Would God be a nice person?

ScumLord

Just reading the other thread about how angels got to vain which God didn't like because they spent less time thinking about him.

It's God demand for attention that really turns me off the whole idea of him. He's always described as getting very upset when people don't spend time worshipping him or doing what he wants. He comes off as vain and self obsessed.

I'm not trying to upset anyone but God really wouldn't make a nice person. If you knew anyone that acted like that you just wouldn't be able to put up with them. Being all powerful shouldn't be an excuse to treat people that way surely?

philologos

Was Jesus a nice person? This basically answers the former as the Scripture says I and the Father are one (John 10)

prinz

ScumLord wrote: »

It's God demand for attention that really turns me off the whole idea of him. He's always described as getting very upset when people don't spend time worshipping him or doing what he wants. He comes off as vain and self obsessed.

No that's backwards, people are vain and self obsessed. It's God's interest in us, and His fostering of our interest in Him, that teaches us that we aren't the be all and end all, and that we should counter self-obsession with recognition of a Greater Power/Higher Being than us.

When people don't worship God, they tend to worship other things, money, fame, drugs, sex, power, whatever. All of these bring vanity and self-obsession to the fore.

Real interest in God brings humility in us, and God's interest in us goes against your charge of a self-obsessed, vain, being.

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

Was Jesus a nice person? This basically answers the former as the Scripture says I and the Father are one (John 10)

So he's the OT God and the son of that god? I suppose when your god you can be whatever you want to be. Now God sounds a bit bi polar, OT he's badass, NT he's mr nice guy.

prinz wrote: »

When people don't worship God, they tend to worship other things, money, fame, drugs, sex, power, whatever. All of these bring vanity and self-obsession to the fore.

I make it a point not to worship anything. I think money should be completely abandoned, although in the meantime I wouldn't mind a lump of it just so I didn't have to worry about having it.

Real interest in God brings humility in us, and God's interest in us goes against your charge of a self-obsessed, vain, being.

I would go along with that thought up to a point. Religion did help us throw off the shackles of animal instinct.

philologos

OT and NT God are still the same God in Christianity. I don't find there to be any diachotomy between the two.

Seaneh

God is Love, and ultimately God is fair.

He laid down rules in the OT, we broke them, so he he punished us, seems fair to me.

If I break the law odds are ill go to jail, it's pretty fair, i know the deal.

PDN

No, God is great, not nice.

Nice is insipid. Great gets things done.
Nice smiles and tolerates idiots rather than upset them. Great confronts idiots and challenges them to change.
Nice people tut-tutted about the evils of slavery. Wilberforce, as a great person, fought toe-to-toe with parliament to get slavery abolished.

My granny was nice. Martin Luther King was great.

I don't want a nice God. I'n thankful that I've got a God who is great, yet also merciful and forgiving.

I think it was John Calvin who said, "God loves us just the way we are - and He loves us too much to leave us just the way we are."
Niceness may love us the way we are - but greatness loves us enough to change us from where we are.

O'Coonassa

Seaneh wrote: »

If I break the law odds are ill go to jail, it's pretty fair, i know the deal.

If however your distant ancestors did something wrong and the state came and put you in jail for it then I don't think you'd be thinking it was too fair at all really Seaneh. I think this is why people have problems with the god(s) of the OT most especially the one from the Yahwehist source.

conlonbmw

If god actually existed evidence would suggest that he is the most viscious, most evil, petty minded childish stroppy f*ckwit.


God is not real.


You are all completely deluded.

JimiTime

conlonbmw wrote: »

If god actually existed evidence would suggest that he is the most viscious, most evil, petty minded childish stroppy f*ckwit.


God is not real.


You are all completely deluded.

A nice person would give this guy an infraction. A great guy would make sure he couldn't post here again. So Mods what are yee:D

ScumLord

PDN wrote: »

No, God is great, not nice.

Nice is insipid. Great gets things done.
Nice smiles and tolerates idiots rather than upset them. Great confronts idiots and challenges them to change.
Nice people tut-tutted about the evils of slavery. Wilberforce, as a great person, fought toe-to-toe with parliament to get slavery abolished.

