And that is why I disagree with those beliefs. Without evidence to support a claim of accurate transmission, I see no reason to assume that accurate transmission over a period of hundreds years ever occurred. And if that never occurred, there's no reason to assume that the laws in the Torah/Old Testament are anything more than ancient ideals that are no longer acceptable, and have been swept under the carpet over the years since they were written. They may be your book and laws, but that doesn't mean that they are excused from standing up to the same criteria for verity and authenticity as any other books or mythologies.
What I find even more interesting than the Bible's take on wanton slaughter is it's take on the Divinity of Christ: "As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran and knelt before him, and asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: You shall not murder; you shall not not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother. He said to him, "Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth." Mark, 10:17-20 When the man calls Jesus "Good Teacher," Jesus becomes upset because "no one is good but God alone." That is to say, the man put Jesus on a level with God, and Jesus rejected this status. After being reprimanded, the man simply refers to Jesus as "Teacher". Now, I realize that other parts of the Bible, (namely, the Gospel of John) state quite contrary opinions about the divinity of Christ. However, Mark was written several decades BEFORE John, and in the tradition of Peter, Jesus' chief disciple. I'm definitely going to take Mark as an authority over John. John was not written until the end of the first century; Christians who lived before then, as far as the biblical scholars I've read can tell, did not ascribe to Jesus being on the same level as God. In the many letters of Paul, he refers to God the Father as the "theos" (the same term a pagan would use to describe an Olympic God like Zeus) and Jesus as the "kurios" (literally, 'lord,' the term a pagan would use to describe a demigod like Hercules). Isn't that funny? The earliest Christian writings refer to Jesus as a demigod rather than use the same term as they do for God the Father. So before you go and describe Jesus as divine, be careful. You might just be blaspheming.
"I am the bridegroom; how can the children of the bridechamber fast while I am with them" (Mark 2:19) The bridegroom was used in the old testemant to referr to God. OMG OMG!!!! There's some forgotten history that happened at some point in the church where they switched from thinking of Jesus as a demigod to being of the same substance as the father. . . Or not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
Which part did I "make up"? It's actually something I saw on TV about the origins of the Christian church. In the case of what was and wasn't included in the Christian Bible here's how the basic process worked. http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/bible/biboripres1.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bi...ent_Israel_and_the_Origin_of_Its_Sacred_Texts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible_and_the_Forgotten_Books_of_Eden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel Sorry folks. But I didn't make anything up. The Bible could have been very different from what it is today or it might never even have existed at all. Now what I find interesting is that people will place so much faith in a book which is basically a compilation of other books. And some of which was written possibly 3000 years ago or more. But when it comes to some one passing on a piece of information on a forum they're shot down stone cold dead and told they're making it up. It makes me wonder why people believe anything written in the Bible?
The council of Nicea had very little to do with the canonization of the bible. The first bible was canonized after the council of nicea near the end of the fourth century. There were only 10 books for which there was any dispute as to whether or not they should have been included in the new testament, and I believe something like 7 of those were included. The NT has 27 books total. The gnostic gospels were never used by mainstream Christianity and were not taken seriously by most churches. There wasn't really any controversy as to whether or not they should be included in the bible. It is also worth noting that the gnostic gospels were written 100-300 years after the other gospels. If you got your information from the History channel, the History channel, the Learning Channel, and Discovery Science have broadcasted some of the worst, most misleading, inaccurate programs I have ever seen--not just about the bible, but about technology, evolution, science, extraterrestrial life, and nostradamus as well.
And I see no reason not to. It's a free world. Can you prove that both Written and Oral Torah are not from G-d, dictated to Moses at Sinai? Not just think it improbable, but truly prove it.
That doesn't answer the question. I've read the Prophets, and I don't get the impression that any of them considered the other deities to be real.
