established by 2 or more eye witnesses.
Here are 3:

Then Rabbi Addas and Rabbi Finees, and Rabbi Egias, the three men who had come from Galilee, testifying that they had seen Jesus taken up into heaven, rose up in the midst of the multitude of the chiefs of the Jews, and said before the priests and the Levites, who had been called together to the council of the Lord:
"When we were coming from Galilee we met at the Jordan a very great multitude of men, fathers who had been some time dead"...And they went, and walked around all the region of the Jordan and of the mountains, and they were coming back without finding them. And, behold, suddenly there appeared coming down from Mount Amalech a very great number, as it were, twelve thousand men, who had risen with the Lord. And though they recognized very many there, they were not able to say anything to them for fear and the angelic vision; and they stood at a distance gazing and hearing them, how they walked along singing praises, and saying; "The Lord has risen again from the dead, as He has said; let us all exult and be glad, since He reins for ever."
Then those who had been sent were astonished and fell to the ground for fear, and received the answer from them, that they should see Karinus and Leucius in their own houses. And they rose up and went to their houses, and found them spending their time in prayer.

Karinus, and Leucius were the sons of Simeon, also seen alive during the event. They were known by the Sanhedrin because of their Temple service. They had been priests in the Temple, prior to their death. They were interrogated separately and simultaneously.

Here are the facts of their testimony:
"Christ appeared to us in Hades, preached to all, and that those who had earlier responded to God were miraculously given new bodies, and resurrected when Christ rose from the grave."

Those who chose not to heed the prophets, are still there. And it gets more crowded every day. The earth will give them up after the 1,000 year reign of Christ. They will be judged at the White Throne Judgement. The resurrection of the dead.

And for those who have decided to wait till the last minute to say your prayers, when the rapture takes place you will have 10/100 of a second to get right with your Father. If you miss the next train, you'll be here for the most devastating time in earth's history.

 

[HenryBHough]

And for those who have decided to wait till the last minute to say your prayers, when the rapture takes place you will have 10/100 of a second to get right with your Father. If you miss the next train, you'll be here for the most devastating time in earth's history.

I think I'll just watch the wall-to-wall coverage on CNN.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I Ananias (Aeneas Copt., Emaus Lat.), the Protector, of praetorian rank, learned in the law, did from the divine scriptures recognize our Lord Jesus Christ and came near to him by faith and was accounted worthy of holy baptism: and I sought out the memorials that were made at that season in the time of our master Jesus Christ, which the Jews deposited with Pontius Pilate, and found the memorials in Hebrew (letters), and by the good pleasure of God I translated them into Greek...

Here are the names of the Jews who went to Pilate:
1 For the chief priests and scribes assembled in council, even Annas and Caiaphas and Somne (Senes) and Dothaim (Dothael, Dathaes, Datam) and Gamaliel, Judas, Levi and Nepthalim, Alexander and Jairus and the rest of the Jews, and came unto Pilate accusing Jesus for many deeds, saying: We know this man, that he is the son of Joseph the carpenter, begotten of Mary, and he saith that he is the Son of God and a king; more-over he doth pollute the sabbaths and he would destroy the law of our fathers.

Pilate saith: And what things are they that he doeth, and would destroy the law

The Jews say: We have a law that we should not heal any man on the sabbath: but this man of his evil deeds hath healed the lame and the bent, the withered and the blind and the paralytic, the dumb and them that were possessed, on the sabbath day!

Pilate saith unto them: By what evil deeds.... and so on through the whole trial. It was all recorded. Who said what and who said nothing.

Are you sure I can't convince you that Jesus Christ lived and died as the Bible says? There is more evidence of it than you realize.

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe so, but not using the bible to understand the stories written would be silly.

If Jesus was living as I pointed out that scripture suggests then when Jesus started teaching the righteous understanding and application of law it would have seemed like he rose from the dead, literally, since living in sin was death.

There is a way to understand each and every miracle of Jesus that does not require a belief in the supernatural that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality.

No one said not to read or understand the stories. All you know is what was accepted into the canonized version by vote. Which miracle doesn't require a belief in the supernatural? I do believe in the supernatural but don't try to shape it to conform to preconceived beliefs.

So you think the Roman soilders did not make sure JESUS was dead? They put a spear into his chest=JESUS's body was really dead but not his spirit. JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD three days later and it is reported over 500 people saw Him very much alive.

I'm familiar with the story. Odd that 500 dead folks running around didn't raise an eyebrow though.

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe so, but not using the bible to understand the stories written would be silly.

If Jesus was living as I pointed out that scripture suggests then when Jesus started teaching the righteous understanding and application of law it would have seemed like he rose from the dead, literally, since living in sin was death.

There is a way to understand each and every miracle of Jesus that does not require a belief in the supernatural that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality.

No one said not to read or understand the stories. All you know is what was accepted into the canonized version by vote. Which miracle doesn't require a belief in the supernatural? I do believe in the supernatural but don't try to shape it to conform to preconceived beliefs.

in the gospel of John there are exactly seven miracles. In the revelation of John there are exactly seven seals placed on scripture which prevents everyone from 'looking inside', comprehending..