My granny was nice. Martin Luther King was great.

Martin Luther King, was a people person though, I don't think he threatened anybody. He used charisma and charm to win people over. You could say Jesus did this too but OT god used fire and brimstone.

There are also plenty of overbearing parents that think they are doing the right thing for their children forcing things on them and refusing to let them out of the house to play, but just because they strongly believe what their doing is right doesn't actually mean they are right.

Of course if the God theory is true god must be a pretty intelligent dude to have made all this but he seems to have gotten carried away with himself in the OT. If he did change into Jesus and do a complete U-turn that implies maybe he knew himself he'd gone overboard.

It's the fact God would consider himself better than us that actually annoys me. I know we're only human and he's god, but god like there's no need to rub our noses in it.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

A nice person would give this guy an infraction. A great guy would make sure he couldn't post here again. So Mods what are yee:D

We're both nice and great. He got 2 infractions and a permaban.

Puck

"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs Beaver; "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking they're either braver than most or else just silly."

"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr Beaver; "don't you hear what Mrs Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

-- The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis

Seaneh

God gave us rules to live by to protect us.

think of it this way.


Put 20 kids in a play area in a park that is flanked on 3 sides by walls/fences, give them a football to play with, 19 of the 20 will play in the area surrounded by the 3 walls away from the open end, why, because (a) the ball can't go out of bounds and (b) the will naturally feel safer.

That what God with the OT laws, the gave us a safe area with 3 walls to be content and safe in, but he gave us a choice by putting the last side open, when he leave through the open side we aren't protected by the 3 walls anymore and what happens is our own fault.

Lovethinking

ScumLord wrote: »

Just reading the other thread about how angels got to vain which God didn't like because they spent less time thinking about him.

It's God demand for attention that really turns me off the whole idea of him. He's always described as getting very upset when people don't spend time worshipping him or doing what he wants. He comes off as vain and self obsessed.

I'm not trying to upset anyone but God really wouldn't make a nice person. If you knew anyone that acted like that you just wouldn't be able to put up with them. Being all powerful shouldn't be an excuse to treat people that way surely?

From your question, I gather that you have based your opinion of God upon things that people have said and the things that you have read.
Would you agree that both of these means of acquiring information are susceptable to distortion?
Have you ever tried ridding yourself of the preconceptions of God that have been fed to us by religions and "scientists"?........ and then figure it all out from a fresh perspective?
i.e. Look at the Earth, the planets, stars, universe, animals, colours, tastes, feelings, the human heart, love etc... if it was created... what kind of person created it?
Have you ever looked at art, listened to music etc... , in fact even just some beautiful flowers... and asked yourself.... "Why does looking at these affect me at all"?

ScumLord

Seaneh wrote: »

God gave us rules to live by to protect us.

think of it this way.


Put 20 kids in a play area in a park that is flanked on 3 sides by walls/fences, give them a football to play with, 19 of the 20 will play in the area surrounded by the 3 walls away from the open end, why, because (a) the ball can't go out of bounds and (b) the will naturally feel safer.

That what God with the OT laws, the gave us a safe area with 3 walls to be content and safe in, but he gave us a choice by putting the last side open, when he leave through the open side we aren't protected by the 3 walls anymore and what happens is our own fault.

That's fair enough but I think you'll find that in the real world 90% of those children would head straight out the open end. Our god given curiosity getting the better of us. We all know that gods rules as written in the bible tend go against the natural instincts he built into us.

If it was as simple as that analogy I wouldn't even mind. It does sound fair enough, but why all the guilt when you go for a stroll outside the wall?

ScumLord

Lovethinking wrote: »

From your question, I gather that you have based your opinion of God upon things that people have said and the things that you have read.

Of course I did, how else would I be able to come to any sort of understanding?

Seaneh

Seaneh wrote: »

That what God with the OT laws, the gave us a safe area with 3 walls to be content and safe in, but he gave us a choice by putting the last side open, when he leave through the open side we aren't protected by the 3 walls anymore and what happens is our own fault.