One issue that wasn't addressed earlier was when somebody quoted the first commandment as implying there were other gods. I don't think He was talking about other existing deities, I believe he was talking about other false idols that people would have created to worship. This could also refer to idolatry of things other than gods, and priorities in life. For instance, if you were to put TV ahead of your relationship with Christ in importance, that could be considered a false idol or god, which God does not want us worshipping before him. As to the divinity of Christ, He was literally God in human form, which could be the reason for the "demigod" term being used. He also taught forgiveness and humility, which were expressed in His actions and sayings in that passage. If He wasn't perfect throughout His life and without sin, the entire premise of Him going to the cross to save us would be useless and irrelevant.
It seems to me that he's saying that they were agnostic on other Gods. They couldn't rule out the possibility of them being real, but seeing as they were irrelevent then for all practical purposes, they might as well be false.
I don't understand how other deities were irrelevant to any of the prophets. Two classic examples: (1) Elijah versus several hundred priests on Mount Carmel; and Jeremiah, over his entire life. I really don't see those guys saying, "Ya, Baal is a living deity, but you're supposed to ignore him on account of your blood type."
But I don't have to prove it. The burden of proof lies in your hands. When someone makes a claim, it is up to him to prove that claim is true, not for others to prove it is false. Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the real god, or that Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot doesn't exist? No, and you shouldn't have to; in the face of a lack of evidence supporting the existence of a phenomenon, the only rational course is disbelief. In other words, my proving the Torah isn't from God would be like searching out the microscopic teapot. I don't believe the teapot is there because nobody can prove that it is, so there's no reason for me to search for it. If there were some concrete evidence to suggest that it may exist, then it would be irrational to continue my disbelief. In the case of the Bible/Torah, it's your job to prove that it does come from God before we go changing our beliefs. Until then, it's just another teapot story. Until you can produce some evidence that your teapot exists, the only rational course is to believe that it doesn't.
This thread is about the Bible, not about proving whether God exists or not. (And there are millions of threads dealing with that!) I think you're getting a bit off-topic here.
Those guys are not saying that there are other true deities and that we must ignore them. The First Commandment says that G-d is our god, and we are not to worship anybody/anything else. It acknowledges that other deities are being worship without really caring if they are real or not.
I have over 3,000 years of hostory and tradition that says I'm right. You claim I'm wrong. It is up to you to prove your assertion. Xtians believe the Jesus story. I do not. If I want to argue that Jesus never existed, it is up to me to bring the proof.
:yeleyes: Are you seriously suggesting T.V. was wrong! I suppose it's possible. The fact remains however that the Christian Bible was never written as a single cohesive work and the books within the Bible were probably never meant to be taken in that context. I think people should bear that in mind when using the Bible as the foundation stone for their faith in God. Because you're a paranoid American? But in all seriousness if your really the religious type I think you should look further than the Christian Bible or accepted scripture. The first commandment as I understand simply means nothing is to be given a higher place of importance in our lives than God. I don't think the implication is that other Gods either don't exist or are less important. God supposedly freed the Jews from slavery and in return expects our total and unwavering devotion. Free from slavery indeed. I also think the whole "I am a jealous God" part is very telling. Why would the absolute total master of everything be jealous? And isn't jealousy a sin? That part really doesn't add up for me. If God is jealous and jealousy is a sin then God is essentially evil. At least just a tiny bit evil. Which means God is less than perfect.
Some people put a distinct bias into their tv shows, kinda like Tekken puts into his conversations here. Come on, nobody ever claimed that all of the writings were written together, at the same time, and bound together in a single volume. Everybody knows that the OT parts were written generations apart, and the NT parts were written over a span of a few decades, and that all told, there's 40 or so different authors. Everybody knows that. But it's a far cry from there, to the claim that the 40 authors were all writing from scratch. For example, Peter and Paul read and endorsed each other's stuff! It's there in the text of their respective writings. And the various propehts who wrote parts of the OT explicitely cite the Torah as their foundation. Hey Canuck, he's right. ^^ You have to look further than just the First Commandment. I still don't see Elijah saying to all those guys on Mount Carmel, "You know, Baal is a living deity. He is." I don't see that. And yes it was very relevant to him.