Every single miracle can be interpreted in a way that does not require a suspension of disbelief that conforms to and can be confirmed by reality, the only constant and reliable constraint on any possible interpretation of stories and miracles that supposedly happened on earth..


Changing water into wine in John 2:1-11
Healing the royal official's son in Capernaum in John 4:46-54
Healing the paralytic at Bethesda in John 5:1-18
Feeding the 5000 in John 6:5-14
Jesus' walk on water in John 6:16-24
Healing the man born blind in John 9:1-7
Raising of Lazarus in John 11:1-45


If you look and look and keep on looking you will find it and the seals placed on scripture like a cipher will be broken and you will look and see what has been hidden inside and everything will be opened to you..

"The kingdom of Heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again."

can you dig it?

You're digging into a mountain of fables. The fact that the secular explanation is hidden means that there is no secular explanation.

 

[Iceweasel]

Which is why my beliefs are written in stone so to speak. My beliefs confident.

Ezekiel's stone tablets, 66 in all, belong to the Institute of Jerusalem. I referred to Moses because he also used stone. Papyrus and parchment are one of several mediums used by ancients. They also used wood planks. They also used wax and acid to etch into stone and wood.

I didn't see any link but the OT was copied faithfully. I don't know why Ezekiel would have bothered etching stone though.

Had the books in the Bible been written after 70 AD, the destruction of the Temple would certainly have been mentioned. None of the mostly Jewish writers refer to the destruction. And it was a big deal, worthy of writing about. Keep in mind that all of the disciples but John were killed between 30 and 75 years after Christ, so if they had something to say, they said it before and not after they died.

No one I've heard of puts the writings called John that early. It could be that it wasn't mentioned because it was old news by then.

My response about Jesus being too tired was tongue in cheek. Had Christ Himself had no confidence in the ones He chose to write down and carry on His message, He would have done it himself. But there was no need. The Holy Spirit was in charge of their pens.

You are in a tight circular reasoning loop. Jesus didn't write anything down or teach the message to gentiles because he had confidence in those that would come later and explain it, even though Paul was the one that got the later part going. That takes great faith indeed. Sorry, I can't go along with the "the less you think the better you understand God" mentality.

Christ was Jewish. His followers were Jewish. These disciples were being trained in a religion that was completely foreign to them. They only had Jesus for 3 years. It's no stretch to understand that there would be points of contention, especially when two different religious groups were being tended to. Peter and Paul came to agreement quickly, when led by the Spirit.

Oh, it took some time for them to warm up to the point of being receptive to the gospel? Seems weird that spending every day with Jesus wouldn't have open them up to accepting his word for it. Sorry, not believable.

You are absolutely correct about Jews being fastidious in their writing. Peter was a Jew. Paul, James, Mark, Matthew, all fastidious Jewish writers. Scribes, Jew or Gentile had a litany of rules to follow when copying text. They were very adept at their work, or they didn't work.

But they weren't copying, you said. Yes, they did copy some errors in the Septuagint, another problem.

"If there was a Jesus character" tells me your research is nil. Not just the Jewish accounts, but Thallos, Josephus, Tacitus, Tranquillus, Pliny the Younger, all refer to Him. That your imagination has turned your Jesus character into an Essene, is well............ all in your mind. I am afraid the same goes for your understanding of the DSS.

You are intellectually dishonest. There are a few accounts that mention of Christians and it was no secret what they believed. It isn't in question that Christianity existed. The Josephus account of James is an outright fraud and as I said, the DSS don't contain the NT. I guess you are lying for Jesus!

There weren't just a few scrolls, they found a full library of ancient writings. And as you made the point, the writings were so fastidious, not one word was changed. As for New Testament references, meet Jesus via the DSS:

"Shoot of Jesse" (King David's father) the "Branch of David," he was "pierced" and "wounded".

Which book and chapter was that again? Sounds like an OT verse to me.

The same scroll says that the Messiah was a "leader of the community" who was "put to death." And they called Him "the scepter".
And then of course there is the "Son of God" scroll which is the same as Luke 1: 32-35.
and then there are nine fragments that mirror the writings of the disciples:

"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself. . ."
"And he saw them toiling in rowing; . . ."
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar. . .
"And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship. . .
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. . ."
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. . ."
"For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer. . ."

You can also find those passages in Mark, Acts, Romans, James. No embellishment found.

What is your point? The NT writers did insert OT verses here and there. What does that prove to you?

Lastly, study to show your self approved. When is the last time you saw a 3 hour eclipse? Astronomical calculations also rule out a solar eclipse for the 30 & 33 AD. Modern technology refutes eclipse.
But if you want to go with that explanation for the darkness, riddle me this:

The Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of Christ was on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?

And as for my wild ass claim about the Jewish account, It's been posted here. I'll go find it because I don't want to have to retype it.

Sorry about the length of this post Weas, but you asked....

Huh? The day into darkness thingy happened because it couldn't have been an eclipse? I don't get it. It's too incredible that it wasn't mentioned by anyone else, another problem.