THe difference being that god created everything outside the walls including anything harmful AND has foreknowledge of what will happen by doing so :rolleyes:

philologos

ScumLord: Don't you think people exercise their curiosity in relation to God's rules? I'd say certainly so, it fills the Bible and modern life.

bluewolf: Maybe God has deemed it appropriate that we should have trials in this life as a means of preparation and as a means of growth. Do you think you would have grown up the way you did if you had everything easy assuming you like all people have had your bad times? It's easy to scoff at these things without thinking about them

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

ScumLord: Don't you think people exercise their curiosity in relation to God's rules? I'd say certainly so, it fills the Bible and modern life.

This forum would be pretty dull if we didn't. :pac:

The problem is though "gods rules" came to us second hand from a source I don't think is reliable. I'm not accusing those people that wrote the bible of lieing. I'm just saying they didn't have the slightest clue what they where talking about or dealing with. It's hard to accept that they actually did get a message from god when they would have accepted what they saw on a mushrooms trip as the word of god.

The only thing we can be sure of in the god theory is that god made everything so the only true source for understanding god is to study his work. I think earth trumps the bible no matter what way you look at it.

Genghiz Cohen

Seaneh wrote: »

God is Love, and ultimately God is fair.

He laid down rules in the OT, we broke them, so he he punished us, seems fair to me.

If I break the law odds are ill go to jail, it's pretty fair, i know the deal.

The Story of Job, that wasn't fair.
Job did nothing wrong and God still did all those horrible things to him. I'm balls out Atheist, what has God done to me?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

bluewolf: Maybe God has deemed it appropriate that we should have trials in this life as a means of preparation and as a means of growth.
Do you think you would have grown up the way you did if you had everything easy assuming you like all people have had your bad times?

Did you read S's post or what? It didn't say "we should all step out of the enclosed area to grow", it was talking about something entirely different. I'm sure what you posted sounds lovely and wonderful in an entirely different context, but not quite relevant to pointing out (what I perceive as) a major flaw in S's comparisons.

It's easy to scoff at these things without thinking about them

Thanks J, I badly needed to be told I'm not thinking, especially by someone who seems to have missed the conversation

Seaneh

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

The Story of Job, that wasn't fair.
Job did nothing wrong and God still did all those horrible things to him. I'm balls out Atheist, what has God done to me?

Have you read Job?

God didn't do those things to Job, he picked Job up when he was at his lowest and made him better than he ever could have been in himself.

Satan does these things to Job to try and get him to insult/turn away from God and then God sees that Job has been blameless (vurging on sinless) and rewards him accordingly.

You're a balls out Athiest and what has God done to you?

Well, probably nothing, God doesn't punish us anymore, he waits for final judgement.

New Covenant, new rules.

Genghiz Cohen

Seaneh wrote: »

Have you read Job?

God didn't do those things to Job, he picked Job up when he was at his lowest and made him better than he ever could have been in himself.

Satan does these things to Job to try and get him to insult/turn away from God and then God sees that Job has been blameless (vurging on sinless) and rewards him accordingly.

orthodoxphotos wrote:

God permitted the Devil

Ordering the firing squad is as good as pulling the trigger.

I remembered the story and Googled it, can't be 100% sure of the quality of this version, but the foundations seem to be there.

Seaneh

Seriously, re read the book, your understanding of the story is seriously wrong... Like, seriously wrong, seriously...



























Seriously...

Genghiz Cohen

Seaneh wrote: »

Seriously, re read the book, your understanding of the story is seriously wrong... Like, seriously wrong, seriously...


Seriously...

Is there any good links online?
Don't have a Bible, for some... reason....

Until then, what do I have wrong?
Satan was jealous of Job, him being a good, kind, successful God worshiping man.
Satan says the if God were to take Jobs things from him he would curse Gods name.
God takes or allows Satan to take his things but Job still praises God.
Same with family.
Same with Jobs health but he still worships God.

Then after a while God gives everything back. Basically...
That's my understanding anyway...

Lovethinking

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course I did, how else would I be able to come to any sort of understanding?

Please read the rest of the post you quoted from, to find out.

hatrickpatrick

God's laws came to us from a second hand source

In the OT they did, yes. In the NT they came from God himself, Jesus Christ the Son. His presence on Earth was the physical manifestation of God, therefore everything he said was in fact the voice of God. They are the same person.

Mickeroo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In the OT they did, yes. In the NT they came from God himself, Jesus Christ the Son. His presence on Earth was the physical manifestation of God, therefore everything he said was in fact the voice of God. They are the same person.

I thought it was written by people who were inspired by god/jesus? not actually written by god itself.

Zombrex

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In the OT they did, yes. In the NT they came from God himself, Jesus Christ the Son. His presence on Earth was the physical manifestation of God, therefore everything he said was in fact the voice of God. They are the same person.

Jesus didn't write the New Testament. The passages about him, his life, and what he said, are a secondary source. If Jesus had written stuff down that would be a primary source.

Paul's letters are primary sources for his own life.

O'Coonassa

Mickeroo wrote: »

I thought it was written by people who were inspired by god/jesus? not actually written by god itself.

Yes, the only thing God ever wrote is called the universe. It's strange that the NT says in so very many places that Jesus was not God and yet so many Christians ignore the fact. All his first followers for 3 decades worshipped in the Temple in Jerusalem. If they'd been going around saying he was divine they'd have been dragged out and stoned to death in double quicktime.

philologos

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Yes, the only thing God ever wrote is called the universe. It's strange that the NT says in so very many places that Jesus was not God and yet so many Christians ignore the fact. All his first followers for 3 decades worshipped in the Temple in Jerusalem. If they'd been going around saying he was divine they'd have been dragged out and stoned to death in double quicktime.

1) The New Testament doesn't in so very many places. Infact the New Testament clearly says that Jesus was divine and that He humbled Himself to be crucified upon a cross (Philippians 2).

2) Jesus in several instances is nearly stoned to death by the Pharisees. He manages to escape.

John 10:31 wrote:

The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

You can't get much clearer than that.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Yes, the only thing God ever wrote is called the universe.

No, he wrote the 10 Commandments on the tablets of stone.

It's strange that the NT says in so very many places that Jesus was not God and yet so many Christians ignore the fact.

No, the NT doesn't say any such thing.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

1) The New Testament doesn't in so very many places. Infact the New Testament clearly says that Jesus was divine and that He humbled Himself to be crucified upon a cross (Philippians 2).

I think you're ignoring the mass of quotes that say he wasn't in favour of some redactions that say he was.

For instance "Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" Mark 12:29

or

"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene was a man attested to you by God" (Acts 2:22)

or

“The God of our fathers has glorified his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13).

or

"He is going to judge the world with justice through a man whom he has appointed." (Acts 17:31)

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Jesus in several instances is nearly stoned to death by the Pharisees. He manages to escape.

You can't get much clearer than that.

I was talking about his family and followers who were Jews. Do you really think, for instance, that James would have been allowed into the Holy of Holies if he was going around claiming that his own flesh and blood was God? The fact that the only people persecuted in Jerusalem were the Greek followers shows that there was a clear spilt in the early movement between blasphemers and non-blasphemers.

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

No, he wrote the 10 Commandments on the tablets of stone.

I don't think so. Where are they even?

Mickeroo

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I don't think so. Where are they even?

The Ark of the Covenant. As to where that is though.....

O'Coonassa

Mickeroo wrote: »

The Ark of the Covenant. As to where that is though.....

Amazing that a genuine sample of Gods handwriting could be discarded just like that. Curiously other than in the NT there's no mention of the Ark in the Torah after the Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE that lasted for 70 years. Scholars are fairly certain that the Torah itself was not written until at the earliest between 539 to 334 BCE.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I think you're ignoring the mass of quotes that say he wasn't in favour of some redactions that say he was.

For instance "Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" Mark 12:29
or
"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene was a man attested to you by God" (Acts 2:22)
or
“The God of our fathers has glorified his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13).
or
"He is going to judge the world with justice through a man whom he has appointed." (Acts 17:31)

None of those quotes say that Jesus was not God. BTW, I think it is pretty dishonest to treat Scripture verses that agree with your viewpoint as genuine and then dismiss those that don't suit you as 'redactions'. With that kind of cherry picking you can argue just about anything.

Do you really think, for instance, that James would have been allowed into the Holy of Holies

James would not have been allowed into the Holy of Holies at all since he was not the High priest.

The fact that the only people persecuted in Jerusalem were the Greek followers shows that there was a clear spilt in the early movement between blasphemers and non-blasphemers.

Is there any point in me pointing out the evidence in the NT of Hebrew Christians being persecuted in Jerusalem? Or will you just dismiss them as 'redactions'? :rolleyes:

Amazing that a genuine sample of Gods handwriting could be discarded just like that.

You find it amazing that something could be lost or destroyed during the capture and destruction of a city by a foreign power with all of the accompanying killing and looting?

Scholars are fairly certain that the Torah itself was not written until at the earliest between 539 to 334 BCE.

There is no consensus of opinion among biblical scholars as to when the Torah was written. All theories concerning this are based on hypothetical assumptions and on each scholars presuppositions.

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

None of those quotes say that Jesus was not God. BTW, I think it is pretty dishonest to treat Scripture verses that agree with your viewpoint as genuine and then dismiss those that don't suit you as 'redactions'. With that kind of cherry picking you can argue just about anything.

They very clearly and undisputably say he was a man who God had annointed and worked signs and wonders through him. The overarching impression of both the synoptics and even Sauls writings indicate that he was a man. Now on balance if this is the overiding message then any minority report that contradicts it has to be discarded.

PDN wrote: »

James would not have been allowed into the Holy of Holies at all since he was not the High priest.

Well Jerome of Stridonium who had access to texts that are no longer around such as those by Hegesippus says otherwise. However regardless of if he was or wasn't allowed in that's not really the issue, anybody claiming that Jesus was God would have lasted no time in or around the Temple. Like Stephen and his followers for instance.

PDN wrote: »

Is there any point in me pointing out the evidence in the NT of Hebrew Christians being persecuted in Jerusalem? Or will you just dismiss them as 'redactions'? :rolleyes:

Yes please show me the evidence. I don't know how I'd react to it until I see it but very clearly from Acts some section of the followers were run out of the place whilst others remained behind unmolested.

PDN wrote: »

You find it amazing that something could be lost or destroyed during the capture and destruction of a city by a foreign power with all of the accompanying killing and looting?

According to the OT Jehovahgod allowed this to happen because of people breaking his commanments. He'd hardly have let the rulebook go missing I feel.

PDN wrote: »

There is no consensus of opinion among biblical scholars as to when the Torah was written. All theories concerning this are based on hypothetical assumptions and on each scholars presuppositions.

There is a majority consensus and it lies between the dates I mentioned. Obviously people who have a vested interest in it having been written much earlier are going to argue that it was.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

They very clearly and undisputably say he was a man who God had annointed and worked signs and wonders through him. The overarching impression of both the synoptics and even Sauls writings indicate that he was a man. Now on balance if this is the overiding message then any minority report that contradicts it has to be discarded.

Of course He was a man. No Scriptural text contradicts that, and therefore no texts should be discarded.

However, we are not discussing whether He was (still is) man, but whether He is God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Well Jerome of Stridonium who had access to texts that are no longer around such as those by Hegesippus says otherwise. However regardless of if he was or wasn't allowed in that's not really the issue, anybody claiming that Jesus was God would have lasted no time in or around the Temple. Like Stephen and his followers for instance.

So you dismiss Scriptural records as 'redactions' and then accept the testimony of someone from the Fourth Century? I think you're grasping at straws.

Your assertion that anyone claiming Jesus to be God wouldn't have lasted in or around the temple is pure speculation.

Yes please show me the evidence. I don't know how I'd react to it until I see it but very clearly from Acts some section of the followers were run out of the place whilst others remained behind unmolested.

'Very clearly from Acts' - but how, other than because it suits you, can you be sure that isn't a redaction?

Acts 4 - Peter & John arrested and threatened.

Acts 5 - The apostles arrested and flogged.

Acts 12 - The apostle James is executed & Peter is imprisoned.

According to the OT Jehovahgod allowed this to happen because of people breaking his commanments. He'd hardly have let the rulebook go missing I feel.

Why not? The important thing was the commandments which were recorded in the Book of the Law. The original was of historic value, but hardly essential to God's plan of salvation.

There is a majority consensus and it lies between the dates I mentioned. Obviously people who have a vested interest in it having been written much earlier are going to argue that it was.

There are many well respected scholars who date the Pentateuch earlier. To dismiss them all as doing so out of vested interests is incredible.

LoveDucati2

Everything we know about God has been written by man.

There is over 80 gospels yet we are allowed to use only 4.

2 billion people are starving to death in appaling conditions and we buy shoes and handbags that could feed a family for years. 10% of the worlds population own 90% of the planet.

If there was a God surely he would stop hunger, war, death, pain, suffering, etc.

philologos

I'd rather use 4 authentic Gospels, than use 76 unauthentic Gospels which far far far post date Christ. We have historical evidence that the New Testament canon we have today was the earliest used in the Church. Therefore we go with what has been shown to have been used from the get go of the Church rather than Gospels which come much later for reasons of accuracy.

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

Of course He was a man. No Scriptural text contradicts that, and therefore no texts should be discarded.

However, we are not discussing whether He was (still is) man, but whether He is God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

IMO a person cannot be both save in the sense that mystics such as Mansur al Hallaj have meant it. An individual cannot be both perfect and imperfect at the same time. God is God, it is One indivisible entity alone, that is the basis of monotheism. There are so many NT references to Jesus having being appointed by God, and of God working through him that I cannot begin to entertain the mental gymnastics involved in conjuring 'the trinity'. Many of the early Christians quite clearly had no belief in it or in the notion that Jesus was anything but human.

The Athanasian Creed does violence to all sense of God given logic and reason. The doctrine simply cannot be expressed in any way that is free from self-contradiction.

"That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity."

For thousands of years in many religions there has been the concept of a trinity yet such religions make no claim to be monotheistic.

PDN wrote: »

So you dismiss Scriptural records as 'redactions' and then accept the testimony of someone from the Fourth Century? I think you're grasping at straws.

Your assertion that anyone claiming Jesus to be God wouldn't have lasted in or around the temple is pure speculation.

Well Jerome was an important figure in Christianity and had access to records that have since vanished. My 'speculation' is based on reason and logic. The Jews of that time simply would not tolerate what to this day they consider to be blasphemy. It is beyond belief that for three decades people preaching in the Jerusalem temple would have got away with blaspheming God in this manner.

PDN wrote: »

'Very clearly from Acts' - but how, other than because it suits you, can you be sure that isn't a redaction?

For the simple reason that it is central to the run of the story and works against the wishes of the author to present a unified movement. Yet the author has no choice but to mention it because without Stephen the followers of Jesus would have remained a Jewish sect. Despite the gloss the author applies it is evident to critical reading that the early movement was not unified.

PDN wrote: »

Acts 4 - Peter & John arrested and threatened.

Acts 5 - The apostles arrested and flogged.

But unlike the followers of Stephen the followers of Peter and John are not persecuted and unlike Stephen the two are aquitted by members of the Sanhedrin and released.

PDN wrote: »

Acts 12 - The apostle James is executed & Peter is imprisoned.

Herod was hardly a religious man, it remains unsaid why James was executed but Herod was hardly punishing him for being a blasphemer.

PDN wrote: »

Why not? The important thing was the commandments which were recorded in the Book of the Law. The original was of historic value, but hardly essential to God's plan of salvation.

It was more than of historic value, if indeed it ever existed, it was the Covenant itself. What the Temple was built around so to speak.

PDN wrote: »

There are many well respected scholars who date the Pentateuch earlier. To dismiss them all as doing so out of vested interests is incredible.

As I said, such scholars are in a minority and are so far as I'm aware exclusively religious. In the majority camp however there are Christians, Jews and non-believers. IMO it stands to reason that it is the majority view that is the correct one.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd rather use 4 authentic Gospels, than use 76 unauthentic Gospels which far far far post date Christ. We have historical evidence that the New Testament canon we have today was the earliest used in the Church. Therefore we go with what has been shown to have been used from the get go of the Church rather than Gospels which come much later for reasons of accuracy.

Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews pre-date John AFAIK

LoveDucati2

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd rather use 4 authentic Gospels, than use 76 unauthentic Gospels which far far far post date Christ. We have historical evidence that the New Testament canon we have today was the earliest used in the Church. Therefore we go with what has been shown to have been used from the get go of the Church rather than Gospels which come much later for reasons of accuracy.

The 4 that are used are spread over 80 years anyway.

How do humans decide which of the books are authentic?

PDN

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

The 4 that are used are spread over 80 years anyway.

How do humans decide which of the books are authentic?

What does that mean, 'spread over 80 years'? The vast majority of biblical scholars agree that they were written over a period of no more than 40 years.

The humans who decided which Gospels were authentic were the christians who worshipped in their churches. They used the books that were consistent with the recollections of eye witnesses. Obviously, at this stage, many of the non-canonical 'gospels' could not be considered because they were not written yet - most of them date from a century or more after Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

LoveDucati2

PDN wrote: »

The vast majority of biblical scholars agree that they were written over a period of no more than 40 years.

Vast majority?

PDN wrote: »

The humans who decided which Gospels were authentic were the christians who worshipped in their churches. They used the books that were consistent with the recollections of eye witnesses.

How can a human decide what gospel God wanted. How could they have access to eye witnesses 80 years after the fact.

LoveDucati2

Jakkass wrote: »

1) The New Testament doesn't in so very many places. Infact the New Testament clearly says that Jesus was divine and that He humbled Himself to be crucified upon a cross (Philippians 2).

2) Jesus in several instances is nearly stoned to death by the Pharisees. He manages to escape.



You can't get much clearer than that.

Its not really fair if you know you cannot die. Its kind of cheating.

If I was immortal I would easily take a bullet for someone.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews pre-date John AFAIK

Only by an extreme cherry picking process that would select the latest suggested date for John and the earliest suggested dates for Thomas and the Gospel of Hebrews.

The earliest known reference to Thomas is in the writings of Hippolytus in the third Century. The earliest reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews is by Hegesippus in the late second Century. Basiledes quoted from John in 130 AD.

PDN

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

Vast majority?

Yes, vast majority. Of course there are exceptions. A few eminent scholars do date them much earlier. John A.T. Robinson, for example (no friend of traditionalists - he was the Bishop of Woolwich who famously declared God to be dead) argued convincingly that the four Gospels were all written between 40 and 65 AD.

How can a human decide what gospel God wanted.

Quite easily if we allow that God can work through people.

How could they have access to eye witnesses 80 years after the fact.

We're not talking about 80 years after the fact.

Gingganggooley

ScumLord wrote: »

Just reading the other thread about how angels got to vain which God didn't like because they spent less time thinking about him.

It's God demand for attention that really turns me off the whole idea of him. He's always described as getting very upset when people don't spend time worshipping him or doing what he wants. He comes off as vain and self obsessed.

I'm not trying to upset anyone but God really wouldn't make a nice person. If you knew anyone that acted like that you just wouldn't be able to put up with them. Being all powerful shouldn't be an excuse to treat people that way surely?

God is not a dissatisfied, attention-seeking megalomaniac.

It's just that, when it comes to being God, there is only room for one. There is only one throne.

Is He not entitled to be pissed off at those who would seek to usurp His rightful position?

It is because the matter is so serious that God takes issue it. If it were a minor thing then I could agree, that the reaction was a vain and petty one.